Nottingham's 50p Toilet Barriers: Vandalism, Repeated Downtime and No Value-for-Money Assessment

By Lee Odams

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are my own and are written in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of the RMT Union, my employer, or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

I recently wrote about the findings of a Freedom of Information request concerning Nottingham City Council's Greyhound Street public toilets.

That first response raised some serious questions.

It showed more than 43,000 recorded visits during 2025, operating costs of approximately £76,000, no assessment of the impact of the charging arrangements on bus drivers or transport workers, and no review of the effectiveness of the charging scheme.

Those answers led me to ask further questions.

In particular, I wanted to know more about the barriers themselves: vandalism, breakdowns, repairs, periods when payment could not be collected and, fundamentally, whether Nottingham City Council has ever established that the charging and barrier system actually represents value for money.

The Council has now responded to my second Freedom of Information request, reference IG-23318.

The response raises considerably more questions.

Vandalism Has Taken the Gates Offline

We no longer need to speculate about whether vandalism has affected the charging system.

Nottingham City Council has confirmed it.

In explaining periods during which the Greyhound Street charging gates recorded no transactions, the Council identifies the reasons as including:

- gate vandalism resulting in the gates being taken offline;

- vandalism requiring temporary closure of the toilets;

- maintenance and repair work, including vandalism-related repairs; and

- scheduled closures such as public holidays.

That is important.

I have previously heard anecdotal reports from people using the facility that the barriers have been vandalised and have sometimes been left open.

I deliberately did not present those reports as established fact.

We now have confirmation from the Council itself that vandalism has damaged the gates, resulted in them being taken offline and, on occasions, contributed to the toilets being temporarily closed.

The Extent of Zero-Transaction Periods

The Council has also disclosed the dates on which the charging gates recorded zero transactions.

The list is substantial.

It includes periods such as:

- 3 June to 29 June 2025;

- 1 July to 7 July 2025;

- 16 July to 25 July 2025;

- 3 August to 19 August 2025;

- 15 November to 30 November 2025;

- 19 December to 31 December 2025;

- and, with limited exceptions, 1 January to 10 February 2026.

There are numerous other individual days and shorter periods listed by the Council.

It is important to be accurate here.

The Council has not said that every one of these zero-transaction days resulted from vandalism.

Its explanation includes vandalism, maintenance and repair work, technical servicing and scheduled closures such as Christmas Day.

Nevertheless, the extent of the periods during which no gate transactions were recorded deserves scrutiny.

For a system whose purpose is to control paid access to a public facility, availability and uptime surely matter.

Which leads to another surprising finding.

The Council Doesn't Monitor Barrier Uptime

I asked for performance indicators and management reporting relating to matters including availability, barrier uptime, payment-system uptime, faults, vandalism, repairs and income.

The answer was clear.

The Council says it does not hold dedicated performance reports, performance indicators, service standards or monitoring reports specifically covering:

- barrier uptime;

- payment-system uptime;

- free-access periods;

- availability;

- faults;

- vandalism;

- repairs;

- income;

- or similar performance measures.

It also says it holds no regular reports on these matters supplied to Facilities Management, senior officers, councillors, finance officers or contractors.

I find that difficult to understand.

If public money is being spent operating and maintaining a charging system, surely some of the most basic questions should be:

How reliably does it work?

How often is it unavailable?

How much does it cost to maintain?

How much income does it generate?

How much income is lost when it isn't working?

Those are not unreasonable questions.

They are basic questions of management and accountability.

No Value-for-Money Assessment

This, for me, is the most significant finding in the entire response.

I specifically asked how Nottingham City Council assesses whether the charging and barrier system represents value for money.

I asked for any business case, options appraisal, cost-benefit analysis, post-implementation review, performance report, management report, budget-monitoring report, risk register, internal audit, briefing note, meeting minutes or correspondence concerning the effectiveness or cost of the system.

The Council says it holds none of them.

It also says it holds no recorded analysis comparing income from the system against equipment and installation costs, payment-processing costs, planned maintenance, reactive maintenance, repairs following damage, security, cleaning and staffing costs, periods when payment could not be collected, or the previous operating model.

That deserves repeating.

Nottingham City Council says it holds no recorded value-for-money assessment of the Greyhound Street charging and barrier system.

For me, that raises a very simple question:

How does the Council know whether the system represents value for money if it has never undertaken or recorded that assessment?

Does the System Actually Achieve What It Is Supposed to Achieve?

I went further.

I asked for the evidence used by the Council to determine whether the charging and barrier system has:

- reduced antisocial behaviour;

- reduced vandalism;

- improved security;

- improved cleanliness;

- reduced operating costs;

- increased income;

- improved public access;

- or delivered the outcomes anticipated when charging was introduced.

Again, the answer was clear.

The Council says it holds no recorded assessment, review, analysis or report measuring any of those outcomes.

This is where I believe the Council needs to be held properly to account.

