Council did not progress agreed works to home of disabled woman within appropriate timescales, Ombudsman finds

The Ombudsman found the resulting delay was “significant” and affected the complainant’s ability to use her home in a way that met her needs.

The woman behind the complaint, Ms X, was a council tenant with several health conditions affecting her mobility.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman noted that following completion of a previous investigation by the Ombudsman, the council had agreed to take several actions to consider adapting Ms X’s home.

This included arranging a meeting with Ms X, an Occupational Therapist (OT), and a project officer or surveyor to explore all viable adaptation options and then make a fresh decision on what works were necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practicable.

The council also agreed to progress a step-lift to improve Ms X’s access into and out of her property.

In July 2024, the council arranged a joint visit involving an OT and a design professional, followed by a further meeting with Ms X in August to discuss proposed options.

In September 2024, the council identified a preferred scheme: a ground floor extension to provide a bedroom and bathroom for Ms X.

In October 2024, the council sought planning permission for the proposed ground floor extension. Planning permission was granted in December 2024.

The OT then completed another assessment of Ms X’s functional abilities in January 2025. The assessment concluded that Ms X needed some minor adaptations to ensure safe access to her kitchen and bathroom.

In March 2025, Ms X contacted the council to express frustration due to the ongoing delays with completing the agreed step lift.

The council arranged for the installation of the step lift in May 2025. Shortly after, Ms X contacted the council to express frustration that contractors had not re-installed her gate following the works.

Ms X also said she was still waiting to receive a timeline for the agreed extension.

After identifying a suitable contractor to complete the ground floor extension, the council made contact in November 2025 in an attempt to confirm a start date.

On 28 November 2025, the OT emailed Ms X to explain the contractor had not confirmed a start date due to their workload and competing demands.

The council provided another update in early January 2026, repeating a similar message. At the end of January 2026, the contractor told the council they could no longer complete the works.

The council arranged a meeting in February 2026 to consider ways to speed up the process following the contractor’s decision to withdraw. It agreed to move forward with obtaining another quote and arranged an appointment in March with a prospective contractor.

In April 2026, the council arranged a ground works survey which identified no issues.

Around this time, the council said Ms X may need to temporarily move out of her property to allow for the building works to progress safely.

The council held a further meeting in May 2026 and confirmed that Ms X would need to move temporarily due to the constraints of the site.

While Ms X initially declined to move, she later agreed to stay with a family member if necessary.

Considering Ms X’s complaint, the Ombudsman observed that the council took over a year to allocate a project officer and a further period to reach a decision, which it previously found to be fault.

The report noted: “Since then, there has been further delay in progressing the agreed works, such that several years have now passed without the necessary adaptations being installed. Some factors contributing to the delay are outside the council’s direct control, for example the first contractor’s decision to withdraw. However, this does not remove the council’s overall responsibility for progressing the works.”

The report noted that between June 2025 and June 2026, Ms X remained without access to the adaptations needed to meet her downstairs living needs.

The Ombudsman said: “While the council offered interim measures, such as a commode and a temporary downstairs bedroom, these did not fully address her needs. The delay in completing the works caused Ms X avoidable injustice.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Apologise to Ms X for the ongoing delays and pay £4,450 to recognise the impact of the reduced living facilities she has experienced since July 2024.
• Put in place a system to actively monitor the progress of adaptation works after a decision has been made, including clear deadlines and escalation arrangements when delays happen.
• If building works do not commence as planned by August 2026, the council should make an additional payment of £150 per month for a maximum of six months to reflect any continuing injustice.

A Nottingham City Council spokesperson said: “Nottingham City Council acknowledges the Ombudsman's findings and accepts the recommendations made.

“This case involved a complex adaptation within a council-owned property, where a number of factors, including technical and groundworks requirements, affected the timescales for delivery.

“The council recognises the impact that delays can have on residents and is committed to learning from this case. We will continue to work across our services to strengthen coordination and improve the delivery of adaptations, helping to ensure residents receive support as quickly and effectively as possible.”

Lottie Winson