London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202412013)

Background

1. The resident lives with her adult daughter. The landlord’s records show that both household members have health vulnerabilities. The landlord damaged the resident’s cast iron bath during a roof repair. She was unhappy with the standard sized, acrylic bath replacement offered by the landlord. She asked for a like–for–like replacement bath for her daughter’s vulnerability and the bathroom’s tiling.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bath.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bath
   2. the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. made reasonable offers to meet its bath repair and replacement obligations
   2. acknowledged its delay escalating the resident’s complaint and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. The resident says she experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

6. The landlord is responsible for keeping installations for sanitation in repair and proper working order. If a bath is damaged and unusable, the landlord must repair or replace it. The landlord’s repair policy acknowledges this responsibility.
7. The landlord does not dispute damaging the resident’s bath. While there is no evidence that the bath was unusable, the landlord accepted that it could not repair the damage and therefore offered to replace it. Its offer was appropriate and consistent with its obligations to repair or replace such fittings in the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs policy.
8. However, the resident did not want the landlord to fit a standard sized bath as it was smaller than her existing bath. As such, it would affect the wall tiles she had installed about 25 years earlier. She considered the landlord responsible for restoring her bathroom to the position it was in before it damaged her bath.
9. There is no requirement under the resident’s tenancy agreement or the landlord’s policy for it to replace an item like-for-like. The landlord instead has to make sure the resident has a functional bath, fit for purpose. Therefore, it was appropriate and its responsibility for the landlord to offer to replace the resident’s bath due to the damage it had caused. And for it to offer the resident £50 goodwill compensation for its communication about this. As the bath was usable, it was the resident’s choice not to accept the landlord’s offers at this stage.
10. The resident says the landlord initially agreed to replace the cast iron bath like-for-like but later changed its position. We have found no evidence which we can use to support the resident’s account of this.
11. The resident accepts that bath sizes have changed in recent years. However, her position is the landlord should have treated her original bath as a standard item for her home and replaced it like-for-like. The resident says she had decorated her bathroom around the bath and considered the bath size suitable for the needs of vulnerable household members.
12. Given this, the landlord’s primary duty was to repair or replace the bath. It accepted that, by doing so, the resident would experience an effect on her decoration. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to offer to install a row of new tiles to make good the affected decoration. This is because its policy said it would make good any surfaces affected by its repairs.
13. It is reasonable that the landlord would not have been able to match the tiles the resident had installed about 25 years earlier. Therefore, its offer to install a complete row of new tiles was reasonable. This showed the landlord recognised the need to make good the decoration affected by the modern standard sized bath. While this may not have been the resident’s preference, the landlord had no obligation to offer more.
14. The landlord has an obligation to complete repairs as well as appropriately manage its budgets and resources. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide an occupational therapist’s report, or supporting medical evidence, to agree a non-standard like-for-like bath replacement. This is because such a report or evidence would have shown that there was a medical need and allowed it to justify using its budgets and resources for this. The evidence shows the resident was unable to provide this.
15. Based on our findings, the landlord’s offers to replace the damaged bath met its legal obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement and its policy. While the resident wanted a like-for-like replacement and full retiling, the agreement and policy did not require this.
16. The landlord has to provide a functional bath, not to restore the property to its previous decoration. Its offer to install a row of new tiles was a reasonable attempt to make good the affected area. Its approach was proportionate and reasonable, given the absence of evidence that the bath was unusable and the resident’s inability to provide supporting medical information.
17. It was the resident’s decision to replace the bath herself. Therefore, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. We have recommended it reoffer the resident the £50 goodwill compensation it offered for its communication for this.
18. In conversation with us in November 2025, the resident said the landlord became responsible for her property in or around 2008. However, she says the landlord knows little of her household’s background or circumstances. We have therefore recommended the landlord contacts the resident and offers to update its records if the resident wants to discuss this.

19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It also requires landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord’s complaints procedure was in line with the Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 15 January 2024 stage 1 complaint within one working day, on 16 January 2024. This was consistent with the Code.
21. However, the evidence shows the resident tried to escalate her complaint on or around 13 February 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 April 2024 accepted that an administration error caused a delay until 2 April 2024 to acknowledge her request. This meant its stage 2 acknowledgement and response were 29 and 30 working days late, respectively.
22. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer £80 compensation. This offer was consistent with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such delays in getting matters resolved and so we have recommended that it re-offer this to the resident.
23. In addition, the landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its repair obligations and it made another request for the resident to provide supporting medical evidence. This was reasonable and showed the landlord using its complaints process to consider the resident’s position.
24. Furthermore, the landlord also gave the resident its insurance details due to her claims of damage it had caused. This was also reasonable and showed the landlord taking steps to make sure the resident had the necessary information if she wanted to make a claim.
25. Therefore, based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord acknowledged that an administration error delayed its handling of the resident’s escalation request. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation as redress.

Communication

27. The landlord showed reasonable communication with the resident throughout this matter, apart from in its handling of her stage 2 complaint. However, the resident said the landlord has little awareness of her household circumstances. In light of this, the landlord may benefit from offering the resident an opportunity to share any relevant needs to support future engagement.
28. The resident says she offered to contribute to the cost of a new cast iron bath. While the landlord had no obligation to agree to this offer, it may have been helpful to explain its reason for refusing this to the resident.