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

Epping Forest District Council (202409710)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409710

Epping Forest District Council

02 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a bathroom door repair.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives with his wife who has a health condition. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident made a service request on 11 April 2024, to report his disabled access bathroom door was off its runners. The landlord attended the next day, but did not repair it. It stated it needed clarity if it was the repairs team or another department that handled the repair.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 2 separate occasions before it raised an appointment for the door repair for 10 May 2024. The resident was unhappy and made a complaint on 23 April 2024. He highlighted his wife’s vulnerabilities as she had multiple sclerosis (MS). He wanted the repair to be treated as urgent and did not want to wait until 10 May 2024. He said due to his wife’s condition she had to remain warm in the shower, which was not possible as the door was wedged open. He highlighted this appointment was only to measure for the door and was not aware when the actual repair would take place.
  4. The landlord updated the resident on 01 May 2024 that it had employed a subcontractor to get the repair completed quickly. The landlord’s records show the subcontractor attended on 08 May 2024 and measured up for the job.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident advising it needed more time to investigate the complaint on 07 May 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024. The landlord apologised and acknowledged the resident, and his wife had been left in a difficult situation. It explained it had to identify who was responsible for the repair with its adaptation team. It acknowledged its guidance for adaptation works was unclear and it sought to resolve the situation by employing a subcontractor to complete the work.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 May 2024. He stated the landlord did not act within the timeframes of its repairs policy of 30 days for a repair. He was unhappy a week had passed since the measurements had been taken and he had heard nothing. He asked for a formal written apology and for the other doors to be inspected. The landlord’s records show the contractor repaired the door on 21 May 2024.
  7. On 24 May 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had taken “several poor decisions” to manage the repair report and apologised. The landlord advised it would repair the rollers on the second door to prevent any future problems. 
  8. The resident brought his complaint to the Service on 18 June 2024. He explained the length of time the repair had taken and that he was unhappy with the way he had been treated. He reported that the agreed-upon additional works from stage 2 were incomplete, despite the completion of the initial repair. He later added that he wanted the landlord to reassess the way it had dealt with the repair and the timeframes, given his wife’s vulnerabilities.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported in the complaint to the Service on 18 June 2024 that the door he originally complained about had been repaired, however the additional work agreed at stage 2 had not been completed. This additional work was not part of the original complaint. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Any new issues or repairs raised that have not exhausted the landlord’s process will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The Ombudsman will not therefore be investigating the repair to the second door as the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate it.


Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states they will respond to an urgent repair within 5 days and defined an urgent repair as ‘repairs that may affect the comfort of customers and may cause damage to the property if not carried out urgently’. Its repairs policy says it will respond to a routine repair within 30 days.
  2. The repair policy also states “In assigning the repair priority, the effect of delay on particular occupants should be considered. For example, a repair that may normally be categorised as urgent should be upgraded to emergency if an occupant has a vulnerability such as age or ill health where a delay could have a particularly adverse effect.”

The resident’s complaint of a bathroom door repair

  1. When making the service request on 11 April 2024, the resident informed the landlord that his wet room door was disability-adapted. Given this report the landlord was made aware that there was vulnerability within the household. While the landlord did not record the repair as urgent it acted in line with its repairs policy for urgent repairs. It attended on the following day which was within the prescribed 5 working day timeframe.
  2. There was an initial delay caused as the landlord’s contractor was unclear of its own procedures and questioned whether it was another department who was responsible. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have clear procedures for issues like that. While the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord’s engagement in communication with the resident and its repairs and adaptation team, the evidence also shows the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions to explain the urgency and move the date of the measurement forward.
  3. The landlord was unable to do so and appropriately decided to subcontract out the repair work which was a reasonable action. The landlord’s records show it chased the subcontractor on 16 May 2024, who advised it would commence the work on 21 May 2024 which it did. Although the landlord made a considerable effort to resolve the issue it did not provide resolution until 38 days from the initial report. This was beyond the timeframes for both urgent and/or routine repairs.
  4. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged making “several poor decisions” and apologised for these. It explained the delay was due to not having clear guidance on adaptation repairs. Although the evidence shows the landlord took actions to progress the work quicker and completed the job, it did not respond to the residents request to upgrade the repair to urgent. There is no evidence it considered its own policy as above for upgrading a repair priority for residents with ill health where a delay could have a particularly adverse effect. The lack of response to the resident’s request to upgrade the repair was unreasonable.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord could not demonstrate that it had fully considered the inconvenience caused to the resident and his vulnerable household by the acknowledged delays and failures. The resident reported to the landlord on a number of occasions that his wife could not have had the comfort of a warm bathroom, and the privacy required. While the landlord acknowledged the “difficult situation” of the resident and his wife and apologies in its responses, it did not offer compensation.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 7.2 states that “any remedy offered must reflect the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified”. Landlords are expected to adhere to the Code’s prescriptions. There has been an avoidable inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and his wife. As such, the landlord should have offered financial redress for any unfair impact of its failures. By not doing so, it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.  
  7. For all the reasons above the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bathroom door repair.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a bathroom door repair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to do the following:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in repairs.
    2. Confirm compliance with this order to the Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its practices and processes about handling adaptation repairs and provides additional training to its frontline and repairs handling staff.