Somerset Council (202205504)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205504

Sedgemoor District Council

30 May 2023

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 response to the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a bungalow. The resident accepted the property as part of a mutual exchange. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has been represented in many of her complaint communications by her daughter. For ease of reference, the report will still refer to the ‘resident’ when her daughter made representation on her behalf.
3. The resident’s complaint concerned the condition of her bathroom when she moved into the property. She had raised concerns about the age of the bathroom, rusted handrails, a stained floor, and the presence of a smell. It is understood that the resident believed that the condition of the bathroom was such that it required replacing.
4. In response to the resident’s complaint on 19 May 2022, the landlord said that the bathroom was fitted in 2005 and not due for renewal until 2035. It said that having previously inspected the bathroom, it agreed to undertake some remedial work which included the replacement of any rusty screws, renewal of the basin taps, removal of rust on handrails, application of silicone around the basin and bath as needed, and remedial work to the bathroom door.
5. The resident escalated her complaint because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not replace the bathroom. She refused the remedial works as she believed they did not go far enough. She was dissatisfied because she believed the standard of the bathroom was “shocking,” but the concerns she explained at that time related to the aesthetic and age of the bathroom rather than any specific repair needs.
6. The landlord responded on 10 June 2022. It said that, in accordance with its complaints policy, it would not escalate a complaint on the basis that a resident does not agree with the outcome, but only in circumstances where there has been a clear service failure on its part. It reiterated that it was of the position that the bathroom was not due for replacement. It also reiterated that following its inspection, it identified some minor repairs but considered the bathroom to be of a sufficient standard. It advised the resident that if she wished to agree to the previous work offered, then it would still arrange for them to be undertaken.
7. Following the referral of her complaint to this service, the resident said that she arranged for the bathroom to be replaced herself. She maintained that the condition of the bathroom was such that the landlord should have replaced it. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she had incurred for purchasing a bathroom suite and having this installed.

Assessment and findings

8. This service is only able to consider matters that have first been considered by a landlord under both stages of its complaints process. In her submissions to this service, the resident mentioned her dissatisfaction with a letter she received from the landlord in August 2022. In this letter, the landlord said that the resident made vexatious contact with it in regard to the condition of her bathroom and threatened tenancy action if she persisted. The resident also advised this service that when she ultimately arranged to have the bathroom replaced herself, it was discovered that the bathroom had not been fitted correctly, and she was informed that this had been the cause of drainage issues. As the evidence does not show that the above issues were raised as part of this complaint and occurred after the landlord’s final response, they will not be considered in the investigation. The resident should consider contacting the landlord and raising a new complaint about these matters if they are still of concern.
9. In its stage one response, the landlord said that the bathroom was installed in 2005 and not due for replacement until 2035. The landlord’s intention to replace the bathroom after a thirty-year time period suggests that it had a plan by which it would work towards meeting the Decent Home Standard. This is a positive, as landlords are expected to make every effort to ensure that their properties meet the relevant Decent Home guidance. Reference to the Decent Home guidance is included as an indicator of what might be reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. One of the criteria in the guidance is for a home to have reasonably modern facilities and services. This includes bathrooms less than 30 years old. However, there are other criteria by which a home can be considered reasonably modern, and a landlord is not obliged to satisfy all of them. Accordingly, a home could be considered ‘decent’ even if it has not had its bathroom updated in the previous 30 years. Fixtures in a bathroom such as a bath, wash hand basin, or WC may fail early, which may reasonably 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 or is able to be repaired.
10. It is evident that the landlord undertook a mutual exchange inspection prior to the commencement of the resident’s tenancy. It should be noted that, in general, a mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate a voids inspection. A voids inspection is used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to let following the end of a tenancy by notice rather than exchange. A mutual exchange inspection, on the other hand, would not be as rigorous, and the prospective tenant would usually accept the property in its current condition. As such, if the resident was not satisfied with the condition of the property as presented by the outgoing tenant, she did not have to accept the tenancy.
11. Nonetheless, following a mutual exchange, a landlord is responsible for completing repairs that form part of its overall repair obligations once notified of any issues. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation it provides for sanitation and the supply of water, including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, taps, stopcocks, and water pipes. Nothing in the tenancy or in the evidence provided for this investigation suggests that the landlord has an obligation to replace or renew a bathroom which is working or contains fixtures that are not beyond repair. In that vein, nothing in the evidence shows that the landlord received reports of repair issues that suggested that the bathroom needed a complete replacement, nor that this was determined to be required by its repair staff. As such, the landlord’s decision to not replace the bathroom at the time of the complaint was reasonable. Moreover, the landlord did the appropriate thing by inspecting the resident’s bathroom to find out what issues, if any, needed attention.
12. Following inspection of the property, the landlord offered to sand down the rust on the rails, refit them as required, and replace any other rusty screws. This appeared to be a reasonable solution to resolve the rust issues. However, the resident initially refused this work. The evidence also shows that following the complaint, the landlord agreed to remove the rails and fill in the holes as the resident did not require them (as they were fitted for a previous tenant).
13. It was unclear from the evidence provided if the landlord robustly considered the resident’s reports of stains on the flooring when it inspected the bathroom in May 2022. Nor did the evidence show if it managed the resident’s expectations in regard to whether it considered her or itself to be responsible for floor covering under the tenancy agreement. It also unreasonably did not provide the resident feedback on the flooring or the smell she reported in its stage one response. However, the only dissatisfaction the resident expressed in her subsequent escalation requests related solely to the age of the bathroom, and she was unhappy that her neighbour’s bathroom was “nicer and newer” than hers. As she did not raise any further specific concerns with specific repair issues at that stage, the landlord did not have the opportunity to comment further in that respect at that time. It is noted that following the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the condition of the flooring, but it was the first time seen in the evidence that she made specific reference to potential issues with damp and mould. If the resident has any concerns with the landlord’s response to damp and mould following this, she should contact the landlord and consider raising a new complaint about this matter.
14. It is acknowledged that when the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two on 27 May 2022, it wrote to her on 10 May June 2022 and said that it would not progress the complaint further. However, this response was considered by a senior member of the landlord’s staff, who provided enough of an assessment in relation to the resident’s escalation concerns. The resident’s primary dispute was that she believed the bathroom needed replacing due to its age. The landlord appropriately confirmed that it was of the position that the bathroom met a required working standard, albeit with some minor repairs. Given that the complaint did not concern the working condition of the toilet, basin, bath, or shower, the landlord had no obligation to agree to a bathroom replacement. Its refusal to do so was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately repeated its offer to carry out the remedial works offered in its stage one response, should the resident change her mind about having these carried out.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom.