Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Croydon (202332109)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332109

London Borough of Croydon

8 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlords handling of:

  1. Bathroom adaptations and a noise from the shower pump.
  2. Kitchen adaptations.
  3. The associated complaint.

Background

2.          The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council since May 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom house and the resident lives with her adult daughter.

3.          The landlord is aware that the resident is registered disabled and has mobility and mental health conditions.

4.          On 31 October 2023, an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited the resident at home and completed an assessment. The OT recommended a level access shower with seat, electric shower unit, extraction pump, and a raised level toilet. It also confirmed that some kitchen adaptations were required.

5.          On 6 January 2024, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said:

  1. The bathroom adaptation was completed to a poor standard. It was rushed and completed within 3-days rather than the expected 6-days.
  2. The OT had provided the proposed bathroom layout, which had been agreed. However, this was changed without discussion or agreement.
  3. A shower pump was installed, which was unexpected and excessively loud. The neighbour had complained about the noise, which made her anxiety worse.
  4. A significant amount of snagging works had to be completed.
  5. The wet room floor felt uneven, underlay was not installed, the pipes were showing through, and it felt unsafe.
  6. Despite several meetings, there had not been a resolution. She said questions remained unanswered and she felt ignored.
  7. The landlord had not confirmed the date for the kitchen works to start. She said she required time to prepare and pack up her kitchen belongings and order new appliances.
  8. The completion of the adaptations had caused her a high level of stress and other health issues. This was confirmed by her GP on 2 occasions.

6.           On 22 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:

  1. The bathroom adaptation works started on 20 November 2023. An interim inspection was completed on 21 November 2023, and the initial fit completed by 23 November 2023.
  2. A welfare visit was completed by the resident’s point of contact (POC) on 24th November 2023, where concerns were raised about the quality of the work, and location of the shower and pump.
  3. A list of snagging works to complete the bathroom were provided to the resident. The works remained incomplete due to access issues, and the Christmas period.
  4. After the completion of the bathroom, the kitchen upgrade would be scheduled.
  5. The bathroom design was not changed. The location of the shower and pump was addressed in the design brief provided by the OT, of which the resident had a copy.
  6. Contractors attended the property to assess the noise issue and functionality of the pump. The extraction speed was adjusted, and it was confirmed that no issues were identified.
  7. It was sorry that the resident felt cause to complain, but the complaint was not upheld.

7.          On 24 January 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said:

  1. A considerable amount of her time had been spent seeking a resolution.
  2. Access to complete snagging was not refused. However, a third meeting to inspect was, because she felt it was unnecessary. She wanted a resolution regarding the shower pump prior to the snagging works.
  3. The landlords snagging list did not include the excessively loud pump and although it was working, it had not acknowledged the noise.
  4. The contractors did not complete any works or change the settings to the shower pump, and it was still loud. She had not showered for weeks because of the extreme anxiety the noise caused.
  5. She disagreed that she was aware of the change to the bathroom layout. The OT’s design was different to what had been completed. Further, her POC was unaware of the last-minute design changes.
  6. The landlord had not provided a valid reason why the kitchen and bathroom works could not proceed at the same time. She felt this would have caused her less stress and disruption.
  7. The landlords Contracts Manager (CM) said the shower pump would be removed and a shower tray installed. She was upset that the offer was subsequently retracted.

