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.

Wiltshire Council (202320734)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320734

Wiltshire Council

21 March 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 shower and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2011. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord said that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 6 April 2023, the resident reported a leak from the bath which was affecting the hallway. The case notes say that the resident said he would “prefer the bath gone and just a shower there but not to worry”. Works to repair the leak were carried out on 21 April 2023.
  3. The case notes show that on 1 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to a survey that was to be carried out of the kitchen and bathroom. Later the same month, the resident made 2 reports of water “pouring through the ceiling every time he used the bath”.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 July 2023 explaining that works to the kitchen and cloakroom were to be carried out. On 19 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord explaining he was unhappy that its surveyor did not identify the need to replace his bathroom. He then raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023. He said that following the survey he was advised that the bathroom did not need replacing, and that he felt the surveyor was “underqualified”. He went on to explain that the bathroom was old and had a damaged bath panel and perished sealant. He also said he had fallen getting in and out of the bath and wanted it replaced with a shower.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It explained that an inspection had been carried out and that the bathroom was not due to be upgraded until 2032. It said that the resident should contact adult social care to discuss his needs and for an assessment to be carried out in relation to installing a shower.
  6. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 10 August 2023. He said he felt he was being discriminated against due to his age. He also said that the adult social care assisted living team did not answer their telephones and would probably only help him if he was registered as disabled. He said the bathroom was “dilapidated” and not adequate.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 September 2023. It outlined what guidance and policy it used when making decisions and provided a summary of events. It explained the bathroom was not due for an upgrade until 2033. It said the damage from the recent leak was identified and action was taken to schedule the required repairs. Furthermore, it said it did not have any evidence to indicate that the resident had repeatedly requested for a shower to be installed. It reiterated that the resident should follow up requests for a shower via adult social care. It apologised if the resident felt discriminated against but confirmed that adaptations were dealt with via adult social care.
  8. On 27 September 2023, the resident reported that water was “pouring” through the ceiling from the bath. The repair log shows this repair was completed on 13 October 2023.
  9. The resident has told us that as a resolution to his complaint he would like the bath replaced with a shower.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has reported issues of discrimination. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options. This is in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to replace the bath for a shower and the associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to responsive repairs, cyclical and planned maintenance. It sets out its approach to aids and adaptations, where it will conduct work at a property because a tenant or a family member who resides with them is disabled or has a medical need or other vulnerability. The landlord will undertake this type of work in conjunction with a referral from an occupational therapist. This work falls outside the scope of the repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that all repairs reported are divided into 4 categories of priority:
    1. Priority A – immediate response – eg complete loss of power or water.
    2. Priority B – action within 24 hours – eg no hot water, toilet not working.
    3. Priority C – action within 5 working days – eg repairs to overflows.
    4. Priority D – action within 20 working days – eg repairs to baths.
  3. In relation to aids and adaptations, the landlord’s website says that residents having difficulty in their home – for example, “getting in and out of the bath or shower” – should make contact to discuss the matter. After this, it may do the following:
    1. Provide details of where residents can obtain support.
    2. Arrange for equipment to be loaned to residents following a telephone conversation.
    3. Offer an assessment at home by an occupational therapist, who can demonstrate how residents can do things differently to make it easier for them.
  4. Social landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. This government guidance sets out minimum standards for housing. A property would fail to meet the minimum standard criteria if:
    1. There are any category 1 hazards in the property.
    2. One or more key building components are old and need replacing because of their condition.
    3. The property lacks reasonably modern facilities. For example, a bathroom would be considered reasonably modern if it is 30 years old or less.
  5. On 6 April 2023, the resident reported a leak from the bath which was affecting the stairs and hallway floor. The case notes say that the resident said he would “prefer the bath gone and just a shower there but not to worry”. From the evidence provided, this was the first time the resident indicated he would like a shower instead of a bath. The repair log shows a works order was raised on 11 April 2023 as a priority C repair. The repair was evidenced as carried out on 21 April 2023, 10 working days after the landlord received the report and 8 working days after it raised the order. This was not appropriate, as the landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescale of 5 working days for a priority C repair. The contractor noted that the waste pipe ran “uphill” and follow-on works were raised on 24 April 2023 as a priority D repair to “renew the waste”. This was completed on 24 May 2023. This was 20 working days later and within the landlord’s policy timescale of 20 working days for a priority D repair, which was appropriate.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2023 in relation to a survey that was to be carried out on the kitchen and bathroom. It said that this was in order “to identify those that are due for refurbishment or replacement”. It is positive that the landlord gave the resident advance notice of the survey and explained the reason for it.