This isn't about opposing something simply for the sake of opposing it.

If a charging system works, delivers identifiable benefits, represents good value for taxpayers and improves the facility, the Council should be able to demonstrate that.

Equally, if a system is repeatedly damaged, incurs substantial maintenance costs, experiences significant periods where transactions aren't recorded and its effectiveness has never been evaluated, the public is entitled to ask why it continues in its present form.

We Still Don't Know What Vandalism Has Cost

One of the main purposes of my follow-up request was to establish exactly how much money has been spent repairing damage to the barriers.

Unfortunately, we still don't have that answer.

The Council says reactive repairs are recorded as maintenance works but are not categorised according to whether the cause was vandalism, forced entry, criminal damage, equipment failure, wear and tear or something else.

It says information may exist across Facilities Management, Finance and Procurement records, including invoices, purchase orders and individual maintenance records, but identifying and extracting it would exceed the £450 Freedom of Information cost limit.

For approximately 45 reactive maintenance entries already identified, the Council estimates that reviewing the associated records would require around 22.5 hours of officer time, exceeding the statutory 18-hour cost threshold.

So we know vandalism has occurred.

We know vandalism has taken gates offline.

We know vandalism-related repairs have taken place.

But the Council's recording arrangements mean we still cannot establish from this response exactly how much that vandalism has cost the taxpayer.

Record Keeping Raises Further Questions

The response explains why obtaining that answer is so difficult.

Maintenance activity is recorded through corporate work-management and financial systems, but repairs are not separately categorised as vandalism, criminal damage, forced entry, barrier failure or free-access operation.

More surprisingly, the Council says it holds no specific assessment of whether its current record keeping is adequate, no recorded discussion about improving the recording of vandalism, barrier faults, downtime or repair causes, and no recorded explanation addressing how expenditure and contractor performance are monitored where incidents and their causes are not consistently recorded.

That raises another straightforward question.

If the Council doesn't record the causes of these repairs consistently, how can it properly understand what is driving the maintenance bill?

And without understanding that, how can it determine whether changes to the system might save public money?

The Contractors Are Identified — But No Warranty Information Is Held

The Council identifies the suppliers or contractors responsible for the barrier and payment system as Willings Services Limited and Nayax Ltd.

However, it says it does not hold warranty, maintenance or servicing provisions, nor records categorising repairs according to whether they were undertaken inside or outside warranty arrangements.

Again, that doesn't prove that no warranty or contractual arrangements ever existed.

It means that, in response to this FOI request, the Council says it does not hold the requested information.

But it is another area where greater transparency would be useful.

Public Toilets Matter

There is a wider point here which shouldn't get lost amongst spreadsheets, barriers and maintenance records.

Public toilets matter.

They matter to older people.

They matter to disabled people and people with medical conditions.

They matter to parents with young children.

They matter to people working in Nottingham city centre.

And they certainly matter to bus drivers and other transport workers who can spend hours away from a depot without guaranteed access to welfare facilities.

As a bus driver myself, I know exactly what it is like to be out on a route and desperately need a toilet.

You use whatever legitimate facility is available — a supermarket, café, pub, betting shop or public convenience.

It is a basic human need.

That is why I have continued looking at this issue.

This Is About Accountability

Local government finances are under enormous pressure. I recognise that.

Councils have difficult decisions to make and public services cost money.

But precisely because money is tight, the public should be able to expect proper scrutiny of how it is being spent.

If Nottingham's Greyhound Street charging system is good value for money, demonstrate it.

If the barriers reduce antisocial behaviour, demonstrate it.

If they improve security, demonstrate it.

If the income they generate outweighs the costs associated with operating, maintaining and repeatedly repairing them, demonstrate it.

At present, Nottingham City Council's own Freedom of Information response says it holds no recorded assessment capable of demonstrating those things.

That isn't an accusation.

It is what the Council's own response tells us.

And when public money and an important public facility are involved, I believe we are entitled to keep asking questions until we understand the full picture.

I will be doing exactly that.

---

About the Author

Lee Odams is a professional bus driver, Branch Secretary of the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch, and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.

He writes in a personal capacity about public transport, bus worker safety and welfare, accessibility, public services and transport policy, drawing on his experience within the bus industry and his wider campaigning work.

The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of the RMT Union, his employer, or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

---

Tags

Nottingham City Council, Nottingham, Greyhound Street, Greyhound Street Toilets, Nottingham Public Toilets, Public Toilets, 50p Toilets, Toilet Charges, Toilet Dignity, Freedom of Information, FOI, Local Government, Council Spending, Public Money, Value for Money, Council Accountability, Public Services, Public Facilities, Vandalism, Barrier Vandalism, Maintenance Costs, Public Toilet Access, Accessibility, Bus Drivers, Transport Workers, Bus Driver Welfare, Public Transport, Bus Industry, RMT, Nottinghamshire, City Centre, Transport Campaigning, Lee Odams