8.           On 06 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:

  1. It included issues not raised in the stage 1 complaint as they were linked.
  2. The resident was aware that the bathroom and kitchen works were not completed together because it wanted to limit the disruption to the household.
  3. Although the bathroom was completed in 4 days, this did not include snagging works, and it was an approximate timescale only.
  4. There was a significant pause to the snagging because of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the noise from the pump.
  5. While it agreed the pump was noisy. And ripples, ridges, dimples, and undulations were found in the sheet flooring, this did not indicate that the flooring was not fitted correctly, or that the pump should be replaced.
  6. It did not intend to remove the pump because the work met the resident’s needs and complied with the Decent Homes Standards.
  7. On 27 February 2024, it completed an inspection and confirmed that while the bathroom works were not completed to the highest of standards, the work met the threshold criteria expected by the council.
  8. It intended to investigate the wet room flooring to ensure it was installed correctly.
  9. There was no fault with the shower pump itself, however, an acoustic echoing of the pump noise is being amplified externally by the cast iron hopper head. The hopper head would be altered to reduce the noise.
  10. The kitchen adaptations were delayed because of the delay to the completion of the bathroom. It apologised for the delays and for any disruption caused and offered £250.00 compensation.
  11. It acknowledged and apologised for a delay providing the stage 2 complaint response and offered £100.00 compensation.

9.           Following the end of the internal complaints process, the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 and 17 April 2025. It proposed a reinspection and said it would consider installing a new bathroom subject to OT approval. The resident said she tried to communicate with the landlord regarding its offer; however, they have not responded. The landlord has informed us that due to a level access shower being installed, the community-based OT has been unwilling to revisit as the resident’s needs are met. And they are unable to make alterations to the bathroom without the OT’s agreement.

10.      The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. And frustrated that she had been unable to use the shower since it had been installed. Further, she said the landlord had raised her expectations on numerous occasions, including more recently that it would reconfigure the bathroom to remove the need for the shower pump.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11.       In September 2023, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of proposed adaptations and planned upgrades to her kitchen and bathroom. Case ID 202127675. We are unable to reinvestigate matters which we have investigated previously. Any reference to this case will be for context only.

12.      The resident said that her health has deteriorated due to the stress caused by the issues within this complaint. While we do not dispute the resident’s position, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury insurance claim or through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue these concerns.

13.      The resident has also told us about a repair issue with her adapted toilet, which she states has deteriorated over time. We cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or been raised with it in the first instance. However, the resident has the option to complete the landlord’s complaint process with regards to this complaint and refer to this service if she remains concerned.

14.      What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s communication about the matter, and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Bathroom Adaptations

15.      Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Noise is listed as a potential hazard. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation.

16.      The landlord’s website details information around its aids and adaptations process. It defines major adaptations as involving structural alteration to a property such as a level access shower or wet room. Requests for such major adaptations are required to be assessed and recommended by an OT and then considered and approved by the landlord.

17.      The resident’s adaptation requests were major adaptations. This is because structural alterations to the property were required, in the form of a level access shower with raised toilet. The OT assessment took place in October 2023, and the works commenced within 30 days of the landlord receiving the OT recommendation. This was reasonable and in line with orders made as part of the recent Housing Ombudsman determination.

18.       During completion of the wet room, the resident reported that the layout had not been completed to the design specification she had been provided with or agreed to. Having investigated the design plans of the landlords contractors with that of the OT’s, it is evident that the plans are broadly in line, in that the shower, w/c and basin are in the same location. It is reasonable that the landlord would need to amend the plan slightly to enable drainage, and pipework to be installed. This is further supported in the information provided by the OT, which states elements of the design may be challenged by technical feasibility.

19.       Further, the resident said that she was unaware that a shower pump would be fitted to the wet room. She said it was unsightly and would not have agreed to have it installed. The landlord said that this was included within the design brief as it stated, “please ensure that any required pumping is located so as to maximise ease of access for maintenance.” The landlord clarified that the pump was fitted because it was necessary due to their being an insufficient fall from the shower waste. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out the recommendations according to the specifications set by the OT.

20.      The landlord advised the resident that the works would take 6-days to complete. The resident said that the works were rushed, completed within 3-days and to a poor standard. The landlord said that 6-days was an approximate figure, and that snagging works were yet to be completed. Following completion, the landlord inspected and confirmed that while the works to the wet room were not to the highest standards, they were to an acceptable standard. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirmed its position on an acceptable standard and therefore it was right of the landlord to have completed a post inspection and confirm its findings to the resident.

