Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Nottingham City Council (202315009)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315009

Nottingham City Council

13 December 2024


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 response to the resident’s request for concrete in the garden to be re-laid.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 17 December 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom terrace house. The landlord held no vulnerabilities for the resident or household. The resident’s son has mobility issues.
  2. On 7 March 2022, the resident raised a repair to a concrete path in the rear garden. The resident made the landlord aware that her son has mobility issues when she raised the repair request. On 21 June 2022, the landlord completed the repair. On 13 July 2022, the landlord attended to a further repair request and the resident advised that she wanted all the concrete in the garden replaced because her son has mobility issues.
  3. On 23 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that an operative for the landlord attended on the same day and advised that it would not be replacing the concrete. She said that work had been required to the rear garden for over a year and that numerous people had attended but the landlord had not completed the repair.
  4. On 11 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it responded to the same complaint the previous year and provided the same complaint response. It explained that it was responsible for maintenance to access paths, line paths, or hardstanding that it laid. It advised the resident that, as part of the tenancy agreement, she was responsible for the garden area and that this should have been explained to her when she began the tenancy.
  5. On 17 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that she was advised to escalate her complaint by the Occupational Therapist (OT) team because she was told that the concrete would be replaced, and that the landlord should honour that commitment.
  6. On 18 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and repeated its position that it was not responsible to replace the concrete in the garden.
  7. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy because her son could not use the garden because of his mobility issues. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s request for concrete in the garden to be re-laid.

  1. The terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for making sure that the gardens, yards, hedges, fences and gates, garages and other outbuildings are maintained in a good and tidy condition and kept free from refuse or unwanted items. The repairs policy set out that the resident is responsible for looking after her home and garden.
  2. Based on the tenancy agreement, there is no obligation for the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s garden. As such, an obligation would only be placed on the landlord if it agreed to carry out the works. The Ombudsman would also expect that the landlord considers any vulnerabilities in the household when carrying out its repair obligations.
  3. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she moved to the property on medical grounds. She said that the operative for the landlord at the tenancy sign-up agreed that it would carry out the repair in the garden. She further advised that repair operatives for the landlord inspected the garden and confirmed that it would complete the repair.
  4. Although the resident has said that the landlord made this commitment, we cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record of its operatives ever committing to carry out the repair. The landlord’s written communication has been consistent in advising the resident that it is not responsible for the repair.
  5. The resident advised the Ombudsman that an OT contacted the landlord on behalf of her son to request works to be completed to the garden, however, there is no written documentation of this from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord carried out a vulnerability assessment for the resident at tenancy sign-up that assessed the resident’s vulnerability as low. Based on the evidence, the landlord first became aware of the resident’s son’s mobility issues when she raised the initial repair request for the garden. Although the landlord confirmed that it is not responsible for the garden, there is evidence that it offered to complete patch work to the area of most concern. This was over and above its obligations and demonstrates that the landlord considered the vulnerability in the household.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for concrete in the garden to be re-laid. This is because it had no obligation to complete the repair and effectively communicated its position through its complaint responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for concrete in the garden to be re-laid.