Platform Housing Group Limited (202534283)

Decision
Case ID	202534283
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Platform Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 May 2026

Background

1. The resident told the landlord her health condition made it difficult to use her bath and toilet safely, and asked it to replace them. In March 2025, an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed the home, recommended replacement, and the landlord referred the request to its adaptations team. The resident contacted the landlord several times over the next 5 months, saying the delay affected her mental health.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations to her bathroom.
3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s request for adaptations to her bathroom.
5. There was no maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to fund the adaptations.
7. The landlord recognised it had failed to respond to the resident’s adaptation request within a reasonable timeframe. It acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience that this caused.
8. To put things right, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered her compensation. It advised her how to make an insurance claim for the impact she said the matter had on her mental health. It confirmed it had implemented actions as a result of the learning it had identified from her case.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident bought a raised toilet seat and no longer requires the toilet to be replaced. The landlord should contact the resident to: confirm the estimated cost and categorisation of the bath replacement only any assistance it can give if she needs to contact the council about a DFG whether it can repair the bath handles in the meantime
The landlord should consider including details of timeframes, and what happens when a council declines a DFG application, in its major adaptations policy and procedures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 August 2025	The landlord received the resident’s complaint. The resident said she had asked for a new bath in February 2025, because the current one could not hold her bath seat. She explained she found it difficult to use the bath safely because of the location of the taps and shower hose. The bath handles were loose and there was a crack. She felt ignored by the landlord and asked for a response.
27 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint to the resident.
10 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It: confirmed the timeline of events it had identified explained the adaptation was outside its remit and it wanted the local council to fund the works through a DFG upheld her complaint because it had not explained this to her sooner apologised and offered her £75 for the delay in updating her about the case, £150 for poor communication, and £100 for inconvenience and frustration explained how to make an insurance claim said it was working with the relevant team to identify ways to avoid delays and to keep residents well informed in future
11 September 2025	The landlord received the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She asked for more compensation and for the landlord to carry out the adaptations. She was concerned the landlord had lost her emails about the adaptations and that this caused the delay.
18 September 2025	The landlord confirmed to the resident it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
15 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: upheld the stage 1 response clarified that it had not lost the resident’s emails, but recognised it had not acted on them until her complaint offered to fit grab rails over the bath while the resident waited for a decision from the council regarding the DFG
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted the Ombudsman Service in November 2025. She wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, and to either replace or rotate her bath.

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 for adaptations
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, and its guidance for residents, confirms that anything costing over £1,500 is treated as a major adaptation. The landlord estimated the replacement of the bath and toilet to cost over this amount.
10. The landlord specifies it expects the local council to fund major adaptations through a DFG. It expects residents to make a direct application to the council, which is what the landlord asked the resident to do.
11. The landlord’s guidance says it can often take up to a year to receive a decision from a council. The landlord’s delay in responding to the resident prevented her from raising the matter earlier. It was appropriate that it acknowledged the impact of this delay in its complaint responses.
12. The landlord identified it had missed the resident’s request due to the volume of adaptations work it was handling. It committed to making improvements to avoid this in future.
13. The landlord’s policy confirms it is able to make exceptions and pay for major adaptations itself. It must balance its responsibility to the resident with its responsibility to manage its financial budgets. The OT report did not clearly state how necessary the council considered the adaptations. Given the OT suggested a bath board as a possible alternative, it was reasonable the landlord sought further information from them before making a decision.
14. The landlord tried to contact the OT directly after the resident complained, but the resident expressed dissatisfaction with this approach. It was reasonable that it did not contact the OT again after this. It was also reasonable for the landlord to wait for the DFG decision before it advised the resident of its position regarding the replacements.
15. The landlord’s records show its offer to install grab rails was made in response to the resident’s complaint that the bath handles were loose. This was a reasonable thing for it to do, with the knowledge it had at that time. The resident told us she did not accept this offer. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to confirm whether it can repair the handles while she waits for a decision on the adaptations.
16. The crack in the bath did not cause any immediate issue beyond cosmetic damage. The OT report said it was damaged when it was installed. It is reasonable that the landlord focussed on the resident’s core request, which was for the bath to be rotated or replaced. It may have provided additional reassurance it had fully understood the issues she raised, if it had included reference to this matter in its responses.
17. Overall, the landlord showed effort to put things right. It apologised, offered compensation, and identified points of learning. Its offers of compensation, which it has paid to the resident, were consistent with our guidance on compensation.
18. The resident told us the matter is still unresolved, and she is not clear whether the council has refused her DFG request. The issues with the bath still affect her. While the landlord’s complaint response was proportionate, it could have resolved the issue sooner if it explained she should inform it of the council’s decision.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
20. The landlord’s records show it recognised the different points the resident raised to it in her complaint. Its evidence shows it conducted a thorough investigation to establish what had gone wrong. It acknowledged and responded to her complaint on time at both stages.
21. The landlord sought to improve the situation for the resident while she waited for the DFG decision. It demonstrated empathy with her situation.
22. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to submit an insurance claim regarding the impact on her mental health. Providing its insurance details in its complaint responses was consistent with its policies.

 

 

Learning

23. The landlord identified that its adaptations team dealt with a high volume of requests compared to its size. It said it would work with the team to identify ways to keep residents informed and avoid delays.
24. The landlord’s adaptations procedure says it aims to complete minor adaptations within 21 days of a request. The landlord may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to have timeframes attached to its major adaptations procedures.
25. The landlord may wish to consider whether it would be helpful for its policy to include details of its approach when a council declines a DFG application.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s records show it did receive and keep a record of the resident’s contacts with it. It also kept detailed record of its internal communications regarding the matter.

Communication

27. The landlord identified a failure in communication between its adaptations team and its surveyor. It committed to identifying learning to improve communication between teams and prevent similar issues in future.
28. The landlord contacted the council directly after it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It explained it had done this to avoid further delay but recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction that it had not told her first. 
29. The landlord could have explained more clearly that the resident should contact it after she received the council’s decision. This includes if the council refused the request.