From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

ForHousing Limited (202320924)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320924

ForHousing Limited

21 May 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom tiles and bath.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s records show on 25 April 2023 the resident reported problems with his bathroom tiles and his bath, which it attempted to resolve with a range of repairs. The resident raised concerns about the repairs and the impact on his household and particularly his wife’s ability to use the bath as she has mobility issues.
  3. The resident complained on 11 May 2023 due to the quality of the bathroom tile repairs. In calls on 26 and 27 June 2023, he added to his complaint. Among other things he said tiles were fixed over existing tiles, so his wife’s bath board did not fit over the bath. He said the tiles had fallen and damaged the bath, so a replacement rather than a repair was needed. He also queried if the operative sent to inspect the safety of the remaining tiles was qualified to do so.
  4. The landlord issued an initial complaint response on 11 July 2023. It apologised for service failures including the poor tiling work and the lack of clarity around the steps required for a new bath. It confirmed the operative was qualified to check the tiles safety. It acknowledged and apologised for the resident’s household not having bathing facilities for a week and offered £75 compensation. It confirmed the tile work was now complete and invited the resident to contact it about a bath repair.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 11 July 2023. He set out his reasons on 17 July 2023 repeating his original concerns. He also said the contractor had not attended a visit scheduled for 12 May 2023 and he queried the need for a bath repair, saying he was told the bath would be replaced.
  6. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 11 August 2023. It apologised for its contractor not visiting on 12 May 2023. It confirmed it had arranged for a bath replacement and completed additional tiling works. It offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience and upset caused.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 October 2023. He wanted the landlord to carry out its repair obligations to a high standard.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will repair the property structure such as internal walls as well as keep in working order installations for sanitation including the bath.
  2. The resident complained about the quality of the retiling work carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 10 May 2023. He explained on 11 May 2023 the tiles fell off the wall damaging the bath and that he felt the operative that inspected the safety of the remaining tiles was unqualified to do so. At the inspection he was told there would be a further visit on 12 May 2023 which he said was not attended. The resident said his household was unable to use the bath during this time. This particularly impacted his wife because of her mobility issues. The retiling works meant her bath board did not fit over the bath.
  3. In its initial complaint response of 11 July 2023, the landlord explained it had addressed the tiling work done on 10 May with its contractor. It apologised and said the original tiler was no longer working for it. It explained the operative who inspected the tiles on 11 May was checking for loose tiles, which did not require a specific qualification. The landlord said the re-tiling job was completed, and the resident has confirmed it was done on 16 May. It explained its process was to try to repair the bath before potentially replacing it, and apologised for the unclear information its operative had given the resident. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange the repair. It apologised for its service failures and poor communication and acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience caused by the loss of the resident’s bathing facilities. It offered £75 compensation for the repair issues as its “service fell below normal standard”.
  4. While we have not seen evidence of the completion of the re-tiling work, the resident has told the Service it was completed on 16 May 2023 after which the household were able to use the bathing facilities. The landlord acknowledged mistakes with the original tiling works, followed up with its contractor about it, rectified the issue and apologised, and explained the appropriateness of its operative’s skills. This was reasonable showing acceptance of service failures and steps to put things right.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint setting out his dissatisfaction about a missed appointment and the value of attempting a repair before replacing the bath. In its final complaint response of 11 August 2028 the landlord apologised for the resident having to chase an update after a promised visit on 12 May 2023 did not take place. It also confirmed that as part of the resolution process on 8 August 2023 it had replaced the bath (without an initial repair) and on 10 August 2023 it had completed additional tiling works (around the new bath). It increased the compensation from £75 to £250 for the inconvenience and upset caused. The compensation was proportionate to the nature of the repair issues and the stress and inconvenience caused. It was also in line Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a complaint of this nature and scale.
  6. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress offer put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. In this case the landlord appropriately apologised, offered reasonable compensation and resolved the repairs. While the loss of the use of the bathing facility from 10 to 16 May 2023 would have been understandably stressful, the household were able to use the facilities up until the bath was replaced. In addition, a new bath was installed without requiring a bath repair. These remedies were appropriate to resolve the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process with complaint acknowledgments sent within 5 working days of the complaint and responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and its initial complaint response of 11 July 2023 exceeded its policy timescales. The response should have been issued at the beginning of June 2023 had it been acknowledged and issued within its policy timescales. Neither complaint response recognised its complaint handling failures. This was unreasonable as it meant it did not apply its complaints policy. It was also a failure to apply the Complaint Handling Code (Code) which requires a complaint acknowledgement within 5 working days and initial response within 10 working days.
  3. The landlord has not apologised or compensated the resident for its complaint handling failures which means the complaint has not been resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the bathroom tiles and bath.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures and the inconvenience caused.
  2. Evidence of payment must be provided to the Service by the deadline.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should also now pay the £250 compensation previously offered. The determination is partly based on it doing so.