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

Platform Housing Group Limited (202331192)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331192

Platform Housing Group Limited

18 March 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 the resident’s request for a new bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. She lives in the property with her daughter. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she suffers from back pain which makes it difficult for her to lay down in the bath.
  2. On 24 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair to trace and rectify a leak coming from the resident’s bathroom. The follow on notes on 11 August 2023 said it would need to replace the whole bathroom. This included removing the tiling and shower board, spinning the bath around, and fitting a shower screen. On 11 September 2023, it raised a repair for a hole in the ceiling at the bottom of the stairs and living room caused by the leak. On 29 September 2023, it repaired the leak.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 September 2023. She said the operative who initially attended to her leak said they could not repair it without removing the whole bathroom. She said it was her understanding that a bathroom would be fitted by the landlord, but she had been told it was no longer happening. The resident reported that a plumber would be attending to fix the leak and that they could fix it without the need for a new bathroom.
  4. The resident stated that she had lived with toilet water running down her walls for 2 months, a huge hole in her ceiling, and now the landlord was saying it could fix the leak and she did not need a new bathroom. She said she would contact a disrepair solicitor and wanted the landlord to explain why it was no longer fitting a new bathroom.
  5. On 9 October 2023 the resident asked to add further details to her complaint. This included that her bathroom was 20 years old. Also, that her bath taps and shower were on the wrong side of the wall where there was no guard to stop water from flowing through her ceiling. This meant every time she had a shower, water would go through the ceiling. She felt the bathroom was not fit for purpose.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. The landlord apologised and partially upheld the complaint. In relation to her bathroom, it stated the following:
    1. The leak was attended to on 11 August 2023. It acknowledged that its operative advised they may need to replace the bathroom. It said that was incorrect advice. The landlord said it would only consider a replacement if the repair was not possible.
    2. It fitted the resident’s bathroom in 2003 and it was not due for replacement until 2033. This was unless a repair was not possible before that date.
    3. The ongoing issue was the resident using a shower handset on the bath mixer tap as a stand up shower. It said the bathroom was not designed for that. It said the use of the handset was causing water to get behind the tiles and was seeping downstairs. It said water was also collecting in the windowpane and running onto the floor. The landlord confirmed the bathroom was in a useable condition but the resident should not use the handset.
    4. The landlord upheld the complaint due to the incorrect advice provided on 11 August 2023 and the lack of communication regarding why it would not replace the bathroom. It offered a total of £150 in compensation. £100 was for the communication failures and £50 was for its delay in repairing the ceiling.
  7. The resident responded to the landlord on 20 October 2023. She asked what she should do if her shower handset was not suitable. She expressed that it was not cost or environmentally effective for her family to only have baths everyday. She said a shower was a basic human right and should be a standard in all properties. The resident said she did not accept its response and would go to the Ombudsman and a disrepair solicitor.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023. It said it did not uphold the complaint. The reason provided was that the resident had the shower installed privately and following that, leaks had occurred. It reiterated its version of events regarding what the plumber said on 11 August 2023. It said it would not replace the bathroom until it was at least 30 years old. The landlord stated that it did not carry out home improvements other than those initiated by an occupation therapist’s recommendations or when components reach the end of their usable life. It confirmed that the resident could carry out home improvements subject to its prior approval.
  9. It asked the resident to follow the advice given to prevent any further damage. It said cases where damage was caused by a customer’s own installations could be recoverable by way of charge to the resident.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint regarding her request for a new bathroom to the Ombudsman. She said she found it difficult to wash her hair in the bath and it aggravated her back pain. The resident said everyone else on her street had a shower and it was unfair as she paid the same rent. She said the costs of having to fill baths every day was not affordable. The resident has confirmed receipt of the compensation offered. The outcome she is seeking is for the landlord to fit a new bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was responsible for repairing the systems in the property for sanitation (basins, sinks, baths, and toilets), and keeping those systems in proper working order.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that secure tenants have a legal right to make alterations and improvements to their home provided they obtain written permission before carrying out any works. It says if it provides consent, the customer will become responsible for any subsequent repairs, maintenance, or replacement of the improvement/alteration.
  3. The landlord’s “Guide to undertaking your own home improvements” states that if damage occurs due to an alteration, the resident may be required to re-instate the property to how it was before the alteration took place.
  4. Landlords are expected to make every effort to ensure their properties meet the Government’s decent home guidance. One of the criteria to meet the standards is for a bathroom to be “reasonably modern,” which is taken to be less than 30 years old. The other criteria are outlined in the guidance. It does not refer to requiring a shower to meet the standards.
  5. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) refers to providing adequate facilities for personal hygiene, it says this can be a fitted bath or shower.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom

  1. The Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom. The reasons for this are provided below.
  2. In its complaint responses the landlord states that when it attended on 11 August 2023, the plumber advised they had fixed the leak but if it occurred again, they may need to take the bath out. The landlord then said the plumber may have advised that they needed to replace the bathroom. It said this was incorrect advice.
  3. The repair notes differed to the landlord’s version of events and showed how the resident’s expectations had been raised in relation to getting a new bathroom. It is disappointing that it took over a month for the landlord to communicate that it would not be fitting a new bathroom.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the incorrect information and the delay in updating the resident. It offered £100 in recognition of its failure. The amount offered was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  5. In her formal complaint the resident asked the landlord to provide the reasons why she was not getting a new bathroom. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that it would only consider a replacement if a repair was not possible. In this case, the landlord was able to repair the leak without the need to remove the bath. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained further that the bathroom was not due for replacement until it was at least 30 years old.
  6. The advice provided by the landlord was appropriate and in line with the decent home guidance. We would not expect the landlord to replace the bathroom suite outside of its planned schedule unless it was beyond economic repair.
  7. In her stage 2 escalation the resident queried what she should do following the advice not to use her mixer tap. She said it was not practical to suggest she had a bath every day. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained that it classed fitting a shower as a home improvement, which was something it could not do. It said it would only do improvements if initiated by an occupational therapist’s recommendations or when components reach the end of their usable life. It advised the resident that she could carry out her own home improvements, subject to its prior approval.
  8. The landlord’s response was reasonable. While it is a shame the resident could no longer use her mixer tap for a shower, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain it was unsuitable for her bathroom due to the water damage. As per its home improvement guide, there was no obligation for the landlord to fit a shower in the bathroom.
  9. The resident has requested we consider that it is her human right to have a shower. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act, only a court can do so. We do note that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not refer to a human right to have a shower. Furthermore, there is no current guidance which states that social landlord’s must provide a shower. The HHSRS refers to landlords providing adequate facilities for personal hygiene, and in this case the bath would be sufficient.
  10. The resident has informed the Ombudsman of her difficulties bathing with her back pain. We acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience this may cause to the resident, however, there is no evidence of the resident informing the landlord of her difficulties at the time. The landlord appropriately referred to it being able to consider occupational therapist recommendations and we have made a recommendation in relation to this.
  11. The resident said other homes on her street had showers fitted and it was unfair as she did not. The landlord informed the resident on 27 October 2023 that only 1 of the properties on her street had bathroom work where it fitted a shower. And it was part of a bathroom renewal. The resident disagrees with the information provided by the landlord. The Ombudsman is not able to investigate the landlord’s actions regarding other properties. Ultimately, the resident originally accepted the tenancy with the knowledge that the property did not have a shower.
  12. Overall, it is understandable that the resident was upset following the landlord’s initial communication. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failures and explained why it could not fit a new bathroom or shower. It also reasonably outlined the options available to the resident. As such, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom.

Recommendations

  1. The resident said she does not understand the process for contacting an occupational therapist. If the landlord has an aids and adaptations policy or any further information regarding this, it should provide it to the resident.