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

Harlow District Council (202325682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325682

Harlow District Council

6 June 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 repairs to the resident’s shower.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1990. The property is a 1-bedroom flat located on the 13th floor of a block. The landlord stated that the resident did not report any vulnerabilities to it regarding this repair. An occupational health report provided to this Service, dated April 2019, noted that the resident had back problems, depression, and asthma.
  2. The repair records indicate that a new shower was installed at the property on 1 October 2020. On 8 October 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the shower was “wonky” and that the water temperature was too high. Over the course of 3 years, multiple repair jobs were carried out, including the installation of another shower, a hose replacement, relocating the shower, and re-tiling the shower area.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 August 2023. He stated that he had experienced ongoing issues with the shower, which was not a like-for-like replacement, since its installation. He mentioned having to make several phone calls due to the shower’s intermittent operation over this period. Currently, he reported that the shower was “completely dead”, and the next scheduled repair was not until September 2023. Although he had been advised to use the bath in the meantime, he explained that this was not “simple” for him and that the bath frequently became blocked.
  4. On 24 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, outlining its understanding of the complaint. It accepted that the resident had reported ongoing shower issues. After consulting with its plumbing department, it confirmed that an inspection had taken place, and repairs including refitting the shower and temperature adjustments were requested. An appointment was scheduled for 5 September 2023, which was the earliest available date. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging the delay in resolving the issue despite following its established procedures.
  5. On 1 September 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He expressed his frustration with the extended delays and ongoing issues related to the shower repairs. He repeated that the shower was not initially replaced like-for-like due to cost concerns, and that its repositioning had resulted in additional work, delays, and higher costs. He believed it would have been more cost-effective to replace the shower with an identical model from the start. The resident said the repeated relocations had caused inconvenience and delayed other planned work in the property. He also raised concerns about reduced water pressure and external piping, which he feared could lead to cold water during winter. Furthermore, he said he was upset by delays and the lack of direct communication with the plumbing team, noting that his requests for callbacks were ignored. He requested information on the total costs incurred due to these ongoing issues.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 September 2023, explaining that the plumbing team had confirmed a new shower was installed in September 2020. However, it could not be replaced like-for-like because the original model was no longer available from the preferred supplier. Follow-up visits in October 2020 and September 2022 had involved minor repairs and the replacement of a frayed hose. In November 2022, a new shower was installed due to default issues, which required adjustments and resulted in 2 holes in the tiles. The landlord also stated that the shower required moving by 300mm, a job initially scheduled for April 2023 but delayed after the resident refused further work; it was eventually completed on 5 September 2023. The landlord added that it had inspected the shower and coordinated with the resident on minor repairs. Regarding the resident’s request for the cost of the work, it said the exact amount could not be provided. It concluded that the complaint was not upheld and confirmed that the shower repair had been completed as promised.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 7 November 2023. He said that as a resolution to the complaint he wanted the shower moved and the tiles replaced. The repair log shows that the tiles have now been replaced.


Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that standard repairs should be completed within 20 working days. It specifies that repairs or replacements to electric showers over baths are treated as standard repairs. Additionally, internal wall tiling in bathrooms is also classified as a standard repair.
  2. A new shower was installed in the resident’s property on 1 October 2020. Between October 2020 and July 2023, the following repairs were raised:
    1. On 8 October 2020, the resident said that the shower was “wonky” and there were issues with the temperature of the water. The associated work was evidenced as complete on 16 October 2020, which was 6 working days later and within the landlord’s repair policy timescale.
    2. On 31 January 2022, the resident reported that the shower hose was fraying. Case notes indicated the replacement part was awaiting dispatch, but the job was cancelled on 12 August 2022. This period spanned 135 working days. The reason for the delay between the initial report and cancellation appeared to be due to the job being allocated to the wrong team. However, it is unclear why there was a significant delay in identifying this error due to insufficient detail in the notes, suggesting a failure in record keeping.
    3. On 12 August 2022, the landlord raised a repair to replace the shower hose. An appointment was set for 27 September 2022, and the repair was completed on 28 September 2022. Although the repair was finished within 1 day of the scheduled appointment, it occurred 32 working days after the initial repair request in August 2022 and 167 working days after the original report was made. Therefore, the amount of time between raising the repair and scheduling the appointment was unreasonable.
    4. On 27 September 2022, further work was needed due to a fault with the shower. The operative’s notes indicated that the “job was very urgent as the resident was disabled”. The notes show that the resident scheduled an appointment on 25 October 2022, and the landlord attended 2 days later. The resident then arranged another appointment on 11 November 2022, with the landlord attending on 14 November 2022 to replace the shower and complete the works. The landlord responded within its policy timescales following the appointments arranged by the resident. However, there is no indication that it responded appropriately to its operative’s note that the job was urgent for a period of nearly 2 months. For example, it missed an opportunity to explore the nature of the resident’s disability, the impact on him, the possibility of a temporary solution, or whether it was necessary to expedite the repair/appointment.
    5. On 27 January 2023, the resident reported that the shower was hanging away from the wall, allowing water to enter. Case notes indicate that the landlord attended on 31 January, 13 February, and 3 April 2023. The repair was not marked as complete until 5 April 2023. The case notes also state that the resident “refused proposed works to move the shower”. The initial attendance on 31 January 2023 was within the landlord’s 20–working–day policy timescale (as it was 4 days after notification), which was appropriate. However, subsequent visits extended beyond the 20–working–day timescale, with the final completion occurring approximately 64 working days after the initial report. From the evidence it would appear that this was outside of the landlord’s control, as the resident had refused for the work to be carried out. It is acknowledged that repairs which are not straightforward and/or require multiple visits may take longer than a landlord’s usual timescale to fully resolve, and that the interval between visits was not excessive. It is also positive that the landlord persisted in its efforts to resolve the issue for the resident.
    6. On 7 July 2023, the resident reported that the shower was not functioning and was hanging from the wall. A repair job was raised on 21 July 2023 to move the shower by 300mm. The work was attended to on 15 August and completed on 5 September 2023. The initial attendance on 15 August 2023 occurred 27 working days after the report, exceeding the 20–working–day policy timescale. The completion of the work on 5 September 2023 was 42 working days after the initial report, which was 22 working days beyond the policy timescale, and therefore not appropriate.
  3. While some of the repairs outlined above were attended to promptly, there were notable delays between the initial reports and the scheduling or completion of repairs. The delays related to the resident refusing certain works were beyond the landlord’s control. However, some of the delays appear to be due to internal record keeping failures or administrative delays in initiating and scheduling the appointments.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 16 August 2023, stating that the shower replacement was not a straightforward like-for-like swap, as it involved relocating the shower and additional tile work. He also expressed frustration that the earliest available appointment was not until September 2023. The landlord responded on 24 August 2023, outlining the actions it planned to take and apologising for not being able to offer an earlier appointment. It partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging that the process had taken longer than desired. However, in our view, the response did not adequately address the resident’s concerns. It failed to clarify the reasons behind the deviation from a like-for-like replacement (which was of obvious concern to the resident) or explain why extra work was involved. While it admitted that the resolution took longer than expected, it did not offer any form of compensation to put things right, which we consider to be unfair.
  5. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 1 September 2023, as he was unhappy at the length of time the shower repairs had taken. Specifically, he was unhappy that the replacement shower was not a like-for-like swap and felt this increased the costs, particularly as the shower was relocated multiple times, which had caused additional work in relation to tiling. He requested details of the total cost of the shower repairs. The landlord responded on 22 September 2023. It explained that it could not replace the shower with the exact same model because its preferred supplier no longer stocked it, and it may no longer be manufactured. This was a reasonable position for it to take. It went on to clearly outline the action it took and explained that it could not provide an exact amount, as costs varied according to standards and repair requirements. The landlord’s response aimed to address the resident’s concerns, and though it did not offer a specific cost figure, the landlord was not obliged to do so.

Summary and conclusion

  1. In summary, the landlord did not adequately adhere to its repair policy timescale. While some delays were beyond its control, others were due to internal record keeping failures, errors, or administrative delays. For example, the landlord took 167 working days to replace the fraying shower hose, and 42 working days to complete the shower repair following the resident’s report in July 2023. It acknowledged some delays but failed to use its complaints process as an effective tool to fully address the resident’s concerns. Though it partially upheld the complaint, it did not offer compensation, which was unfair to him and a missed opportunity to put things right.
  2. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s shower. £150 compensation has been awarded to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will award discretionary payments “where circumstances dictate it is the right thing to do”. It does not provide guidance around award levels. Consequently, we have used our remedies guidance in relation to the level of award for maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower.


Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him in relation to its handling of repairs to his shower.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers reviewing:
    1. Its processes for residents being informed about repairs in a timely and effective manner.
    2. How it communicates and manages expectations in respect of and following repair reports.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This could include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on repairing trust.