Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202331953)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331953

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

10 October 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of defects to the garden works and kitchen window, the condition of a neighbour’s fence and to the resident’s request for a bollard.
2. Reports of staff conduct and discrimination.
3. Request that it change the position of a boundary wall and install a gate.
We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied her home, a 2-bedroom semi-detached new build bungalow under a secure tenancy agreement which started on 24 March 2023. She lived there with her husband. She told us she had a disability limiting her mobility. The landlord had recorded her health conditions including ones affecting her mobility and requiring medical use of the bathroom. She had previously requested adaptations which demonstrated that the landlord was aware of her mobility issues.
On 14 June 2023 the resident made a complaint including that she had been waiting a long time for repairs and was unable to open her kitchen window.
On 3 July 2023 a manager (M) on behalf of the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. The resident had requested to move her refuse bin to the front of the house to make to easier for her to move it. It was unable to agree to this as this was the developer’s arrangement.
2. There were significant outstanding repairs. The developer had 12 months within which to resolve defects but the landlord expected it to resolve serious issues as soon as possible. It considered the defective kitchen window and flooding garden were serious. It considered the developer had made reasonable efforts to resolve the issues. It would increase pressure on the developer but was not able to insist on the works being done before the end of the 12 months period. It did not uphold the complaint.
3. It offered to meet with the resident together with the developer at the property.
On 13 and 17 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint for the following reasons:
1. Repairs were still outstanding. She had reported the window on 9 May 2023 and it was not resolved till 13 July 2023.
2. She asked for a gate in an external wall as that would make taking the bin out easier. The wall had not been built in accordance with the plans.
3. She had reported a broken fence. She was told it was the neighbour’s and the landlord could not discuss it but had heard nothing further.
4. People were parking on her grass. She had requested a bollard to prevent this. She was told this would limit space for wheelchair and pushchairs. She did not think this was the case.
5. She had been told to communicate with a specific person but did not hear from them. She had made a complaint about a staff member but their manager did not contact her.
6. When she contacted the developer, it referred to her property as “council housing”. She said the privately owned properties were treated differently. This was discrimination.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord stated that it wanted to resolve the complaint rather than escalate it to prevent “any further stress and inconvenience” for the resident. Internally, the landlord asked M to provide a further reply to address the resident’s further issues.
On 31 July 2023 M wrote again as follows:
1. The following complaints were not upheld:
  1. The issues the resident had discussed with M were historical including regarding her request for a transfer.
  2. The complaint about the time it took to repair the kitchen window had not been upheld.
  3. It was unable to comment specifically on delays to other repairs as she had not specified which repairs.
  4. The fence belonged to her neighbour. It was working with her neighbour and the developer to resolve this issue.
  5. The person who was to be her contact did not work for the landlord but the developer.
  6. It had checked the planning application. The approved plans showed the arrangement as built. It referred her to the Planning Authority.
  7. The local authority was of the view that the installation of a bollard was not the best solution in this case.
  8. It invited her to give specific examples of unequal treatment by the developer. It would raise this with the developer.
2. The following complaint was upheld:
  1. While it had dealt with the issues she raised, M should have contacted her directly.
3. It did not consider the nature and scale of the problems she had experienced warranted a rent rebate.
On 8 August 2023 the resident stated she was still unhappy with the outcome including that she felt she had given enough evidence of discrimination. She said that the garden was still not being addressed.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord replied with its Stage 2 complaint as follows:
1. The road belonged to the developer not the landlord. It was unable to take action regarding the parking as there were no parking restrictions but the police could take action on dangerous parking.
2. The plans showed the wall ending approximately three quarters of the length of the property before adjoining her property. M noted on 26 September 2023 the wall had not been built according to the plans, as it only went as far as the rear of the property. The landlord would consult with the planning office and would seek a solution. It noted that it took several enquiries before it accepted that there was an issue with the wall. It therefore partially upheld the complaint.
3. It would ask the developer to consider how it addressed her. It was not direct evidence of discriminatory behaviour. It invited her to submit any specific evidence that her property was treated differently which it would refer to the developer. It did not uphold the complaint.
4. It apologised that it had incorrectly informed her the staff member she was supposed to contact did not work for the landlord. It had referred her comments to the staff member’s manager. It upheld the complaint.
5. It apologised M had not replied to her e-mails. He had apologised for not contacting her regarding the staff complaint. However, he had arranged meetings since. It apologised. It upheld the complaint.
6. The developer was working with her neighbour regarding the fence. This is why she was not provided with a further update in respect of this repair. It did not uphold the complaint.
7. There was a delay to the garden works. The works had since been partially completed. The workers left the site following a disagreement with the resident. On 26 September 2023, the landlord stated the developer would complete the works. She chose to re-turf the grassed area herself. It upheld the complaint as there had been a delay to the works.
On 13 November 2023 the resident made a complaint about the time it took to effect repairs including the window, her request for a bollard, the issue of the wall and garden being outstanding.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord told the resident that the developer had agreed to extend the wall and install a fence with a gate which would give her easier access for her bins.
On 11 December 2023 the developer removed the wall and installed a 6-foot fence instead of the wall, with a gate. This was to create a barrier between the resident’s bathroom window and the pavement.
On 10 October 2024 the resident made a complaint that the planning office had given her 6 weeks to take the fence down. The request had been made some months earlier.
On 28 October 2024 the landlord replied at Stage 1. It offered to reinstate the wall as it was and apologised as the planning office should have written to the landlord not the resident. It would not replace grass with a hard surface. The resident asked to escalate the complaint as she was not happy with the plans.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint that the landlord had not agreed to install a hard surface.
There followed an exchange of emails in November 2024 through to February 2025. The landlord took legal advice and made various suggestions. On 25 February 2025, the landlord agreed to install a hard surface to address the resident’s concerns about the ground surface in addition to installing a metre high fence. The planning office had agreed the fence could remain while the matter was resolved.
On 9 July 2025 the resident said she was concerned about the lack of privacy to her bathroom by losing the higher fence. The exterior wall to the bathroom was adjacent to a public footway. On 11 July 2025 she requested a window grid as she felt insecure when on her own. The landlord declined to replace the bathroom window glass or install a grid as the pane was already frosted. It suggested the resident install a blind. The landlord stated it would take 6 months to carry out the works. The landlord’s response was that “privacy to the bathroom window is one of preference”.
On 3 September 2025, the landlord confirmed its offer to the resident to reinstate the original wall with a gate and paving or amend the existing fence and gate to 1 metre in height. The wall would meet the rear of the property and it would install paving instead of grass.
On 22 September 2025, the landlord told us that the planning office had told it verbally that it would not agree to the existing 6-foot fence.

