Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202430813)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430813

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

28 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of damaged flooring.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 31 July 2024 the landlord completed an asbestos survey prior to a kitchen refurbishment. The resident reported to the landlord that this survey had left holes in the kitchen flooring.
  3. On 19 August 2024 the landlord offered replacement flooring to the resident. The landlord uses approved flooring in 3 colours and this was offered to the resident. However, the resident was not happy with the flooring offered. The landlord explained she could fit flooring of her own choice but it would not be responsible for the upkeep or repair.
  4. On 20 August 2024 the resident refused the landlord’s offer as she wanted a like-for-like replacement for the flooring damaged by the landlord’s contractor. She also asked about tiles as she said she was aware other residents had had floor tiles fitted. The resident confirmed she wanted to make a complaint.
  5. On 9 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that it had offered the resident 3 colours of durable and hardwearing safety flooring, suitable for heavy traffic areas such as the kitchen. It also explained that the asbestos check was a necessary part of the preparation for the kitchen refurbishment to keep both its operatives and residents safe. It apologised for the damage and said the refurbishment already included flooring replacement. It explained that as learning, it would review the colour choices offered.
  6. On the same day the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She explained that she was seeking a like-for-like replacement and more durable and hardwearing flooring.
  7. On 11 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated the information provided in the stage 1 complaint letter and provided further details about the flooring it could supply.
  8. The resident subsequently referred the complaint to us as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord’s offer was unfair, explained that like for like replacement was reasonable and the poor-quality flooring offered would not last long.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the premises, including internal walls and floors in good repair. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord’s asbestos policy requires it to identify materials likely to contain asbestos and prevent exposure by taking appropriate action.
  3. The landlord scheduled a full kitchen refurbishment for the resident’s property. This included the replacement of the kitchen flooring, which was 18 years old. Prior to the refurbishment, the landlord had to carry out an asbestos survey. This included accessing the sub-floor of the kitchen. These asbestos checks damaged the existing flooring
  4. The landlord accepted it was responsible for the damaged flooring and offered to install new flooring. In this case the landlord explained the flooring offered was a hardwearing and durable safety flooring which conformed with the slip-resistance specification it was required to install. The landlord’s offer of replacement flooring was reasonable. While the resident believes the flooring offered was inferior quality,  the landlord was not required to provide the resident’s preferred flooring.
  5. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about durability. It provided information about the flooring’s durability and explained that it was suitable for high traffic areas. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns and provided relevant information.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord explained to the resident on 19 August 2024 that she could install her own flooring; however, it would not be responsible for any repairs to it. This was in line with its repair policy which says the resident will be responsible for maintaining fittings that they installed. This was a reasonable suggestion to try to resolve matters. Given that the kitchen flooring was already scheduled to be refitted and the landlord offered the replacement, there was no adverse impact on the resident. The landlord has since completed the kitchen refurbishment and flooring replacement.
  7. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in response to the resident’s reports of damaged flooring.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged flooring.