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

North Yorkshire Council (202229066)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229066

North Yorkshire Council

21 June 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the quality of the landlord’s repairs to her bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 24 September 2007. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house.
  2. On 14 January 2022, the landlord raised an order to a contractor to retile bathroom walls and renew the bath panel and shower at the property. The contractor began work later that month. In February 2022, the contractor told the landlord that it was unable to complete the works. The landlord has said that the bathroom was left in a functional condition with the remaining works “considered decorative”.
  3. On 4 May 2022, the landlord visited the property and agreed a schedule of works for the remaining repairs to the bathroom. After initially attempting to undertake the work itself, the landlord requested quotes from contractors on 15 June 2022. The landlord’s chosen contractor began work on 26 September 2022. The exact date that it completed the work is unclear from the landlord’s records provided.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of the contractor’s work. The landlord and the contractor inspected the bathroom on 18 October 2022. The landlord deemed the work to be of “an adequate standard”.
  5. A support service made a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 20 December 2022. It said that the bathroom works were incomplete and provided a list of “defects” which included:
    1. Damage to tiling and grouting.
    2. Grouting being a “dirty grey colour”.
    3. Adhesive and grouting left on the surface of tiles.
    4. Varying shades of tile being fitted.
    5. The bath being “unstable” and creaking.
    6. The seal to the shower screen had been cut too short.
    7. Rusty screws being left in the base of the toilet and covered with plastic caps.
    8. The ceiling being poorly decorated.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 January 2023. It said that it had inspected the bathroom on 5 January 2023 and found it to be “in a good condition…safe and wholly appropriate for use by you and your family”.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 16 January 2023. She disputed the stage 1 complaint handler’s findings and accused them of being “dismissive” and “uninterested” in her complaint. She said the issues with the bathroom had caused her depression, anxiety and loss of sleep.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 February 2023. It said that it could “find no reason to disagree with” the findings of its stage 1 response.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 21 February 2023. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position and wished for it to address the defects she had raised.

Assessment and findings

  1. The ‘Decent Homes Standard’ sets out the criteria to establish whether the components of a property are in ‘poor condition’. It says that a bathroom is considered in poor condition where major repair or replacement of 2 or more of the bath, wash band basin or toilet is required. Based upon the issues raised in the resident’s complaint, the bathroom of the property cannot be considered in ‘poor condition’.
  2. However, the Decent Homes Standard is the “minimum standards that social homes are required to meet” and does not encompass all repair work that it would be fair and reasonable to expect a landlord to complete.
  3. It is important to acknowledge that, as a provider of social housing, the landlord has a duty to manage its repair resources and budgets effectively to achieve value for money and maximum benefit across its property stock.
  4. After the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works, the landlord inspected the bathroom on 18 October 2022. It deemed the work to be of an “adequate standard”.
  5. The resident disputed this assessment. She asked for a further inspection by “someone neutral” from outside of the landlord’s repairs department. The landlord agreed to this request and the resident’s housing officer inspected the bathroom on 8 November 2022. They found that whilst there were some “minor imperfections” the bathroom was “functional”.
  6. After receiving the complaint on 20 December 2022, the landlord inspected the bathroom for a third time on 5 January 2023. It provided its stage 1 response the following day which addressed each of the defects raised within the complaint. It said that:
    1. There were a small number of tiny chips to the tiles and grout. It felt these were “so slight” that they did not “detract from either the functionality or appearance of the bathroom”.
    2. It did not agree that the grout was a “dirty grey colour” and thought it looked “alright”.
    3. The adhesive and grouting left on the tiles was not excessive and some could be wiped off.
    4. A small number of tiles had been replaced with tiles a slightly different shade of white, but it felt the colour match was “entirely adequate”.
    5. It was normal for a plastic bath to creak or squeak slightly when in use. It had checked the bath and found it was correctly supported and the noise was not excessive.
    6. The seal to the shower screen was the correct length.
    7. It was standard practice to cap the screws in the base of a toilet to provide a readily cleansable surface. The toilet was secure and did not move at all.
    8. The standard of painting to the bathroom ceiling was acceptable.
  7. Considering the above comments, which mirrored the findings of the landlord’s 2 previous inspections, the landlord’s position that the bathroom was in a good condition and safe to use was reasonable. Whilst they did not conduct a further inspection, the stage 2 complaint handler viewed photographs of the bathroom and reached the same conclusion.
  8. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the fact that the ‘finish’ of the works was not to a level the resident desired. In its stage 1 response, the landlord described her as “very house proud” and her home as “one of the nicest council owned properties in the borough”. It is therefore understandable that the matters raised within her complaint would have caused her a level of distress.
  9. However, the landlord was not obliged to address such cosmetic issues, which could not reasonably be said to affect the functionality or safety of the bathroom. In prioritising best use of its resources and value for money, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine that the bathroom met its required standard and therefore it would not carry out any further works.
  10. This Service has seen no evidence which indicates that the stage 1 complaint handler was dismissive or uninterested, as the resident alleged. The stage 1 response appropriately addressed all concerns raised in the original complaint, as well as others which the resident had mentioned during the inspection on 5 January 2023.
  11. Within her escalation request, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the stage 1 complaint handler had told her “if you want it doing, do it yourself” with regards to retiling the bathroom. She stated this was insensitive and failed to show appropriate regard for ‘the cost of living crisis’. The Ombudsman agrees that such phrasing could be considered inappropriate and abrupt – although it is noted that this was the resident’s account of a phone conversation and may not have reflected the exact wording used. However, the underlying advice that the resident was entitled to retile the bathroom herself if she remained dissatisfied was reasonable.
  12. In summary, the landlord’s position that the bathroom repairs had been completed to an adequate standard was reasonable and supported by the findings of 3 separate inspections. The landlord was not obliged to address the cosmetic defects identified by the resident, which did not impact on her use of the bathroom. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the quality of its repairs to the resident’s bathroom.