Assessment and findings

The window, garden works, bollard and fence

The landlord’s explanation that it was for the developer to correct defects was reasonable. We have not seen the warranty. It was not clear whether the developer had 12 months to remedy defects or that, as is usually the case, the landlord would have to report defects within 12 months of the warranty, alternatively of the start of the tenancy. The landlord reasonably explained that the developer should give priority to “serious” issues such as the garden and window. Generally, the landlord’s role is to liaise with the developer to ensure works are carried out.
However, the landlord should also consider its own obligations to carry out repairs. The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure of the property which includes windows. The tenancy agreement stated that the landlord should carry out repairs within a reasonable amount of time. In the circumstances, we consider that the landlord had an obligation to carry out the repairs in any event. The evidence showed that the landlord reasonably attempted to repair the window but a replacement was required. The evidence also showed that, while the developer raised the job as urgent, the window manufacturer had ceased trading so that the developer had to identify another window company and make fresh arrangements. It is very likely that it was The need for a replacement and the difficulty in arranging this rather than the landlord’s approach caused the approximately 3-month delay. Moreover, the landlord was entitled to seek the remedy from the developer as it had an obligation as a public body to protect public funds. In the circumstances, while frustrating for the resident, we do not find service failure for this complaint.
The resident told us that the garden flooded when it rained and limited her going through the rear gate. Also her dog needed outside space. The garden did not fall under the landlord’s repair obligations and in that case it was reliant on the developer. In those circumstances, it is for the landlord to liaise with and press the developer under its defects warranty. The evidence showed that the landlord was reasonably chasing the developer. On 24 May 2023 the developer told the landlord that additional topsoil and reseeding was required. While the garden appeared to be dry there was evidence that water was running into the bin store and back garden access. The developer arranged for the garden works to be carried out in July 2023 but the works were postponed until September 2023. While this was frustrating for the resident it was outside the landlord’s control. Following contractors leaving the job, the resident arranged for contractors to do the works even though the developer was willing to reschedule the works. In the circumstances, we do not find service failure for this complaint.
The landlord reasonably explained to the resident that the broken fence was her neighbour’s responsibility. It stated that the developer was working with the neighbour. In the circumstances, it was not the landlord’s obligation to undertake the repair. While we understand it was limited in what it could share with the resident, it could have done better in communicating with the resident. However, M met with the resident on 2 occasions in July and September 2023.
It was frustrating for the resident that cars were damaging her lawn. The landlord’s explanation that the road and therefore the parking was the responsibility of the developer was reasonable as the road belonged to the developer. This meant it was outside the control of the landlord. All it could do was pass on the resident’s concerns to the developer. The landlord stated that a bollard was not the answer to preventing people damaging her lawn. It did not explain why. However, this did not change the landlord’s position that it was not within its power to install a bollard. We do not find service failure with the landlord in relation to the complaint about the bollard. However, we will make a recommendation that it discusses with her what alternatives she would be permitted to install.
We find no maladministration for this complaint for the following reasons:
1. While it was inappropriate that the landlord did not treat the kitchen window as a repair, this did not significantly affect the timescales overall. The delay to replacing the window was understandable as the developer needed to source a replacement.
2. The remedial works to the garden were the responsibility of the developer. The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that the works were carried out.
3. Installing a bollard was not within the power of the landlord but the developer. This was because the road belonged to the developer.
4. While the landlord’s communication could have been better, the neighbour’s fence was a matter between the resident’s neighbour and the developer.

Staff conduct, discrimination and the landlord’s communication.

The landlord apologised for M’s standard of communication and M’s error regarding who was the resident’s appointed contact. The landlord rectified the lack of communication by arranging meetings with the resident together with the developer to discuss the issues she had raised and before replying to the complaint. While frustrating for the resident that the error occurred, we consider that the landlord’s apology for its error that the resident’s contact was not a member of staff was adequate.
It is understandable that the resident may have felt stigmatised by a reference to council housing. We cannot make findings about whether discrimination has taken place, but we consider the landlord’s response to any such reports. The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s report of discrimination. The landlord was entitled to conclude referring to the resident’s property as social housing was not, in itself, sufficient evidence of discrimination. It reasonably did not leave the issue there. It invited the resident to submit specific examples of better treatment of the private owners. The landlord’s offer to investigate the resident’s reports further and take these up with the developer was, in our opinion, a reasonable response.
We find no maladministration about this complaint as we find the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and sought to rectify it by arranging meetings. It also invited the resident to provide details in support of her comments about discrimination and act upon them.

The boundary wall and installation of a gate.

The landlord acknowledged that it was unreasonable and frustrating for the resident that it had initially denied that the wall had not been built to plan. It was also unreasonable that it did not identify that the plans differed from how the wall was built when it bought the property.
The resident reported was that it was difficult to move the bins from the agreed positioning. There was no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s disability in relation to her request to move the bins. However, its explanation that it did not have the power to move the positioning of the bins was reasonable as this was an arrangement set by the developer. Moreover, it resolved the situation, although after considerable reflection and discussion with the resident, by its offer to install a gate in the fence that it installed.
We have investigated the events following the conclusion of the Stage 2 complaint. This is because they concerned the Stage 2 resolution of the complaint regarding the wall which was to seek a solution. The resident made a further complaint in November 2023 that the issue of the wall had not been resolved and a further complaint in October 2024 that she had been asked to take the fence down. She also wanted a hard surface behind the fence. While we do not normally investigate complaints that have not reached the landlord’s final stage, we can investigate complaints where there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The landlord responded at Stage 1 but did not provide a Stage 2 response although the resident had asked to escalated her complaint in January 2024.
It was reasonable that the landlord erected a 6-foot fence with a gate. This would have resolved the resident’s issues. However the planning authority required the fence to be taken down as it breached planning permission.
While the landlord should have checked whether it was permitted to erect a 6-foot fence, it was the planning department, not the landlord, who required to take it down. While this was frustrating for the resident, she at least had the benefit of the fence for a period of time. The landlord appropriately apologised for the planning department having written to the resident direct.
The evidence of November 2024 to February 2025 showed that the landlord made efforts to find a resolution. In order to resolve the situation, it reasonably made a number of concessions including offering to lay a hard surface in order to address the resident’s concerns about the ground. It reasonably obtained agreement from the planning department that the 6-foot fence could remain in the meantime including the time it would take for the landlord to carry out the works.
The resident later on in the process raised concerns about her privacy as well as her sense of security while her partner was away. We consider fitting a blind or window covering may be a reasonable alternative to more frosted glass. We also consider that a fence, even one that is 1 metre high, would at least prevent passers-by walking past close the property. Either way, this resolves the issue of access to the bins.
However, we are concerned that the landlord referred to the resident’s concerns about privacy to the bathroom as “one of preference”. We are not satisfied that the landlord fully appreciated the resident’s need for privacy in her bathroom, given her diagnosis and her rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, including the right to dignity associated with the right to private life. We will make a recommendation that the landlord considers installing an external grid to the window.