  7. On 20 June 2023, the resident reported water was “pouring” through the ceiling whenever he used the bath. The repair log shows that the repair was raised as a priority C and completed on 3 July 2023, which was 5 working days later. At this point, the landlord could have considered raising the repair as a higher priority given that the resident would not have been able to use the bath (his only means of washing) until the repair was carried out. However, the landlord’s repair policy for a priority C repair gives repairs to overflows as an example, and so the repair timescale was therefore reasonable. Nevertheless, the need for a second visit within 1 month of the previous repair, relating to the bath waste, demonstrated that the landlord’s contractor did not adequately carry out the repair. Though this could not have been reasonably foreseen by the landlord, it would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have liaised with the contractor to establish what had happened and how such a situation could be avoided in future.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 July 2023 explaining that following the survey of his home, it would be carrying out works to the “kitchen and cloakroom”. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 saying he was unhappy that the bathroom was not going to be replaced. He raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 July 2023 in relation to the complaint. This was appropriate, as it is good practice to clarify the details of a complaint. The resident said that the bath panel was damaged from being taken off so many times and that he had fallen 3 times getting out of the bath. Furthermore, he was upset at “continually being refused a shower”. We find that the resident’s reference to repeated falls warranted a prompt safeguarding response, separate to the complaints process, to assure the landlord of the resident’s welfare. For example, it may have been able to reduce the immediate risk of further falls by loaning the resident suitable equipment until a more permanent solution could be found. Its omission to demonstrate that it responded accordingly is unsatisfactory. While some falls may be non-reportable as per its safeguarding policy, it says that an internal written record should be kept of what happened and what action was taken. This was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023. It said that on 6 July 2023, the resident was “visited for a survey for kitchen and/or bathroom”. The response went on to say that, upon inspection of the bathroom, it was found to be in “average condition” and owing to its age was not due for replacement until 2032. However, the landlord’s notes of 6 July 2023 did not make any reference to the bathroom’s age or condition. Furthermore, the landlord has subsequently explained to us that the survey was in reference to the “kitchen and cloakroom”. It noted that the kitchen programme was previously referred to as the “kitchen and bathroom” programme, which may have caused some confusion, and has since split them apart to manage expectations more accurately. This suggests that an inspection was not carried out of the bathroom, which conflicts with the stage 1 response. We are unable to conclude that the evidence the landlord relied upon provided the necessary details of the age and condition to satisfy it met the criteria of the Decent Homes Standard. This was not appropriate and unfair to the resident. It was also a record keeping failure.
  10. The stage 1 response went on to advise the resident to contact adult social care to discuss his needs. This was appropriate and in line with the advice on the landlord’s website in relation to aids and adaptations, which says that if residents have trouble getting in and out of the bath, they should make contact to discuss the matter. Furthermore, the landlord said that if the bathroom were no longer adequate for the resident’s needs, it would consider adaptations through the disabled/adult social care route. This was appropriate advice and in line with its repair policy, which says this type of work will be carried out in conjunction with a referral from an occupational therapist. It was also reasonable for the landlord to defer making a decision on a bathroom replacement in relation to aid and adaptations until it had the necessary information provided from a professional in the related field of expertise. This was particularly relevant as the landlord was not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  11. On 1 August 2023, a retrofit assessment was carried out at the property. This was an assessment of the property to identify what improvements were needed to make it more energy efficient. The survey notes did not detail the age or condition of the bathroom. While it is appreciated that the assessment had a specific purpose, the landlord potentially missed an opportunity to assess the bathroom during the same visit and minimise disruption to the resident.
