Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust Limited (202413754)

Decision
Case ID	202413754
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom property with her children. The resident reported in August 2023, that her bath was adapted and requested to be replaced with a standard bath. She reported to the landlord she had joint, back and knee issues causing her pain as well as mental health issues. The landlord referred the resident to an occupational therapist (OT) initially. It inspected the bath in April 2024 and initially decided not to replace the bath. It later agreed to replace it and completed this in January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s request for a new bath.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new bath.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The residents request for a bath

4. The landlord has acknowledged it did not communicate the outcome of the bath inspection and offered £100 in compensation. It did replace the bath which we cannot see it had an obligation to do. While this goes a significant way to redress the detriment to the resident, we found there was additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in raising the bath replacement job and as such a service failure in following up to its final response.

The resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded within the timeframes set out in its policy and procedures.

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 related to the delay in inspecting and replacing the bath. 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 19 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in responding to the residents request for a new bath as it offered during its process. If this has already been paid, we can consider that the landlord complied with this order. 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 19 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord the bath: Was a non-standard previously adapted bath. Had an unusually low water outlet and therefore a shallow water level. Was high and difficult to step into. Had worn grips on the bottom. She said the landlord had inspected the bath and requested it replace the bath. She said she had injured herself due to the condition of the bath. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
2 July 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 response it acknowledged it had not told the resident the outcome of its inspection to explain its decision to not replace the bath. It apologised for this and offered £100 in compensation. It said the bath met standards and it would not replace it.
5 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she remained concerned about the bath. The landlord acknowledged this the same day saying it would respond by 31 July 2024.
31 July 2024	The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in issuing a response and extended to a new deadline on 2 August 2024.
1 August 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 response it reiterated its stage 1 statement that the bath met requirements. It agreed to replace the bath as a goodwill gesture due to her distress. It acknowledged the resident said she had injured herself and apologised, but said the bath was not at fault.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us on 2 August 2024 as she wanted compensation as well as the new bath. She later told us she felt the landlord delayed fitting the new bath and did not communicate about the repair appointments well. She also complaint about damp and mould repairs.

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 response to the resident’s request for a new bath
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told us she slipped and was injured due to the condition of the bath. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of claim as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this element further for this reason. We have considered whether the landlord appropriately handled the resident’s request for new bath and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused.
7. The resident told us she is experiencing ongoing issues with damp, rotting floorboards, and skirting boards which the landlord has not repaired. We have not investigated these issues further as they happened after the resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and are not directly linked to the issue complained of. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, she can raise a complaint directly with the landlord. She can bring it to us for investigation if she is dissatisfied after its final response or she can contact us if she finds it difficult to progress the complaint through the landlord’s process.

Bath replacement

8. The resident first requested a replacement bath on 7 August 2023. She told the landlord she normally used a bath as pain relief for her joint issues and for her mental health issues. The landlord responded signposting her to its adaptations policy and suggested she ask the council’s OT team to assess her. This policy does describe baths as an example of a major adaption and states a referral from an occupational therapist is needed for such adaptations. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to its adaptations policy as she mentioned physical and mental health concerns.
9. After the resident raised this again on 11 September 2023, the landlord unreasonably delayed raising an inspection for 6 months until 19 March 2024. It booked this for 4 April 2024. This delay in raising the inspection job meant it did not inspect the bath within the 28 days in its repairs policy. This meant the resident waited longer for the landlord’s decision than she should have. We cannot see evidence the landlord updated the resident between September 2023 and March 2024. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence of its actions during this delay including any emails from its repairs team considering this issue. This was unreasonable.
10. The landlord’s inspection concluded the overall height of the bath was within a standard range and while it was a specific design, it met standards. It noted the resident had a shower, so she had suitable washing facilities. The landlord decided it did not need replacing and we can see it based this decision on its inspection report which was reasonable. We do not have evidence the landlord’s decision was incorrect; however, it was not promptly communicated to the resident.
11. The landlord did not tell the resident the outcome of the inspection of its decision until its stage 1 response in July 2024. It apologised for this and offered £100 in compensation. The landlord’s policy does not specify a specific payment range for time and inconvenience. However, this was proportionate compensation for its poor communication for 2 months and in line with our remedies guidance for the resident.
12. The landlord’s decision at stage 2 of its process to replace the resident’s bath even though it was not obligated to was a positive response. It also agreed to retile the bathroom to match and fit shower fixtures the resident requested, demonstrating its customer-focussed approach to resolving this complaint. These steps were sufficient to put things right for the resident for its delayed inspection and for poor communication.
13. However, the landlord delayed raising the job to replace the bath for a month. It said it would complete a pre-repair assessment. There was some confusion over the date of the appointment leading to the resident not providing access which the landlord internally noted was not the resident’s fault. We cannot see evidence it did a pre-repair assessment which it told the resident it would do. We have seen emails showing the residents frustration trying to arrange this visit. It planned to fit the bath on 28 and 29 November 2024, which would have been within its 90-day planned repair timescale in its repairs policy despite the initial delay in raising the repair.
14. The landlord says the resident was not happy with the bath offered on the day, whilst the resident says it was the contractor who identified the replacement was unsuitable as it was another shallow bath. It is unclear from the evidence the reason for the new bath being unsuitable on the day and we could not establish this. However, the landlord took further action to complete the repair. We consider it positive and beyond the landlord’s obligations that it decided the resident could choose an alternative she was happy with.
15. The landlord has told us the repair job was completed on 8 January 2025, approximately a month outside of its repair’s timescale. However, the landlord letting the resident freely pick a bath of her choice, does go a long way to redress this inconvenience to the resident caused by its replacement delays and the confusions around the pre-repair assessment. As such while we have identified service failure for the further delay we have not ordered any additional compensation to what the landlord had offered during its complaint process. However, we have ordered the landlord to apologise for its failures.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. Its actions around its acknowledgements at stage 1 and stage 2 were in line with its policy.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and 20 working days of receipt at stage 2. It responded within appropriate timescales at stage 1. While it requested an extension at stage 2, it still responded with 20 working days. Its actions were appropriate and as such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

18. The landlord should consider how in similar situations it can inspect sooner upon reports from resident and keep clear records of its consideration and actions. This will enable it to provide its decision to the resident sooner and evidence its actions.
19. The landlord responded proactively to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the bath by offering a replacement. It was customer-focussed in offering to retile and change the shower and when it decided to let the resident choose a bath of her choice. However, once it has committed to carrying out an action, it then should do so in an appropriate timescale with clear communication with the resident. If it decides to carry out a pre-repair assessment it should make sure to do this.