West Kent Housing Association (202410017)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410017

West Kent Housing Association

29 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 request for a new bathroom due to health and safety concerns.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 3-bedroom house with her son. At the time of her complaint, the resident’s daughter and grandchild were also living with her. The landlord has recorded the resident and her son have vulnerabilities.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024. She told the landlord she disagreed with its decision to not replace the bathroom. The resident asked for a surveyor to visit because the bathroom posed several health and safety risks. She also reported the toilet flush did not work consistently.
4. On 13 March 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and told her as the bathroom is functional, it would not be replaced. That day, she logged a complaint as she disagreed with its decision. In her complaint, the resident said:

a.     the bathroom was installed by a previous resident who had not kept to the alterations the landlord had authorised

b.     the toilet and sink are boxed in

c.      the bathtub is a curved shaped, has no anti-slip on the bottom, no handrails, and water drains slowly

d.     the shower screen collides with the bathroom door when both are open

e.     the toilet is small and regularly needs repairing

5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 March 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. In its response, the landlord said:

a.     the bathroom would not be replaced as they have a 30-year lifespan, and the changes it is willing to make would help resolve the issues

b.     a grab rail could be installed on one of the walls to help get in and out of the bathtub

c.      the shower screen could be replaced with a shower curtain and rail

d.     the toilet has been repaired and is functional

6. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 April 2024. She asked the landlord to review its decision and disagreed with its suggestions. The resident told it:

a.     as the bathroom was not the one originally agreed by the landlord, the 30-year lifespan should not apply

b.     in respect of the shower screen:

1. installing a shower rail would cause water to go on the bathroom floor and could cause problems with the flooring
2. due to the shape of the bathtub a shower curtain would not cover it all

c.      the proposed location of a rail would leave too much of a gap and could result in a fall when getting in or out of the bathtub

d.     a non-slip bathmat could harbour mould and move, which may result in a slip or fall

e.     the toilet regularly breaks, and as it is small, it has caused water pressure problems

f.        there is no extractor fan in the bathroom and it should have one

7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of her complaint on 25 April 2024 and responded on 17 May 2024. In its response, it said:

a.     there was nothing about the bathroom that would not meet the landlord’s approval and the 30-year lifespan still applied

b.     in respect of the shower screen:

1. there was sufficient space to install a shower rail and the curtain would hang inside the bathtub
2. when the shower screen was open, it did not prevent the bathroom door opening

c.      a grab rail could be installed at the narrowest part of the bath so there was less of a distance to reach across

d.     in respect of the toilet and space:

1. the toilet was in working order and would not be replaced until it can no longer be repaired
2. the person using the toilet could move their legs if someone needed to access the bathroom

e.     an extractor fan could be installed to reduce potential damp and mould issues but are not a legal requirement given there is a window

8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 June 2024. She told this Service the bathroom was unsafe, and she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not renew the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

9. The Decent Homes Standard, set out by the government, says that homes should have reasonably modern facilities. This means, among other things, a bathroom should be 30 years old or newer. However, age alone does not make a component non-decent. They must be both old and require 2 or more items to be in poor condition to satisfy the standard. Fixtures such as a bathtub, wash- hand basin, or toilet may fail early and should be dealt with on a responsive basis. However, the age of a fixture alone does not mean that it is in disrepair and in need of replacement, if it is still in good working order and not beyond repairing.
10. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. This includes installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
11. When the resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024, she asked it to send a surveyor to assess the bathroom. She reported there was no anti-slip in the bathtub, no handrails, and the toilet did not flush properly. Additionally, when the shower screen was open, the bathroom door would not open.
12. Evidence showed that between 18 and 26 January 2024, the landlord made several internal enquiries to identify any surveys or data it had of the property. This was appropriate to help it understand the resident’s concerns in detail. It confirmed the bathroom was installed by a previous resident in 2014 and recorded it was not due to be replaced until 2040. This falls within the expected age set out in the Decent Homes Standard.
13. Additionally, the landlord raised an order on 29 January 2024 for a surveyor to assess the bathroom and report back any findings. That day, the landlord informed the resident a surveyor would arrange an appointment. This was an appropriate step to take to understand what, if anything, it could do to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
14. When the Surveyor attended on 1 February 2024 to assess the bathroom, they identified:

a.     the toilet, cistern, and sink were boxed in which limited access for maintenance

b.     the bathtub was a large ‘P’ shape and not ideal for the bathroom space

c.      there were no grab rails

d.     the bathroom was usable but may not be ideal for young children or people with disabilities