21.      Following the completion of the bathroom snagging in February 2024, the resident remained dissatisfied with the type of shower tray installed, the quality of the wet room flooring, and an excessive noise generated from the shower pump. The landlord responded to her concerns and agreed to a further inspection. This was an appropriate first step to take, as the landlord was required to identify any issues before it could carry out the relevant repairs.

22.      On 16 February 2024, the OT inspected the wet room, and on 4 March 2024, a final report was provided. The OT confirmed that based on a need to future proof the home, any design changes considered to be a barrier to level access could not be endorsed. It concluded that at this stage, the needs of the resident had been met. And a safe and appropriate physical environment had been provided.

23.      The resident first reported an excessive noise to the shower pump on 22 November 2023. It is evident that the matter has been consistently reported to the landlord throughout the internal complaints process. The landlord inspected the shower pump and attempted repairs, which included:

  1. On 30 January 2024, the contractor attended to adjust the pump settings.
  2. On 26 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that whilst the pump was noisy alterations could be made to eliminate the hopper head echoing effect and it would box in the pump. Further, it confirmed that the wet room flooring had ripples, ridges and dimples and required replacement, but this would be postponed until a resolution was reached regarding the shower pump.
  3. On 24 April 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and said the contractor would replace the cast iron hopper head for a UPVC component. It said once this was completed, it would reassess the noise.

24.      On 1 May 2024, the resident confirmed that the repair works had not resolved the issue with the pump. She reminded the landlord that it had promised to reassess if the repair works proved unsuccessful. On 16 May 2024, the landlord completed a further inspection. The resident said it failed to provide a resolution or confirm any further intentions despite previous promises from the CM that it would remove the shower pump and install a shower tray. We have not seen any evidence regarding the outcome of the inspection; therefore, we can only conclude that the landlord took no further action or confirmed its intentions to the resident. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable.

25.     The resident told the landlord that she was unable to use the shower because of the noise. And that she had received a complaint from a neighbour, which had triggered her mental health. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or addressed these health issues. This was inappropriate and was detrimental to the landlord tenant relationship.

26.      The landlord confirmed that it had received a noise complaint from a neighbour. As a resolution, it offered an investigation from its noise pollution team, but the neighbour declined. It was right and reasonable of the landlord to offer an investigation to establish if a noise nuisance existed.

27.      On 28 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. The letter confirmed that there was an excessive noise generated from the shower pump. It stated that while various repairs had been attempted to bring the noise level down to an acceptable level, they had been unsuccessful. It confirmed that it would install a shallow shower tray which will eliminate the need for the water pump and would arrange this within 4 to 6 weeks. This letter clearly confirmed the landlords intentions and raised the resident’s and her representative’s expectations, that a solution had been agreed.

28.      On 6 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that it would not remove the pump because it met the resident’s needs and complied with the decent homes’ standards. It also said it would investigate the wet room floor. However, this was contradictory to the information it had already provided. For example, the landlord had already committed to removing the shower pump within its letter to the MP and previously in March 2024 agreed to replace the wet room flooring. The inconsistent information would have likely left the resident feeling frustrated, distressed and that it had not considered the impact the noise had on her mental health.

29.      The resident offered to pay for a shallow shower tray to be installed, which would mean the pump could be removed. However, the landlord declined the request because the OT had recommended a level access wet room. It relied upon its policy to provide a response. This set out that it would take a reasoned approach when considering requests, however if an application poses concerns and is not compliant with health and safety then the request would be refused. Therefore, in line with the landlord’s policy and the OT comments in February 2024, it was reasonable of the landlord to decline the resident’s request.

30.      In conducting our investigations, we rely on written records and file notes as documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. The number of inspections and attempted repairs to the shower pump combined with the information confirmed to the MP suggests that there is a noise issue with the pump, which has not been resolved. The noise issue along with the wet room flooring has now remained outstanding, with no resolution since November 2023. This delay is unreasonable.