The landlord has told us that the planning office told it that it would not grant permission to keep the 6-foot fence. The planning office may well have given such an informal indication but it has not been recorded or evidenced. We will therefore also make a recommendation that the landlord considers seeking a decision in principle in writing. If it cannot be obtained, the landlord should consider making a formal application so that the 6-foot fence can remain.
While frustrating and distressing for the resident, we find no maladministration in relation to this complaint. This is because the landlord took reasonable steps, albeit with some delay, that were within its power to resolve the issue of the wall and fence. It had an obligation to comply with planning permission.
It improved the original position from when there was no wall or fence between the footpath and the bathroom to negotiating with the developer to erect a 6-foot fence. Unfortunately, the fence that high breached planning permission. The proposition is to lower the height of the fence. We understand this is less satisfactory for the resident. It has also been distressing for the resident to have this unresolved. However, as matters stand, the landlord has no choice. We will, however, make a number of recommendations.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were significant delays to the process. The first delay was due to the landlord seeking to address the complaint outside the complaint process. It was reasonable that it addressed the resident’s additional issues she raised in her escalation email. However, the evidence also indicated that the landlord was seeking to avoid escalating the complaint. It was inappropriate not to escalate the complaint as set out by its policy and by our then Complaint Code. It stated to the resident this was to avoid her further frustration. This was not transparent. In addition, it did not explain to the resident its approach in its second Stage 1 letter. Neither stage 1 letters referred the resident to our Service. This was frustrating for the resident. There was then a further delay before the landlord provided its Stage 2 response in October 2023. This was inappropriate as it made the overall process and her right to refer the complaint to our Service unclear. While many of the issues were the same, there was no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint of November 2023 within the complaint process. The landlord should explain its actions even where it decides not to respond to a complaint.
It was also concerning that M himself replied at Stage 1 when the resident’s complaint was about his lack of response. The letter referred to himself in the third person. This was confusing. While M apologised for his lack of communication, it was unreasonable that he addressed the complaint about himself as this may indicate a lack of objectivity.
It was inappropriate that it did not escalate the resident’s second complaint of October 2024. This is because the timescale was outside the landlord’s own complaint policy timescales The reason the landlord gave the resident on 16 January 2025, for not escalating the complaint was that it would only do so when it knew “that action in progress had been completed and has been successful or has not been successful”.
The evidence showed that the landlord did make a number of efforts to resolve the issue. We have also taken into consideration that it is very likely the outcome of a complaint would have been no different to that the landlord eventually offered. However, the purpose of a complaint response is to set out a resolution for the landlord to monitor. If necessary, a landlord could always update its Stage 2 response. It was frustrating for the resident and contrary to its own policy and our Complaint Handling Code not to escalate a complaint for the reason it gave. While the landlord referred the resident to our Service, we would generally not investigate a complaint until a landlord writes with a Stage 2 response.
We find maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because there were significant delays to the landlord’s responses, M addressed the complaint about himself and the landlord failed to follow its own policy to respond within its specified timescales. This increased the resident’s frustration.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the defects to the garden works and kitchen window, the condition of a neighbour’s fence and to the resident’s request for a bollard.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s reports of staff conduct and discrimination
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request that it change the position of a boundary wall and install a gate.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following order:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should discuss with the resident what alternatives she would be permitted to install in order to protect her lawn.
2. The landlord should consider installing an external grid to the bathroom window and. if it cannot do so, to explain why not to the resident.
3. The landlord should seek an indication from the planning office in writing whether it would agree to the 6-foot fence remaining. If the planning office declines to respond, the landlord should consider making a formal application that the 6-foot fence remains.
The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.