  12. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 10 August 2023. He said that he “felt discriminated against due to his age” and had tried to contact the assisted living team but did not receive a response. He said that as he was not registered as disabled, he would not get any help. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 5 September 2023, saying that it investigated his complaint in conjunction with the government guidance outlined above. It confirmed that the bathroom was last replaced in 2003 and not due for an upgrade until 2033. This Service notes that the replacement year differed from the stage 1 response, and it is reasonable to conclude that it was a typing error. This could mean an additional wait of 12 months for the resident, which was unfair. The landlord should have identified the error and clarified the correct year in its response to the resident. Again, we have not seen any evidence that supports the age or condition of the bathroom for which the landlord has relied upon, to satisfy itself that the bathroom met the criteria of the Decent Homes Standard. This is despite 2 visits being carried out in July and August 2023.
  13. The landlord went on to say that it had addressed the resident’s reports of disrepair to the bathroom and had no evidence of repeated requests for a shower to be installed. This was in line with the evidence provided, which showed 1 previous reference by the resident for the bath to be replaced with a shower on 6 April 2023. The landlord reiterated that the resident should contact adult social care to ensure any adjustments were suitable for his needs. It apologised if the resident felt this advice was discriminatory and was not its intension to cause offence. It said that it was trying to assist the resident in “moving forward” and ensure that any adjustments were suitable for his needs.
  14. The advice was appropriate and in line with its policies. It also addressed the resident’s concerns in relation to discrimination. It clearly explained its reasoning for its suggestion to contact adult social care and apologised if this had caused offence to him. Nevertheless, the landlord could have gone further in assisting the resident to contact adult social care given he said that he could not make contact via telephone. This would have demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and provided a solution to his complaint. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure its records accurately reflected the resident’s needs and any vulnerabilities.
  15. On 27 September 2023, the resident made a further report that the bath waste was leaking whenever used. The repair was raised as a priority C and completed on 13 October 2023. This was 10 working days later, and 5 working days outside of the policy timescale. This was not appropriate. It was evidently frustrating for the resident that the leak was not addressed adequately first time and required further repair visits. The need for repeat visits prolonged a resolution for the resident, which evidently caused him distress and inconvenience.
  16. In summary, the landlord twice failed to adhere to its repair policy timescale, with necessary repairs being carried out 5 days later on both occasions. While it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, the inspection notes of 6 July and 1 August 2023 did not make reference to the age and condition of the bathroom. The landlord did clarify that the visit of 1 August 2023 was in relation to energy efficiency. However, it said in its stage 1 response that it had inspected the bathroom during the visit of 6 July 2023. The landlord has therefore failed to show that the evidence it relied upon when making a decision about replacement of the bathroom met the criteria of the Decent Homes Standard. This represents an additional recording keeping failure.
  17. In relation to the resident’s comments that he had fallen 3 times getting in and out of the bath and had said that he felt discriminated against with the suggestion to contact adult social care. The landlord address these concerns in its stage 2 response and apologised if this had caused offence which was not its intension. The landlord provided appropriate advice in relation to contacting its adult social care for support. This is because any assessment or information they provided would be from a professional in the related field of expertise. The resident explained that he was unsuccessful in contacting the relevant team. Given this, the landlord could have gone further in making the necessary referral for him. In addition, he was evidently frustrated with the need for repeat visits for the same repair, having reported that the bath was leaking 3 time between April and September 2023, which required 4 visits to fix.
  18. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a shower and the associated repairs. As a result £250 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy under “compensation levels”, which is the most appropriate section to be applied in this case. It says it can award a maximum of £250 compensation for the time trouble and inconvenience associated with bringing a complaint not covered elsewhere in its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a shower and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a shower and the associated repairs.
    3. Assist the resident in contacting adult social care in order for an assessment of his needs to be carried out in relation to the use of the bathroom.
    4. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s bathroom by a suitably qualified surveyor in order to establish its current condition and the surveyor’s recommendations for a sustainable solution to address the issues identified. The landlord must send a copy of the surveyor’s report to the Ombudsman and the resident, clearly setting out:
      1. Its decision on the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom in light of the surveyor’s report.
      2. The action it proposes to take to remedy the condition of the bathroom.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.