31.       Overall, the landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations and the noise from a shower pump was inappropriate and unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. This is because the landlord’s communication with the resident has proved inconsistent. Further, it has raised the resident’s expectations by confirming to the MP that it would alter the wet room, which it then subsequently retracted. This has caused frustration, upset and damaged the landlord resident relationship. The landlord has also not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, which has left her unable to use the shower since its installation. And repairs to the wet room flooring remain outstanding.

32.      The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,000. This can be broken down as £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and £400 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of bathroom adaptations and the noise from the shower pump. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on a resident.

Kitchen Adaptations

33.       It is noted that a previous Housing Ombudsman investigation agreed that a kitchen upgrade and adaptation works were required to the resident’s property. The determination requested an up-to-date OT report, which was subsequently provided in October 2023. The adaptations were agreed by the landlord and scheduled to be completed following the completion of the adaptations to the resident’s wet room. This is in line with the orders made from a previous Housing Ombudsman determination.

34.      The resident requested that the landlord complete both the kitchen and wet room works together to minimise mess and disruption. The landlord declined and said that it wished to solely focus on one set of repair works at a time. It was concerned that having both the bathroom and kitchen works together would cause too much disruption. It is evident that this was the landlord’s position from the start and is further supported in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, which states that it seeks to cause minimal disruption wherever possible. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.

35.      On 16 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord when the kitchen works would commence. It replied and said it would provide a date on 4 December 2023. The resident said that she wanted time to order new appliances and remove her belongings. The landlord failed to provide a start date on 4 December 2023, which left the resident feeling concerned and unable to order the new appliances because of the space available in her property.

36.      The landlord said the delays to the commencement of the kitchen works were encountered because of the delay to the completion of the wet room. The landlord advised that the kitchen works would start on 26 February 2024. However, this was revised to 11 March 2024 and works did not start until 18 March 2024. The delays would have caused frustration to the resident.

37.       It is noted that the landlord admitted failings with regards to the delay to the kitchen upgrade and adaptations. It apologised and offered £250 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

38.      The landlord’s apology and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that the delays encountered had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Associated complaint

39.      The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords. The Code required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If landlords cannot meet these timescales they must inform the resident, explain the delay, and set a new deadline. The new deadline should not exceed a further 10 working days.

40.      The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint was broadly in line with the Code with 1 exception. It says it will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. If a complaint takes longer than 20 working days, it says it will set and agree a revised timescale. It should keep the resident updated on its progress. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy has since been revised and now fully complies with the Complaint Handling Code (the code).

41.      The resident raised her stage 2 complaint on 24 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the next day and said it would respond by 20 February 2024. On 20 February 2024, it requested an extension because further information had been received, and it required time to assess it. The landlord provided a further 3 updates up until 22 March 2024. No further updates were provided after this until the stage 2 complaint response was sent on 6 June 2024. The lack of communication and delay to the stage 2 response was unreasonable and not in line with its policy or the Code.

42.      The landlord’s stage 2 response identified its complaint handling failures and offered redress. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to learn from its outcomes, be fair and put things right. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

43.           In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom adaptations.

44.           In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen adaptations.

45.           In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

46.        Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:

  1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Paid the resident a total compensation amount of £1,000.
  3. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.

47.        Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:

  1. Complete an independent inspection and provide recommendations / solutions to provide a level access or wet room, which negate the need for the shower pump.
  2. The outcome of the inspection should be communicated to the resident and this service within 5 weeks and confirmation that any works required have been carried out within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

48.       The landlord, if not done so already, should pay the £350 compensation as offered within its stage 2 complaint response for the delay to the kitchen works and its identified failings with regards to complaint handling.

49.       It is noted that the landlord is having difficulties in obtaining the agreement of the local authority OT to revisit because the adaptation is completed. Consider employing the service of an independent OT to assess the resident’s case and provide options regarding the removal of the shower pump.