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

Take part in the consultation

Town and Country Housing (202341664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341664

Town and Country Housing

10 October 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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an over bath shower adaptation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since March 2023. The property is a sheltered bedsit with no shower facility in the bathroom. The resident has mobility needs and the landlord’s records reflect this.
  2. On 4 June 2023, the resident requested the landlord supply and fit an over bath shower because he had difficulties getting out of the bath. The landlord advised him he would need an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment to assess what adaptations might be appropriate for his needs.
  3. On 23 November 2023, the OT assessment concluded that the resident required as a minimum a wet room shower with a drop down seat.
  4. On 27 February 2024, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. He said the landlord should provide an over bath shower as a minor adaptation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 27 February and provided its response on 4 April 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It said an over bath shower would not resolve the issues the resident had with getting into and out of the bath. It said the OT service could recommend adaptations and to contact it for an assessment.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 6 April 2024. He stated that he had provided a GP letter and that should be sufficient for the landlord to agree a minor adaptation of the over bath shower.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 17 April and issued its response on 29 April 2024. It did not uphold his complaint. It said it had followed the process correctly. It would request an OT assessment to determine the best solution for the resident. It apologised for its delay in responding at stage 1.
  8. The resident first complained to this Service on 16 February 2024, before the landlord’s complaints process had been exhausted. The resident confirmed he would like this Service to investigate the complaint on 29 May 2024. He complained the landlord was not compliant with its policy on minor adaptations.

Jurisdiction

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns his disagreement with the recommendation by the OT that he requires a level access shower and that the OT service supports a move to alternative accommodation. If the resident is not satisfied with the OT assessment, he may wish to make a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).  This is in accordance with our approach set out in paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. The resident has told this Service that he feels the landlord has discriminated against him. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaints.

The resident’s request for an over bath shower

  1. The landlord’s Disabled Adaptations Policy states the landlord has no legal obligation to provide aids and adaptations. It would work in partnership with local authorities to facilitate their provision.
  2. The policy describes a major adaptation as work that typically costs more than £1250 and includes level access showers. It requires a referral from an OT following an assessment of need.
  3. The policy describes a minor adaptation as work that typically costs less than £1250. It includes items such as over bath showers and lever taps. It may provide a minor adaptation, subject to available funding. It may require a request from an OT or suitably qualified medical professional. Where there were concerns around the resident’s needs, it would require an OT assessment.
  4. The resident told the landlord that he struggled to get out of the bath and requested it provide an over bath shower as a minor adaptation. He provided a supporting letter from his GP. In his stage 1 complaint, the resident told the landlord that he had purchased a gym membership so that he could shower, because he was unable to get out of the bath without pain and difficulty.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord was concerned that an over bath shower may not be suitable, given the information provided by the resident and the GP. The landlord’s policy states that minor adaptations may be carried out, subject to funding availability and medical recommendations. It was therefore appropriate and compliant with its policy for the landlord to request an OT assessment. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure work it may carry out under its adaptations policy is appropriate and will adequately address current and anticipated likely needs. It also has a duty to protect the public purse.
  6. The OT report stated that the resident experienced difficulties transferring into and from the bath and recommended a level access shower with a drop down seat. This assessment confirms that the landlord’s concern about the suitability of an over bath shower was reasonable.
  7. The stage 1 complaint response from the landlord states that it had not seen evidence of an OT assessment. The resident stated in his stage 2 complaint that he did not submit the OT assessment to the landlord. Therefore, it was understandable that the landlord did not progress the resident’s request for adaptations, because the resident, or the OT service, had not provided the information it had requested to be able to do so.
  8. The resident was evidently disappointed with the landlord’s response. However, based on the information available to it, the landlord acted reasonably and within its policy guidelines. The landlord was under no contractual or policy obligation to make alterations to the property without a defined assessment of need and recommendation from a suitably qualified practitioner such as an OT. Consequently, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an over bath shower adaptation.

 

 

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process which is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident submitted the stage 1 complaint on 27 February 2024. The landlord provided its response on 4 April 2024. This was 27 working days later, in breach of its complaints policy and the Code. The resident has told this Service that the landlord’s delayed response at stage 1 compounded his feeling that the landlord was discriminating against him. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its delay at stage 1 and appropriately apologised to the resident.
  3. While recognising and apologising for its service failure in its complaints handling, the landlord did not offer compensation to the resident for the time and trouble he expended in pursuing his complaint. Nor did it commit to learning from its error.
  4. Given the above, this investigation concludes there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because there was a minor failure which had a detrimental effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an over bath shower adaptation.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident directly compensation of £50 no later than 7 November 2025

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-engages with the resident and the OT service to explore how it may take forward the recommendations in the OT report in an agreed way, if it has not already done so.