Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202216068)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216068

Guinness Housing Association Limited

4 July 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 the installation of a shower.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s policies and called on it to review them. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise to or contribute to a systemic service failure.
  2. There was no evidence that the policies that gave rise to the resident’s dissatisfaction were likely to contribute to a systemic service failure, and therefore this will not be considered in this investigation. The Ombudsman will, however, consider whether the landlord responded reasonably in the circumstances and in accordance with its obligations.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord and commenced his tenancy on 5 August 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The outgoing tenant had previously declined an upgrade to the bathroom during the landlord’s last programme of planned works.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 August 2022, to request the installation of an electric shower in his property, as running a bath from his immersion heater was “prohibitively expensive.” The landlord advised that any upgrade to his bathroom could not be brought forward due to the previous tenant declining works. The resident therefore raised his concerns as a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 September 2022. It asserted that it had acted in accordance with its upgrades procedure. It said it was not obligated to install a shower as bathing facilities were present in the property. The landlord confirmed that the bathroom would not be eligible for an upgrade until five years after the date of the previous programme of works. The landlord advised that the resident could install a shower at his own cost with its permission. It highlighted that the resident had taken on the property in the knowledge that a shower was not present. The landlord offered to provide the resident with support from its energy advice officer to address his concerns about the cost of energy.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint and expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s policies. The landlord provided its final response on 7 October 2022.  The landlord advised that it had investigated whether it could provide him with a shower in the property as part of its ad-hoc planned maintenance work; however, this was not possible. It asserted that, as the property had bathing facilities, it had fulfilled its obligation.
  6. On 15 December 2022, the resident informed the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to install a shower as the bath was too expensive to run. He felt that, as he was seeking only the installation of a shower as opposed to a full bathroom upgrade, the landlord’s planned maintenance procedures should therefore not be applicable.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for the provision of sanitation. This confirms that the landlord must provide washing facilities in the property and keep these facilities in proper working order.
  2. The landlord’s repair obligation for these installations in the property does not, however, extend to an obligation to carry out improvements to the property. The installation of an element in a property that was not previously present constitutes an improvement, and there is no obligation on the landlord to do this.
  3. It may be reasonable for a landlord to install a shower into a property if the existing washing facilities could not be used, i.e., if they were irreparably damaged. The existing bath and the immersion heater that served it were not defective; the resident’s dissatisfaction with these was that he considered them too expensive to run. This reason alone would not obligate the landlord to replace the bath or install an additional washing facility. However, the landlord demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns into account by offering to provide him with support from its energy advice officers. This was a reasonable response that showed that it had engaged with his concerns.
  4. There was no evidence that the washing facilities had changed in the short time between the resident commencing his tenancy and raising a complaint. When a resident commences a tenancy, it is their responsibility to satisfy themselves that the property and the facilities within are suitable for their needs. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the lack of a shower cannot reasonably be attributed to any failure by the landlord.
  5. It was clear that the resident was frustrated by the landlord’s explanation that it could only address the upgrade of his bathroom as part of its next cycle of planned works. A social housing landlord has a duty to manage its finite resources to provide the greatest benefit to all of its residents, and it may have been helpful for it to have explained this in more detail to the resident.
  6. The landlord advised this service on 26 May 2023, that the resident informed it that “he sometimes struggles to get in and out of the bath” due to an old injury. In light of this, it may have been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with information on seeking the installation of a shower as an adaptation. This may have provided him with an avenue to pursue the resolution he sought. The landlord’s omission of this was not a failing, however, as the resident did not mention a physical vulnerability in his complaints to the landlord, and there was no evidence that suggesting an adaptation would have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
  7. Ultimately, while the landlord could have provided more explanation for its decision not to install a shower for the resident, and could have suggested following its adaptations procedure, there was no failure by the landlord. Its decision was reasonable and in line with its obligations as a landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for the installation of a shower.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should signpost the resident to an Occupational Therapist in relation to any concerns about adaptations to the washing facilities.