15. The Surveyor relayed their findings to the landlord on 1 February 2024. However, there was no evidence the landlord reviewed the findings or provided the resident with an update. Rather, the resident had to chase for an update on 16 February and again on 6 March 2024. This was not reasonable and would have caused the resident time and trouble.
16. When the landlord responded on 13 March 2024, it told the resident the bathroom was functional and would not be replaced. It is unclear why there was a delay of 40 days between the Surveyor visiting and the landlord providing an update. Although the landlord’s policies are silent in relation to time frames responding to residents, this represented an unreasonable delay. The lack of communication prolonged the resident’s uncertainty about the actions the landlord would or would not be taking. This was a failing.
17. When the landlord reviewed the Surveyor’s feedback and photos on 21 March 2024, it recorded it would not replace the bathroom. It concluded the bathroom was functional and had not met its lifespan. However, the landlord offered to install a shower rail to stop the shower screen and door colliding. It also recorded the toilet was working. Further, it would install a grab rail to reduce any potential risk of falling.
18. Although the feedback from the Surveyor showed the bathroom may not be ideal for children or people with disabilities, they did report it was usable. When making its decision, the landlord considered the age and functionality of the components which demonstrated it gave due regard to its obligations under the Decent Homes Standard. Even though the landlord’s repairs policy says residents are responsible for shower curtains and rails, the landlord offered to provide them at its own expense. These were reasonable offers in the circumstance as the landlord went beyond its obligations.
19. Prior to issuing its complaint response, the landlord contacted the resident on 26 March 2024 to discuss the outcome of her complaint. It told her it would not be replacing the bathroom and offered to install a grab rail and shower rail. The resident disagreed with the outcome and reported if a grab rail was installed, she would need to lean over the bath. She also told it installing a shower rail and curtain would result in water running on the floor, leading to further problems.
20. The landlord went on to issue its stage 1 response the next day. It said that it considered the age, functionality of the bathroom and changes it could reasonably make to resolve some of the resident’s concerns. Further, as it was confident the changes would address the resident’s concerns, the bathroom would not be replaced. This was appropriate as the landlord explained how it had made its decision.
21. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 April 2024, she also sent the landlord a picture of the bathroom floor plan. After the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 25 April 2024, the landlord contacted her on 30 April 2024 to discuss her complaint. This was appropriate and helped the landlord improve its understanding of the resident’s concerns.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 May 2024, setting out its findings. It reassured the resident that although the bathroom is not one provided by the landlord, there was nothing that prevented it meeting its approval. It therefore applied the same 30-year lifespan in accordance with the Decent Homes Standard. This was appropriate given the resident’s concerns the bathroom installed was not the one authorised by the landlord.
23. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s son has vulnerabilities. However, it missed the opportunity to signpost the resident to support with any adaptations. Under the Equality Act (2010) landlords have a duty to consider if reasonable adjustments are required to prevent disabled residents being at a disadvantage. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided this information to the resident.
24. The landlord proposed it could install a shower rail above the bathroom window, and the curtain would hang inside the tub. Additionally, it suggested an alternative location for the grab rail to reduce how far the resident would reach across the bath. The landlord also agreed to install an extractor fan to reduce any potential damp and mould within the bathroom. The landlord also reiterated the toilet was functioning and did not need replacing. This demonstrated it had considered how to alleviate the concerns the resident had raised and was reasonable in the circumstance.
25. Overall, the landlord had an obligation to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation it provided for sanitation and the supply of water. Nothing in the tenancy agreement, or in the evidence provided, suggested that the landlord had an obligation to replace or renew a bathroom which was working. Nor does it set out it must replace fixtures that are not beyond repairing.
26. Further, there is no evidence the landlord received reports of repair issues or concerns that suggested that the bathroom needed a complete replacement. As such, the landlord’s decision to not replace the bathroom at the time of the complaint was reasonable. Moreover, the landlord actions were appropriate by inspecting the resident’s bathroom to find out what concerns, if any, could be reasonably reduced.
27. However, the landlord’s poor communication after the Surveyors visit resulted in the resident taking the time and trouble to chase it for an update. It also missed the opportunity to signpost the resident to support for adaptations. Further, she waited 40 days for an update which prolonged her uncertainty. Therefore, the Ombudsman concludes that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.
28. In considering an offer of compensation, we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the delays the resident experienced and time and trouble she experienced chasing the landlord for updates.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom due to health and safety concerns.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

a.     pay the resident total compensation of £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication

b.     apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report

c.      write to the resident signposting her to support for property adaptations

d.     contact the resident within 4 weeks to agree with the resident if she wants to proceed with the following:

1. installation of grab rail
2. remove shower screen and install a shower rail
3. installation of an extractor fan
4. if the resident does agree with some or all the above, the landlord should agree a mutual timeline for completion. The landlord should confirm the works and timeline in writing to us and the resident within the next 28 days

e.     provide evidence to us showing compliance with the above orders