From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Teign Housing (202342274)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342274

Teign Housing

19 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. On 2 December 2022 the resident reported an issue with his wet room pump. In response, the landlord logged a repair but the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates about what actions it was taking to resolve the matter in the weeks and months that followed. The landlord eventually agreed to replace the wet room to a standard bathroom which was completed on or around 3 July 2023.
  3. On 1 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said:
    1. He was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to complete the bathroom repairs.
    2. He was unable to bathe due to the repairs and had joined a gym to use the showers.
    3. He was at heightened risk of waterborne diseases due to the nature of his employment.
    4. The landlord did not offer alternative accommodation.
    5. He was seeking compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and a rent rebate for the loss of facilities.
  4. On 14 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It recognised there was a service failure arising through the delays to complete the repairs to the bathroom. It offered him £720.40 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £345.50 as a partial rent rebate.
    2. £375 for the distress, inconvenience, and costs he incurred when using the gym to bathe.
  5. On 27 March 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident and arranged a survey to check if it could replace the wet room with a standard bathroom. Although unclear what date the landlord approved this, it is noted the landlord told the resident it would install a standard bathroom on 3 July 2023.
  6. On 26 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said he was unhappy with the length of time he had to wait for the bathroom replacement.
  7. On 6 July 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It recognised there were failings and said it had taken steps to prevent similar things from happening again. It offered him additional compensation, comprised of:
    1. A further £301.54 as an extra rent rebate (in addition to a previous total of £622.66 it said it had already made).
    2. A total of £735 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Events after the complaints procedure

  1. In or around September 2023 the resident reported a further electrical issue with the shower, following the bathroom replacement. He said that when he was using the shower he could smell burning and was concerned about its safety. He arranged for a private electrician to check the shower who isolated it and issued an electrical danger report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs from December 2022 (this was when he first told the landlord about issues in the wet room) up to its stage 2 complaint response on 6 July 2023.
  2. We acknowledge the resident experienced electrical issues with his shower shortly after the landlord replaced his bathroom which caused him significant concern. However, because this event took place after the landlord’s final complaint response, and there is no evidence which shows this specific matter formally exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, we are unable to investigate this part of the resident’s complaint. This is because we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. If the resident is continuing to experience issues relating to his shower or bathroom, he may choose to raise a new complaint with the landlord. Once he has received the landlord’s final complaint response about this, he may refer that to us for a separate investigation if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its approach to responding to reports of repairs. It says it will complete all repairs within 30 days, or 42 days if the repair requires an initial inspection or survey.
  2. When the resident told the landlord about issues with his wet room pump in December 2022, it logged a responsive repair. The landlord’s evidence, however, does not clearly show when this repair took place, and what the outcome was. Alongside this, it is noted the resident continued to chase the landlord throughout December 2022 for updates. The landlord missed an opportunity to be clear with the resident about what its intended course of action was to resolve the repairs with the wet room pump. This was a failure, an example of poor communication, and inadequate record keeping on the landlord’s part.
  3. When the resident raised his complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure, he explained at great detail about the impact the situation was having on him. He explained due to his job working in canals he was at heightened risk of waterborne disease and needed regular access to bathing facilities. He said he had joined a local gym to use their showering facilities as an alternative.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord accepted there were delays and made an offer of compensation, as previously summarised. At the time, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of redress.
  5. Shortly after the stage 1 complaint response was issued the landlord moved forward with plans to replace the wet room with a standard bathroom. This was appropriate given the resident’s continued concerns about the wet room pump, and the issues he was having. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider this alternative action to resolve the repair issues in the wet room as a long term solution.
  6. Throughout March and April 2023, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates about when the bathroom was going to be installed. The landlord was aware the resident was without access to sufficient bathing facilities throughout this period.
  7. Internal records seen by this service specified the contractor had no availability to install the bathroom until 3 July 2023. When the landlord communicated this date to the resident he escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He felt this was a disproportionate amount of time to wait for the bathroom replacement.
  8. When the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, after the bathroom works were completed, it made a further compensation offer, as previously summarised. The landlord also explained it recognised its failings and would take steps to prevent similar issues from happening in the future. Across all of its complaint responses, the landlord’s total offer of compensation was £1,357.66. Some of this was credited to the residents rent account, and some was paid directly to him.
  9. Where a landlord has made an offer of compensation and the repairs have been completed, it is the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the amount it offered sufficiently resolved the resident’s complaint in the circumstances.
  10. The overall amount the landlord offered reflected the seriousness of the situation of the resident being without sufficient bathing facilities, the delays to complete the works, and the heightened distress and inconvenience he faced arising from this. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what the Ombudsman may have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer. For example, the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (available on our website) states that £100-£600 may be an appropriate amount of compensation where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  11. As the landlord’s offer exceeded this guidance, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom.
  12. We do, however, recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation it offered at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, unless this has already been done.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2. The Code became statutory at the start of April 2024 and all landlords which are members of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme are required to follow it. The landlord now has a new complaints policy published on its website which reflects the Ombudsman’s code.
  3. At stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure there was a 13 working day delay by the landlord in issuing its response. This was a service failure and not in accordance with timescales in the landlord’s policy at the time
  4. In addition there is no evidence which shows the landlord communicated the reasons for any delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It would have been frustrating for the resident to experience this delay.
  5. For these reasons there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
  6. As previously explained, the resident received an offer of compensation from the landlord across its complaint responses for the bathroom repairs. Whilst it was positive the landlord recognised the failures for the repairs and made a compensation offer, it failed to recognise the shortcomings in its complaint handling or acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response
  7. As such, the landlord is ordered to write an apology letter to the resident for the failures identified in its complaints handling.
  8. We recommend the landlord completes a training refresher for its complaints handling staff to ensure that any extensions are communicated properly to its residents and any delays in issuing a response are considered within the landlord’s responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the repairs in the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to write an apology letter to the resident for the failures identified in its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the pays the resident the full compensation it offered at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, unless this has already been done.
  2. We recommend the landlord completes training for its complaints handling staff to ensure that any extensions are communicated properly to the resident, and complaint handling failures are considered within the landlord’s responses.