Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202408145)

Decision
Case ID	202408145
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 March 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property with a wet room by way of a mutual exchange in June 2021. She has complained about the landlord’s decision to not install a bath into the adapted wet room.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of the residents:
   1. Request for a bath to be installed in the wet room.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration with the request for a bath to be installed in the wet room.
   2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acted in line with its conditions of tenancy to the resident’s request to install a bath.
5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timeframe. It did not acknowledge the delay within its complaint responses and did not provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the detriment caused to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delaying the complaint handling process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 January 2024	The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s decision to not allow her to install a bath within the wet room.
14 March 2024	The landlord spoke to the resident provided it’s stage 1 response over the phone. It said it could not give permission to install a bath as the property was adapted for potential future tenants who required a wet room. The resident asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
26 March 2024	The landlord issued its written stage 1 response. It said it would not install a bath into the wet room and the resident needed its permission to make alterations unless she bought the property. It also said the resident was aware the property had a wet room when she accepted the tenancy.
2 May 2024	The landlord issued its formal stage 2 response. It reiterated its stage 1 response and said the resident did not have a disability requirement for a bath and it would not give permission to change the wet room.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her request to install a bath. She asked for the landlord to give her permission to do so.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Request to install a bath in the wet room
Finding	No maladministration

6. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy said a tenant must get written permission to make improvements within the property. There is no explicit policy which directly stated the landlord’s view on changing adapted homes. However, the condition’s of tenancy implied the landlord owned the property and it is for it to decide what change’s could be made to its property.
7. The resident agreed a mutual exchange in June 2023. She agreed to the property in its current state, which included a wet room. The evidence does not show what information the landlord provided about the wet room at the point of mutual exchange, and the resident has not supplied documents to demonstrate that any information was missing. In November 2023, she requested permission to install a bath in the wet room.
8. Between November 2023 and March 2024, the resident and landlord communicated about the request. It asked her why she required a bath and informed her of the process. This included the involvement of occupational health to confirm any reasonable adjustment the family needed for a bath. The resident informed the landlord she preferred a bath and did not have any reasonable adjustments.
9. In March 2024 the landlord informed the resident it would not install a bath. This was because the property was an adapted property and she had no reasonable adjustments for a bath. It said she agreed to the property with the wet room and she could not make any alterations without its permission. This was in line with the landlord’s conditions of tenancy where a resident must ask permission before making home improvements.
10. The internal emails between landlord departments in November 2023, the resident confirmed she agreed to the property as ‘seen’, but said it had not explained this to her at the time of the mutual exchange. She believed the disability element of the property would no longer be applicable once she moved in as her family had no disabilities to consider. She said the mutual exchange took place as the previous tenant could not find another family who required a wet room. If the resident had concerns about the wet room, she should have ensured that she could make changes prior to moving in.
11. In the landlord’s communication to the resident in March and May 2024, it said it would only replace a wet room when there was a disability need because of the cost. It also said it must keep the wet room in case a future tenant required an adapted home. The resident offered to pay for the bath herself, but the landlord refused. This was a reasonable response in line with the conditions of tenancy policy where it does not have to agree to a resident’s request to change a property. It considered her requested and clearly explained why it would not agree to the change.
12. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s request to install a bath in line with its conditions of tenancy policy. It also clearly explained the reasons for its decisions. For this reason, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to install a bath.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
14. The resident raised a complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. It spoke via telephone with the resident on 14 March 2024 and confirmed it could not install a bath. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation in line with its policy.
15. The landlord provided a written stage 1 response on 26 March 2024. This is 39 working days after the resident complained. This was not in line with the timeframe in the Code, which said stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses, which was a failing.
16. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 May 2024. This is 34 working days after the resident escalated the complaint during a phone call on 14 March 2024. This was not in line with the timeframe in the Code, which says stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses, which was a failing.
17. Overall, the landlord did not meet the Code timescales for either stage response and it did not acknowledge the delays. Nor did the landlord acknowledge the complaint at either stage with the resident. This resulted in the resident waiting an extended period of time for an outcome of her complaint. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
18. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there is a failing by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

19. The landlord may wish to review our centre for learning and the complaints handling guidance to avoid delays in responding to resident’s complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. In this case, there was no evidence of issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

21. It may help the landlord to consider offering clearer guidance to residents moving into adapted properties about how alteration requests are generally approached. This could support residents to make informed choices before completing an exchange and may reduce the need for clarification later.