Harlow District Council (202452930)

Decision
Case ID	202452930
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Harlow District Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

The resident moved into the property by a mutual exchange on 26 July 2021. On 9 August 2024 she told the landlord that the previous tenant had carried out works to the bathroom before she moved in. She said the wet room had been replaced with a bath and the bathroom did not have a sink. She asked the landlord for help and offered to pay for the works through a payment plan.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a recharge for bathroom works.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a recharge for bathroom works.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Overall, the landlord acted reasonably when deciding that some bathroom works were the resident’s responsibility. However, there was poor communication, weak record keeping and a lack of transparency in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident avoidable distress and uncertainty.
The landlord’s complaint responses complied with the Complaint Handling Code because it gave the resident a decision to her complaint and explained its reasons.

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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of a recharge for bathroom works. 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 27 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the bathroom to discuss a scope of works with her before obtaining a new quote. Following the inspection, the landlord must write to the resident and provide a full scope of works, which clearly: Sets out what works are required. States which works it considers her responsible for and the reasons why. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 10 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: The bathroom was in disrepair when she moved into the property. She said she could not afford the repairs. The bathroom had no sink, the toilet barely worked and the bath leaked. The room below the bathroom was damp where the bath had leaked and the electrics did not work. She received a letter about planned works in her area. She said she believed other residents would have work completed for free. The recharge cost of £4,905 was too high. She wanted the landlord to complete works to the bathroom without her being recharged.
7 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It had no record of the resident reporting the bathroom as being in disrepair after she moved in. It said it was a condition of her tenancy to report any repair and maintenance issues. It inspected on 29 August 2024 and agreed to install a new bathroom. It said it told the resident the work would be rechargeable as it had evidence there was a wet room previously in situ and it could not confirm that the previous tenant was responsible for the current condition. It was sorry for the delay in the resident receiving the bathroom quote. It would not be required to get more than one quote in line with its procurement procedure. It said the resident could obtain her own quotes and complete the work herself via the resident alteration procedure. The resident had 14 days to decide if she would complete the works herself or if she would proceed with the recharge. It said after that time it would refer the case to its legal department for an injunction. Stock condition surveys are carried out to all properties. It does not mean properties will immediately receive any works. The property had a functioning bathing facility when she moved in and it had been removed before its expected replacement date. The landlord would recharge the resident as it was incurring costs that would not be needed if the works did not take place.
11 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The landlord did not have enough evidence to justify the recharge or legal action. She said the inspection photographs did not show that she carried out unauthorised works. Delays in providing recharge information prevented her from properly considering the landlord’s decision The landlord did not carry out a formal investigation after she reported the bathroom’s condition. The landlord had not clearly explained how it calculated the costs. She asked how contractor rates were benchmarked, how value for money was ensured, whether comparable quotes were obtained. She requested a full cost breakdown, including labour, materials, and overheads. She wanted the landlord to reconsider its decision to recharge her as she felt it did not have conclusive evidence.
10 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It followed its contract standing orders for procurement which are in place to ensure value for money and governs the number of quotes required. The quote was benchmarked against contract pricing the landlord receives for routine repairs and replacement of items such as bathrooms. It said the quote was less than contractor rates it pays for similar work. It found the rates were competitive with the current market. Its decision to recharge the repair works was based on standard viewing and acceptance procedures when dealing with mutual exchanges. A wet room was shown in photos from the mutual exchange inspection and the resident did not report a change in the condition once she moved in.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary, the resident said the landlord did not have enough evidence to justify the recharge. She said the landlord had not provided a detailed cost breakdown, and its delayed communication did not allow her to challenge the recharge.

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	The landlord’s handling of a recharge for bathroom works
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that residents are responsible for any fixings or fittings they have installed or previous tenants have installed which they now enjoy.
The landlord does not have a recharge policy. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires repairs to be reported promptly and states the resident may be recharged for unauthorised works.
In our view the resident was responsible for some bathroom works for the following reasons:
1. The landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection on 2 July 2021. This recorded non-standard items, including a shower unit, wet room and wall tiles. On 13 July 2021 the resident signed a disclaimer accepting the property’s condition and confirming the landlord would not repair, replace, or reinstate non-standard items after the tenancy began.
2. The resident did not report bathroom disrepair until 3 years into her tenancy, which limited the landlord’s ability to investigate. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information available from the mutual exchange inspection when making its decision.
The landlord provided us with photographs of the bathroom taken on 29 August 2024. These showed a bath installed instead of a wet room, no sink, and missing or damaged tiles. There is no evidence of further communication between the resident and landlord until 24 January 2025, when the landlord provided her with a bathroom works recharge form totalling £4,905. It provided a cost breakdown to the resident 2 working days later.
The landlord has not evidenced how it decided the scope of works or why it considered the full bathroom refurbishment to be the resident’s responsibility. The recharge included fixtures, such as a toilet, which were not recorded as non‑standard at the time of the mutual exchange inspection. It is unclear whether the toilet had been changed since then. As a result, the landlord has not shown that recharging the resident for the full bathroom refurbishment was fair or proportionate. It should have clearly set out the scope of works, and the reasons for each element of the recharge so the resident could understand the decision.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s specific queries, including concerns about duplicate flooring costs, what the decorating costs included and the specification of fittings. As the resident’s queries remained unanswered, the landlord did not act reasonably when telling the resident that the matter would be referred for an injunction if she did not make a decision within 14 days. The landlord’s approach lacked transparency.
The landlord told the resident it benchmarked the bathroom quote and ensured value for money. It was positive that it also advised the resident she could obtain her own contractor and quotes through its resident alteration procedure. However, the landlord has not evidenced it completed the additional benchmarking it said it had in its stage 2 response. It did not provide us with this information or its procurement procedure when requested. The landlord should have a clear audit trail to support its decision making.
Overall, we consider that the landlord acted reasonably when deciding that some bathroom works were the resident’s responsibility. However, its handling of the matter was undermined by poor communication, weak record keeping, and a lack of transparency. The landlord has not demonstrated how it decided what works were required or why fixtures not identified as non‑standard were rechargeable. It failed to answer reasonable questions asked by the resident to enable her to understand the recharge costs. The absence of a clear audit trail also undermines confidence that the landlord’s stated actions were completed. This caused the resident avoidable distress and uncertainty.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The landlord and resident have both told us that no works have been completed to the bathroom as an agreement has not been made about the recharge.
The landlord obtained the bathroom quote in December 2024. As contractor quotes are usually time limited, a further quote may now be required. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect the bathroom and discuss a scope of works with the resident before obtaining a new quote. This is to put the resident back in a position where she can make an informed decision about the recharge. Following the inspection, the landlord must write to the resident and provide a full scope of works, which clearly:
1. Sets out what works are required.
2. States which repairs it considers the resident responsible for and the reasons why.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 3 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgment and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
The landlord provided acknowledgment and responses at both stages of the complaints process on time.
The landlord’s complaint responses complied with the Complaint Handling Code because it gave the resident a decision on her complaint and explained its reasons.

Learning

There is learning for the landlord to take from this case. It may wish to develop a documented recharge policy and procedure. A formal framework would support consistent and evidence‑based decision making, set clear expectations for residents, and ensure recharges are explained transparently and applied fairly

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure it maintains clear and accurate records to support its decision making. This includes documenting inspections, the scope of works, how responsibility is determined, and any benchmarking or procurement activity relied upon. A clear audit trail supports transparency, enables effective responses to resident queries, and provides assurance that decisions are fair and evidence based.

Communication

The landlord should ensure its communication with residents regarding recharges is clear. It should provide full explanations of decisions and respond to residents’ reasonable queries. Clear communication, supported by evidence, is essential to ensure residents understand the basis for charges and are able to make informed decisions.