LiveWest Homes Limited (202231126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231126

LiveWest Homes Limited

14 March 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a request for a bathroom upgrade.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 29 March 1993. The property is a 3-bedroomed mid terrace property built in 1992.
On 13th September 2022, the resident asked the landlord when it would upgrade her bathroom. It told her it would upgrade the bathroom in 2025 and gave details of how she could report any repairs required.
The landlord assessed the resident’s bathroom as part of a stock condition survey on 6 October 2022. It confirmed it would consider the bathroom for replacement again in 2025.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2022. She said that the bathroom was functional but that she had concerns about the amount of water the toilet used when flushed. She had placed a bag in the cistern to reduce water consumption, but this reduced water flow and made the toilet difficult to clean. she felt the landlord should replace the bathroom sooner than it planned to
On 7 November 2022, the replied. It said it would ask an officer from the relevant department to contact her to discuss the request about the bathroom.
The resident made a formal complaint on 15 November 2022 because no one had been in touch. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 November 2022 and said it would respond by 24 November 2022. Following a phone call with the resident on 21 November 2022, it agreed to carry out a further assessment of the bathroom before providing its stage 1 response. The landlord carried out the bathroom assessment on 15 December 2022.
On 23 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, it listed the following points:
1. It had offered the resident a new toilet. She had not wanted to accept this as the colour of the new toilet would not match the current bathroom suite. It had also offered to replace the current flushing system with a more economical dual flush system, which had not been accepted by the resident.
2. The scheduled bathroom replacement in 2025 was not due to a backlog of works. It was an indicative date based on a survey, which assessed whether there was a need to replace the bathroom components.
3. It would do another survey in 2025 to assess whether it would upgrade the bathroom. If the bathroom was in good functional condition, it may defer replacement.
4. It had given her incorrect information when it had told her it replaced bathrooms every 30 years. It assessed bathrooms and their components before deciding that they need replaced.
5. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because of the issues with the toilet and that the resident felt 33 years was an unacceptable time to wait for a bathroom upgrade.
On 9 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord informally acknowledged the complaint on 10 January 2023 and provided a formal acknowledgement letter on 18 January 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023. It listed the following points:
1. The toilet remained functional, its offer of a dual flush system would make it more economical, which would remove the need for the cistern bag.
2. It acknowledged that the replacement toilet offered would be white and that this would not match the current suite. It could not warrant a replacement bathroom suite because of aesthetics.
3. It would address any repairs to the toilet or flooring in line with its repairs process. There were currently no repairs required or logged. The landlord would only replace the bathroom tiling or flooring if it were damaged, or if it were replacing the bathroom.
4. As a result of the most recent stock condition survey her bathroom was not due to be replaced until 2025. If the landlord considered that a bathroom was not fit for purpose, it would be replaced under its advanced renewal programme. It found her bathroom to be serviceable and would not consider replacing the whole bathroom at this stage.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 2 April 2023

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairing obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is responsible for repairing sanitary installations, including basins, baths and toilets, and keeping them in working order.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not have information relevant to the planned replacement of bathrooms in its repairs information. It has since included this information in its service offer to customers. It states that it will replace components such as bathrooms once they have reached their optimum lifestyle, or the condition of the components means they need replaced. Nothing in the tenancy agreement or other evidence provided for this investigation, suggests, that the landlord has an obligation to replace or renew a bathroom which is working, or not otherwise in need of repair.
Landlords are expected to make every effort to ensure their properties meet the Government’s decent home guidance. One of the criteria in the guidance is for a bathroom to be “reasonably modern”, which is taken to be less than 30 years old. However, there are other criteria also, and a landlord is not obliged to satisfy all of them. Accordingly, a home could be considered to be ‘decent’, even if it has not had its bathroom updated in the previous 30 years.
In this case, the landlord told the resident it would assess the bathroom in 2025. This shows that the landlord had a plan by which it would work towards meeting the decent home guidance. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if a property meets the criteria in the guidance. We have included reference to the guidance as an indicator of what might be reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
On receiving the resident’s request, the landlord was right to visit and assess the bathroom. It did not provide any evidence detailing the outcome of this inspection, other than a commitment for a further assessment in 2025. This was unhelpful and may be the reason, it did not respond to the resident’s request on 3 November 2022. However, arranging a further assessment of the bathroom after the resident made her formal complaint, was helpful.
The assessment done by the landlord on 15 December 2022 found the bathroom to be in good condition and fully serviceable. It discussed the resident’s points about the amount of water the toilet used when flushing. Its offer to change the toilet or install a dual flush system were reasonable suggestions. Either option would have addressed the resident’s concerns about water usage.
The landlord advised that the resident could report any repairs with the bathroom, and it would address them in line with its repairs process.
We understand a resident’s preference to have a toilet that would match the other components of the bathroom suite. However, this is not required by legislation, guidance or the landlord’s own policies or procedures. The landlord responded to the resident’s request appropriately, it assessed the bathroom and found it to be in good repair and proper working order. It also committed to assessing the bathroom again in 2025.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response the resident’s request to upgrade her bathroom.