Cyngor Gwynedd Monitoring Officer Calls For Consistency Re Planning Decisions.

Cyngor Gwynedd Planning Committee met on Monday, 27th February 2023 at 1:00pm
The webcast cab be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/751721

Councillors threw out a planning application against the advice of planning officers...

The application is for Tyn Lon Afonwen Pwllheli Gwynedd LL53 6TX to establish a touring caravan site (19 unit) with toilet block and associated works.
https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru//documents/s37238/Tyn%20Ln%20Afonwen%20Pwllheli%20Gwynedd%20LL53%206TX.pdf

Objections included over development of sites in the area and that it would be detrimental to the Welsh language. The question of over development was batted away by officers reiterating that it was not a site for static caravans and no evidence was presented of damage to the language. Still, seven councillors voted to refuse...

Both the monitoring officer and the planning officer compared a similar application from last year (in an area of outstanding beauty) that committee passed against the direction of the planning department and consistency was asked for. The monitoring officer stated the application was fully in line with council policy and warned the decision to refuse could incur costs to the council if the applicant appealed....

The Problem Is Systemic...PSOW - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

The Ombudsman for Wales investigation(s) into cyngor Gwynedd social services has changed nothing but revealed much -  the legal process to challenge a council's behaviour and its social care policies is broken...

The optics after years of dealing with these officers are that there is no such thing as an independent anything in Gwynedd. The investigators are employed by the SS senior complaints manager - who is also the senior safeguarding and quality officer. The two roles are not compatible and could be considered bad practice...

Some investigators are not as 'independent' as they should be - one is perceived as acting against one complainant and sabotaging her own investigation by not wishing to interview a witness and producing an unacceptable 'remit' for investigation. Shameful...

Social workers, tasked by their managers to fake assessments on disabled children. 'We are here to help''' They are most definitely not...

It is not just the ignorance of law and policies and procedures that has been revealed. It is the culture of cover up and pushback when challenged. Council officers have presented evidence to official investigations that is false and misleading, complainants have been smeared and the councillors lied to.

Then there are the official reports written by the officers in the course of their duties...

Concerns to the integrity of these reports and the issue of data manipulation have been raised but shut down by the same officers who write the reports. One wonders if they were still presented to the Sir Hugh Morgan review as accurate? Then again it is the only data they have...

The Ombudsman wrote to express its own frustrations with officers (more than once) and bemoaned that its  recommendations are not legally binding merely a 'gentleman's agreement'. So they lied to you, too...?

The same regulator who has literally had a front row seat into the disingenuous nature of these officers - over many years - seemed genuinly upset when officers yanked its chain, too. The PSOW was warned...

A CEO renaging on agreements after long and costly investigations is contemptible...
Why the Ombudsman did not instigate further action after the behaviour of the senior officers is not clearly understood as this could amount to risk to the council and a matter for the council's insurers.

When one department can persuade another department's manager to investigate an issue (that had already been been investigated and upheld) and produce a report in spite of the evidence the problem is systemic...

Whilst evidence of this did not make the Ombudsman's 'remit' to investigate, the Ombudsman was clearly unimpressed with the SS department's complaint officers and ordered retraining in their statutory duties.

So the same people responsible for the culture are now tasked with changing the culture.
How's that going...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PSOW 'Variances' To Recommendations Made And Remits For Investigations...

Accepting the Ombudsman for Wales offer of a third investigation into cyngor Gwynedd was a mistake.

Yet again, the 'remit' for investigation was a bone of contention.
So much evidence of continued bad behaviour by officers was not to be investigated, nor action taken over non compliance as the Ombudsman had signed this off as completed - when it was not. Farcical.

A reminder that the child's diagnosis of autism was repeatedly ignored by Gwynedd's Derwen manager and was not allowed to be taken into account by social workers in either care assessment. Social workers said that they had not accessed and read the the child's files and were not interested in the family history, preferring they said to 'take it from here'. The second care assessment carried out on the orders of the Ombudsman appeared to morph into a safeguarding issue of a neurotypical child and an exercise in parent bashing...

The Ombudsman appeared not to take full regard of the child's diagnosis of autism either and when challenged by the family who cited another case for comparison, the Ombudsman warned that cases should not be compared. Of course not, but the fact remains one child's diagnosis appeared to be treated differently from another.

Reading through past investigation reports and FOI's to both organisations reveal council officers who apologise, sometimes even sincerely, and then ignore agreements made. The Ombudsman's acceptance of variances to its recommendations without complainants knowledge is also insulting after such lengthy and costly investigations. 

The Ombudsman then submitted its preferred 'remit' to cyngor Gwynedd without the complainant's approval or knowledge. The complainants were not happy and a 'pause' to the complaint was asked of the Ombudsman while a Subject Access Request was submitted to its information office seeking its correspondence with the council. The Ombudsman agreed to the delay...

A SAR had also been submitted to cyngor Gwynedd and whilst the council's Information office had dealt fairly with previous requests, it now produced pages of censored content...

Part of an email thread does show officers discussing waylaying the child at their place of education - without parents knowledge. Would this be an attempt to get the child to agree to something so the third investigation could be halted? The same council officers who have a history of fake assessments, interference in investigations, bullying staff and writing reports in spite of the evidence and an autistic child with complex issues. How desperate were senior officers to even contemplate this...?

A reminder that Gwynedd SS department had been investigated previously by the Ombudsman and hauled over the coals for similar tactics in the case of an autistic man in residential care who had their services removed. The case involved officers speaking with the man alone without family members or support. Using a person's disability against them...?

As usual, the SS department apologised for their behaviour but recommendations from this case were also not complied with though the Ombudsman has signed this off as completed albeit with another variance. Extra training in ASD for staff was accepted by the Ombudsman instead of the required review of services. There is no public record of this training or how many attended...

The Ombudsman's Information office did comply with part of the SAR but did not release documentation between themselves and the council adding further doubt to the impartiality of the Ombudsman.

Cyngor Gwynedd. who had released dialogue between the Ombudsman in a previous case now refused. An internal review was requested where the reviewing officer claimed that the Ombudsman had discussion with the council to not disclose information in this case. For obvious reasons, the officer was not believed and challenged to provide the evidence. The letter from the Ombudsman to the council was released to the family...

The Ombudsman is independent, impartial and fair - it says that on its website, nor does it advise either party. 

When challenged, the Ombudsman explained that the correspondence was not 'advice' but merely their response to a council's query. The response was very detailed and information passed between the two organisations in how the council deal with the SAR, for 'transparency' and 'consistency' as the Ombudsman advised. A reminder that the Ombudsman was not the data controller in this instance...

During this time, the Ombudsman had become impatient and demanded a decision be made to accept the 'remit' or the complaint would be closed. The 'remit' was not accepted by the complainants and the Ombudsman closed the case.

Something is very wrong with the complaints process in Wales...

 

 

A Home Visit From The Ombudsman For Wales...

The aborted Stage 2 complaint emails between the 'independent investigator' and Cyngor Gwynedd's safeguarding and quality officer were passed to the Ombudsman for his information. They included input from the Monitoring Officer and also ahowed this 'investigator' sending correspondence to someone not involved in the complaints process...

Because of the unreasonable demands imposed by the council officer, the complaint did not proceed and was timed out by the council. After reading the emails, the Ombudsman returned with an offer of a complaint without enduring further officer bad behaviour. But trust in the Ombudsman was now on the wane.

Evidence of wrongdoing by senior officers - from an officer leaving the council during one investigation then rejoining once interviews were completed through behaviour by officers that many have thought abusive. There was the council's Information manager's data breach report - written in spite of the evidence, the creation of documents that should not exist and legal documents written not to inform but mislead. All not investigated...

Not forgetting, the Ombudsman was warned that the council's SS officers may treat the second assessment - and the family - with the same disingenuity as the first - and they did...

It was pointed out to the Ombudsman that Gwynedd council have not complied with other recommendations from past investigations and that if they had been called to account previously then further investigations would not have been needed. The Ombudsman did not respond to this point.

A FOI request was put in asking for the compliance correspondence between the Ombudsman and Gwynedd council regarding Case 201700388 and later in the family's own case. Whilst the Ombudsman's Information office released the correspondence for someone else's investigation showing the council admitting non compliance, the FOI for emails from the family's own case was refused. Even more evidence of non compliance...?

By now, the family's perception was that the Ombudsman appeared unwilling or unable to deal with the serious issues the evidence had revealed. Regardless, the offer of a third Ombudsman's investigation into the SS department's second assessment which should have already been investigated by the Ombudsman was accepted.

A home visit was arranged to discuss and take further evidence against Gwynedd council. Home visits from the Ombudsman are not usual...

Shortly after, the senior safeguarding officer used a Care Scrutiny Committee on the 14/11/19 to declare the Ombudsman had - 
"given them a further challenge, to make sure that someone goes to see the family, meet the family, ensure that they receive that assessment and that is something that we have now arranged with the adult services, to go into that situation on the Ombudsman's behalf, despite the fact that they have not expressed a wish to receive the service, our usual ethos involves intervention but only if the person invites us in and wishes for us to intervene in this way, the Ombudsman has judged this and wants us to go no matter what the wish of the individual may be, so that is now our response to that challenge provided by the Ombudsman."

The Ombudsman was contacted and denied the words of the officer...
But what of the language used to Councillors and the public - 'challenge' and 'intervention' and 'ethos' are such strong words to use when all that was required was a simple carer's assessment...

Gwynedd council had used the excuse that they did not understand the wording in one Ombudsman report. The recommendation that Executive officers and presumably the council's legal team had already agreed to but now clearly misunderstood was  -
“Provides Mr Y and his family with a comprehensive assessment of their needs and ensures that adequate measures are put in place to meet any identified needs."

Hardly a complex sentence. Bizarrely, the Ombudsman accepted this excuse and presumably another box was ticked instead of following policy and procedures which could have resulted in an Ombudsman's Special Report into continued non compliance.

The Ombudsman also introduced the word 'variance' into the dialogue and it appears that recommendations for improvement can be downgraded once an investigation has been completed in a deal done between the Ombudsman and the CEO behind closed doors - without the complainants knowledge...

All this while attempting to come to agreement with the 'remit' for the third investigation.

Having investigated several complaints into Gwynedd council during his incumbancy, the Ombudsman was well aware of the disingenuous nature of the senior officers and their treatment of the disabled. Gwynedd council even featured in the Ombudsman's hall of shame casebook which can be found here -
https://www.ombudsman.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/104483-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Casebook_Eng_v03.pdf

The full Ombudsman's report for case 201700388 can be found here -
http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf