Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Nottingham City Council (202328988)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328988

Nottingham City Council

21 May 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 upkeep of the communal area of the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat with an external communal area.
  2. On 10 October 2023 the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint from the resident. The resident said that they had been reporting issues with the communal area for 2 years but the landlord had not done anything to rectify the neglect. They said they had reported items being left in the area and dog faeces not being cleared. They had also slipped on moss and injured themselves. They said the situation had caused them to develop severe depression and anxiety attacks.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 October 2023. It said it was taking actions to clear the communal area. It apologised that the resident had needed to raise the issues multiple times.
  4. On 24 October 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. They remained unhappy that the landlord had not addressed that the issues had been ongoing for 2 years and had impacted on their mental health. They were also unhappy that the Area Housing Manager spoke over them during telephone calls.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 14 November 2023. It said it had raised the resident’s concerns with the Area Housing Manager. It confirmed it had cleared the reported items. It would continue to work with the police to continue taking any necessary action against offenders. It had instructed the Housing Patch Manager to carry out regular inspections of the communal area.
  6. On 12 December 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint. They said they were unhappy with the landlord’s final response as, while it had cleaned the communal area, it had taken over 2 years to do so. It had also not addressed their fall or the injury caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident’s complaint includes matters relating to their request to move to a new property. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as a social landlord or a landlord under a long lease. However, the allocation of council housing stock is a statutory function governed by Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. Where a council is carrying out this function it is not acting as a landlord and the Ombudsman therefore cannot investigate. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about these matters. If the resident remains unhappy about their transfer request they may wish to contact the LGSCO.

The landlord’s handling of the upkeep of the communal area of the resident’s property

  1. The landlord, when providing evidence to us, indicated that it did not have a policy about the maintenance of communal areas. However, the tenancy agreement it provided refers to the Council’s Clear Communal Areas policy. This discrepancy could indicate a record keeping issue within the landlord.
  2. The landlord has not provided a copy of the Clear Communal Areas policy. It is therefore unknown what, if any, responsibilities this places upon the landlord in respect of the maintenance and upkeep of communal areas for tenanted properties. The tenancy agreement places tenants under an obligation to keep communal areas free of items and clutter. This includes not allowing pets to deposit faeces in communal areas. The agreement also states that the landlord will, after providing a warning, remove any items left in communal areas.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that its Housing Patch Managers were responsible for carrying out regular inspections and for taking actions to remove items.
  4. While we have not been provided with any documentary evidence of the resident reporting their concerns before 2 August 2023, the landlord has not disputed that the resident had made earlier reports. It would have been better if the landlord’s complaint responses explained what records it had about the resident’s previous reports and why it had not taken any actions. That it did not do this could be a further indication of record keeping issues within the landlord.
  5. Following the resident raising their concerns on 2 August 2023 the landlord did take appropriate actions to rectify the reported issues. These included identifying individuals responsible for fly tipping and issuing fixed penalty notices, requesting the relevant department clear the communal area, and writing to residents to remind them of their obligations.
  6. The available evidence indicates the landlord attended to identify items it would remove and to issue fines to fly tippers on 19 September 2023. This was approximately 7 weeks after the resident’s report. It requested the moss was cleared from the communal area on 2 October 2023. This was approximately 9 weeks after the resident’s report. The landlord did not provide any explanation for these apparent delays. This was not reasonable.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 October 2023 to advise that it would like to meet with them on 12 October 2023. It attended on this date but the resident was not available. It sent a further letter to advise it would like to revisit on 8 November 2023. It also explained that it had reported the fly tipped items for clearance and confirmed it had issued fixed penalty notices to identified offenders. The request to meet to discuss the resident’s concerns and the explanations provided in the second letter were reasonable.
  8. In their stage 1 complaint the resident said that Environmental Health had attended on 4 October 2023 and cleared the dog faeces from the communal area. They further said that Environmental Health had not taken the waste away and had instead just moved it to a nearby grassy area. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised it had contacted the relevant department to report this. It had also asked for an update on when the fly tipped items would be removed. It said that if both matters had not been resolved by 31 October 2023 it would escalate the matter further. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to have taken.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord, after the resident had escalated their complaint, to have visited the area on 27 October 2023 to check the fly tipped items, dog faeces and moss had been cleared. The landlord’s final response confirms that it had also checked the nearby grassy area and had not found any dog faeces.
  10. Having satisfied itself that the area was clear, it was reasonable for the landlord to commit to continuing to liaise with the police and its Community Protection Officers to take further enforcement action, if necessary. It was also appropriate for it to commit to carry out more regular inspections of the communal area.
  11. The resident has stated that the landlord did not acknowledge or address the injury they suffered after slipping on moss. However, the available evidence does show that the landlord had made attempts to address this matter. The letter sent to the resident following the attempted meeting on 12 October 2023 explained the landlord wanted to discuss the injury. The landlord also made the resident aware, during a call about their complaint on 16 October 2023, that it wanted to meet with them to discuss the injury. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that it had made an appointment to visit the resident on 8 November 2023. It encouraged the resident to keep the appointment. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
  12. The landlord could have improved how it addressed the resident’s injury report by having explained its procedure (and providing any relevant forms) for individuals to make a personal injury claim against it. It would have been ideal for the landlord to have provided this information at the earliest opportunity. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did this. In any event, the landlord should have included this information in its complaint responses.
  13. While the landlord apologised for not having taken any actions before 2 August 2023 and for the delays in completing actions after that date, the Ombudsman does not consider this adequately addresses the resident’s complaint about the delay. The landlord did not dispute that the resident had made multiple attempts to resolve the situation or that its failure to take action had significantly impacted the resident’s enjoyment of their property. It was aware, by 2 August 2023, that the resident was suffering with depression and anxiety attacks. It was also aware that the resident believed these were the result of the landlord not maintaining the communal area over a prolonged period.
  14. The landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy states it would consider paying compensation where it had failed to meet its own service targets or had not acted fairly or properly in the circumstances. It states it would assess the impact of the failure, taking into account how it handled the situation as well as whether the resident had needed to spend excessive time, effort, or inconvenience in pursuing an outcome.
  15. Having reviewed all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the impact on the resident as being at least ‘Medium’. It describes this level of impact in its policy as a succession of service failures and/or it not resolving the problem within a reasonable timescale. It further outlines that the event would be an injustice to the customer and that the service had markedly failed to meet the required standard.
  16. Based on this assessment, and the other factors the landlord states it would take into account, the Ombudsman considers it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered a discretionary goodwill payment to recognise its failing and the impact on the resident.
  17. In conclusion, while the landlord did take some actions to remedy the resident’s complaint it did not fully address all the matters that they had raised. The failures in this case adversely affected the resident and the landlord did not take sufficient actions to put things right. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the upkeep of the communal area of the resident’s property.
  18. Given the length of time the resident states the matter had been ongoing and the described impact on them, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable tor the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused to them. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations like this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the upkeep of the communal area of the resident’s property.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. If it has not already done so, provide the resident with information about its procedure for individuals to make a personal injury claim. This should include providing copies of any relevant forms.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £500.
    3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.