From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Nottingham City Council (202312523)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312523

Nottingham City Council

26 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:

a.     Her neighbour’s garden and pests.

b.     The position of her toilet.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She has been a tenant at the property since 2017. The resident has autism and fibromyalgia. She uses a support frame around the toilet to assist her.
  2. The landlord raised a work order on 8 February 2023 following the resident’s request that it move the toilet in her bathroom back because the door to the bathroom hit her legs when opened. She could not lock the door as this was unsafe due to her vulnerabilities. A job note from 28 February 2023 shows that the operative reported that there was nothing wrong with the toilet, but that changing it to a close couple toilet would allow more room between the toilet and the door.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence to indicate that it intended to visit the resident’s neighbour on 6 March 2023 to discuss the condition of their garden. It is unclear if this was directly prompted by the resident’s reports about the garden and pests.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2023 in relation to both the toilet position and her neighbour’s garden. She said:

a.     She had reported issues related to her neighbour’s garden, which was overgrown, but did not feel the patch manager for her area had done anything. She said the garden was causing rats and pest control were aware but had also not done anything. She had sent numerous emails and spoken to the staff member, but they took no action. She also felt the staff member told the neighbour that she was the person reporting issues.

b.     She had reported that the toilet was too close to the bathroom door and an operative said they would ask for the toilet to be changed. She had not heard anything further despite calling.

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response on 18 May 2023, the landlord said:

a.     It had spoken to the staff member who said they had overlooked an email the resident had sent recently. They apologised for the error. They had arranged to visit the neighbour that week about the condition of the garden.

b.     It noted that the resident did not believe that the staff member had overlooked her email as she had contacted them several times about the issue. It apologised if this was her experience. It had asked the staff member to contact the resident to take the antisocial behaviour complaint formally. They would then follow the process and keep the resident updated.

c.      It understood that the resident did not want to speak to the staff member. It said it would not reallocate the case to another housing patch manager as the staff member was now starting the process. It would ask a different manager to be the resident’s point of contact and keep her updated.

d.     The resident had queried why the landlord intended to start the process again when she had reported issues for years. It said that it had not been made aware of the issue prior to the complaint and the complaint handler had worked in a different area for 18 months. During the call, they specified that they could not comment on what happened previously. It said it would need to work with the neighbours to find a resolution. It could only consider formal action where it had the opportunity to speak to the neighbour and when they did not engage. It would maintain oversight of the actions taken.

e.     It had brought forward an appointment to look at the toilet door (along with another door) to 30 May 2023. It would ask someone from its repairs team to contact her as repairs were not the complaint handler’s department.

  1. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 May 2023 as no one had contacted her in relation to her concerns about the toilet. She had called to chase this, but no one had called her back.
  2. In its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2023, the landlord said that:

a.     It should not have raised the resident’s initial request for the toilet to be assessed to a plumber as there was nothing to fix. It could have considered raising an inspection or suggested a referral to its adaptations team to explore the options available.

b.     The plumber suggested that the landlord could consider installing a close coupled toilet. It said that these are not always practical for someone with mobility needs. This could inadvertently cause more issues and not provide the space needed. It apologised that the plumber had given their opinion on the matter and left her with the view that this was something its repairs team could do.

c.      It had reviewed the photos of the toilet and identified that a member of the household used an aid to help them with mobility while using the toilet. It explained that with any specialist modification to the property, there was a specialist team to assess her needs and offer bespoke support. It said it may be possible, through an Occupational Therapy (OT) referral, for it to change the door or the toilet. It asked her to refer herself as soon as possible as it was not able to do this for her. It provided details of how she could refer herself. 

  1. The resident initially referred her complaint to us in 2023 because she said the landlord had agreed to move the toilet back to allow more space in the bathroom, but it had not done anything. She had explained that the position of the toilet and door was a hazard. She added that the landlord had suggested locking the door to avoid this, but this was not practical in her household as all occupants had disabilities. She added that the landlord was not following its policy and despite being promised that it would update her every 2 weeks regarding her neighbour’s garden, it had not.
  2. In her communication with us in March 2025, the resident maintained that she was unhappy the landlord had not told her about the possibility of needing an OT assessment at an early stage following the initial appointment. She said that the issues with her neighbour’s garden were ongoing since the time of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord is a local authority. Our role is to consider the landlord’s responsibility as a social landlord (aside from its responsibilities as a local authority). Occupational Therapy services are delivered as part of the council’s role as a local authority. As such, we cannot comment on the handling of any Occupational Health assessments or actions, if any, by Environmental Health services, including pest control.
  2. The resident’s complaint also related to a bedroom door which had fallen off its hinges. The resident has specified that this matter was resolved. Our investigation focuses on the outstanding aspects of the complaint listed within the complaint definitions.
  3. Our investigations are limited to the matters raised and responded to at the time of the complaint. We note that matters related to the neighbour’s garden continued after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2023. The resident has suggested that she raised a separate complaint, and the landlord offered compensation for its handling of this, and another matter. Our investigation will focus on the matter raised at the time of the complaint in May 2023 and whether the landlord’s response was reasonable at the time.
  4. If the resident has concerns about the landlord’s handling of her further complaint, she may wish to escalate this to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process if she has not already done so. If she has done so, and she remains dissatisfied, she may wish to refer this to us for investigation. This would be handled separately to this case.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and keeping installations, such as toilets, in working order. The tenancy agreement confirms that tenants are responsible for the condition of their gardens. Gardens must be kept in a good and tidy condition.
  2. The landlord’s repair standard does not reference adaptations. Its website confirms that if a resident needs aids or adaptations in the property, they can apply through the local authority’s Occupational Therapy team. Adaptations could include bathroom adaptations.

The resident’s reports about her neighbour’s garden and pests

  1. The resident said she had reported issues related to the neighbour’s garden, which was overgrown, for a number of years. She said that the garden contributed to the presence of pests, including mice. She also raised concern that she had reported this to a staff member, but they did not respond.
  2. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the resident’s concerns, including communication logs and records referring to the actions it had taken. It provided very limited information related to the matter prior to the complaint in May 2023. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  3. While we have not seen evidence of the resident’s communication regarding the matter prior to the complaint, we do not doubt her comments that she raised this. The landlord’s records indicate that it sent a letter to the neighbour in February 2023 as it intended to visit to discuss the garden on 6 March 2023. This suggests that someone, possibly the resident, had raised concerns. We have not seen any documentary evidence to show that the visit took place or what the outcome of the visit was. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident reported pests following an initial report to pest control in 2020.
  4. Within its complaint response on 18 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had also contacted a staff member over the easter bank holiday weekend (around 9 April 2023), but they had not responded. We have not seen evidence of this communication. The landlord acted reasonably in its stage 1 investigation by interviewing the staff member who apologised for their oversight.
  5. It is of concern that the landlord did not suitably address its handling of any earlier reports. While the complaint handler said they had not been aware of her reports before the complaint and had not worked in the area, the landlord should have clear records to confirm any reports and actions taken to support its complaint decisions. While the landlord upheld the complaint, it did not adequately set out any failings or consider the impact on the resident as a result of any failure to act sooner.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would open a formal case to monitor the actions it took moving forward given that it had not done so already. Its records suggest that it had notified the neighbour that it intended to visit prior to its stage 1 complaint response on 18 May 2023. However, we have not seen evidence to show that it opened a formal case as it said it would until 31 May 2023 – the date of its stage 2 complaint response, approximately 2 weeks later.
  7. We note that there was some delay following the resident’s complaint in the landlord taking action. The resident has suggested that this formed part of a separate complaint and we will not comment on the actions further within this investigation. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it maintained a “robust oversight” of the case or updated the resident following the complaint, indicating that it had not taken adequate learning from her complaint in May 2023.
  8. We have found service failure in the landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It failed to adequately consider the history of her reports. Its response to the complaint suggests that it did not keep adequate records of her reports, or any previous action taken to resolve her concerns.
  9. It is of concern that the resident has said that the matters related to her neighbour’s garden, including the presence of a broken shed, are ongoing. We have included an order below for the landlord to contact the resident to address her reports.

The resident’s reports about the position of her toilet

  1. In her complaint on 3 May 2023, the resident said that an operative attended and said they would ask for the toilet to be changed but she had not heard anything further despite chasing this. We understand that she initially raised concern in February 2023 that the toilet was too close to the bathroom door, and the door came into contact with a person’s knees if it opened when using the toilet. It was not practical for the resident to lock the door due to household vulnerabilities.
  2. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that the resident raised concerns about the position of the toilet prior to her report in February 2023. While the landlord acted reasonably by raising an assessment of the toilet and attending on 28 February 2023, we have not seen evidence to show that it provided the outcome of the inspection prior to its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2023, 3 months after the visit. It is of concern that the landlord did not address her request sooner given her concern that the toilet in its current position was a hazard.
  3. In addition, the landlord had the opportunity to address the resident’s concern at the time of its stage 1 complaint response on 18 May 2023 but did not do so. Its response suggests that it could not comment on the repairs as this was not the complaint handler’s department. Ultimately, landlords should have systems in place to ensure that they can offer a full response to a resident’s complaint at the first stage, including where the complaint relates to different service areas. Its failure to adequately address her concerns amounts to a service failure.
  4. We have not seen evidence to show that the operative promised the resident that the toilet could be moved back or replaced during the visit on 28 February 2023. However, the landlord has not disputed that their comments may have led her to believe it would be able to act.
  5. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident approached Occupational Therapy (OT) for an assessment of her medical needs was reasonable in the circumstances. A landlord would not generally be obliged to complete alterations where the installation was working. It should usually consider minor adaptations, such as installing grab rails, without the need for a formal OT assessment. However, it is reasonable for larger work such as moving or altering the position of the toilet, to require an assessment by a qualified OT. This is because an OT can make recommendations to the landlord, and consider a resident’s health needs to ensure that any adaptations do not negatively impact them.
  6. While it was reasonable for the landlord to provide details of how the resident could approach OT for an assessment, it could have done more to support her in completing the referral. It said it could not do this for her, but it would ask the resident’s patch manager to see if they could support her. It failed to recognise the resident’s previous comments that she did not want to engage directly with this staff member or offer an alternative.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it would need her to complete an OT assessment before carrying out any work. It also acknowledged that it should have done this instead of initially raising a repair. However, it did not offer suitable redress for the time and trouble she spent pursuing her concerns. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter and made several orders below. This includes an order for the landlord to pay compensation. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been failure which inconvenienced a resident, but where there may be no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s garden and pests.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the position of her toilet.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.

b.     Pay the resident £250 compensation, comprised of:

  1. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her by its response to reports about her neighbour’s garden and pests.
  2. £150 in recognition of her time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports about the position of her toilet.

c.      Contact the resident to understand any current difficulties she is experiencing and support her in making a referral to Occupational Therapy should she wish to pursue this further.

d.     Contact the resident to outline the steps it has taken in relation to her neighbour’s garden since the time of the complaint and confirm what actions it will take and how it will monitor the situation moving forward.

  1. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.

 Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord takes steps to ensure that it addresses all aspects of a complaint at each stage of its complaints process where a complaint relates to different service areas.
  2. We also recommend that the landlord considers updating its repairs service standards to provide information about how it considers household vulnerabilities and requests for adaptations.
  3. The landlord should confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.