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

Thanet District Council (202329279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329279

Thanet District Council

18 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 the resident’s request to repair or replace her shower.

Background

  1. The resident held a joint secure tenancy of a 3-bedroom house from 2010, where she lived with her 2 children and former partner. She subsequently became the sole tenant in 2022 and then moved to alternative accommodation in December 2024. The landlord, a local council, owns the property. It had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident at the time of her complaint.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that her shower was not working on 10 August 2023. It responded stating it was her responsibility to repair as she had installed the shower.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 September 2023 that she had been without washing facilities for 4 weeks. She said she had to involve her MP to get a resolution. She added that she was disabled and had to travel 2 hours to her sister’s home to shower. She said that the travel costs had caused financial hardship.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 September 2023. It confirmed that its contractor initially attended and advised that the shower was her responsibility. It apologised for its miscommunication. It noted that she had the use of a bath but it would replace the shower that day.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the same day. She said its contractor had agreed with her that it had previously replaced the shower yet it refused to do the work. She said that it only listened because she involved the MP. She added that she was unable to use the bath due to her disability and its contractor failed to replace the plug.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2023. It confirmed that it installed a new shower on 21 September 2023. It explained that it originally declined her request as she refurbished the bathroom which made the alterations her responsibility. It found that it had previously replaced the shower in error and apologised for its miscommunication which led to the delay. It offered £150 compensation as a gesture of good will.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to increase its compensation offer to cover her travel costs and the distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she said that the situation had caused stress, depression, and that she had suffered emotionally and physically. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience likely caused by any failings by the landlord.

Request for a replacement shower

  1. The landlord’s records show that when it let the property as a joint tenancy in 2010, there was an adapted level access shower. The council had installed this for the previous occupants and it deemed it to be suitable for the resident’s former partner’s needs at the time. It noted that at some point the resident or her partner altered the bathroom to include a corner bath and over-bath shower.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records from January to May 2023 show that it attended on 2 occasions to reports of a faulty shower. Its records show that it told the resident that it was her responsibility to repair as she advised it that she had replaced the bathroom 6 years prior. This included the pop-up plug in the bath. Its response would have been reasonable but for the fact that its records also referred to having replaced the resident’s own shower previously. It had apparently done this in error.
  3. The resident reported her shower not working again on 10 August 2023. The landlord’s records show that it was a Bluetooth wireless shower which had lost connection to the unit in the loft. She asked it to replace it with a standard shower but it maintained its position that it was the resident’s responsibility. While we appreciate the landlord’s position, it did not demonstrate that it investigated its repair records which is a failing. Had it done so, it would have been aware of the work it previously carried out.
  4. The resident contacted her MP on 8 September 2023. She said she was at her “wits end” as the landlord was refusing to fix or replace her shower. She explained that its contractor had installed the last 2 showers, with the last being the previous year. The MP contacted the landlord the same day asking it to look into the matter urgently. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a resolution.
  5. The landlord appropriately considered the matter the same day. Its internal emails refer to “potentially” being liable to repair or replace the shower. It found that it had replaced the Bluetooth shower with another of the same type in error and not picked this up 2 years ago. It informed the MP it that it would replace the shower and contacted the resident the following day to confirm this. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. In the resident’s complaint she repeated that she had been left without a shower and said the situation had caused “immense stress” and depression. She referred to the financial difficulty caused and that it had previously refused to install a walk in shower for her.
  7. The landlord appropriately apologised for its miscommunication in its stage 1 response. It confirmed the replacement of the shower that day and noted the resident had the use of a bath. While its apology and offer to fit a new shower was reasonable, it could have considered offering redress at this point for its miscommunication.
  8. In the resident’s escalation request she said that its contractor had agreed they had previously replaced the shower and they had failed to replace the plug in the bath. She said that when it replaced the shower previously, she had not wanted another Bluetooth shower but it insisted it would be like-for-like. She repeated that she was out-of-pocket and had suffered emotionally and physically. She added that she was unable to use the bath due to her disability.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised again for its miscommunication and confirmed that it replaced the shower on 21 September 2023. It explained that replacing the bath plug was the resident’s responsibility. This was reasonable and in line with the responsibilities set out in its tenant handbook. It demonstrated that it investigated its records and said that it found no evidence of any prior Occupational Therapy (OT) referrals requesting a shower adaptation.
  10. The landlord said that when the resident moved into the property in 2010 there was a level access shower and no bath. It said that the bathroom had been refurbished without its consent. It explained its process for requesting permission and that as part of the process it advised tenants that they become responsible for maintaining any alterations. It acknowledged that it replaced the shower in good faith but in error originally and would review its process to prevent such occurrences in the future. It said that any future repairs or replacements would be the resident’s responsibility.
  11. The landlord appropriately suggested the resident obtain an OT report, as she had now advised it of her disability, to assist with any support needs. It acknowledged that it should have accurately communicated to the resident whose responsibility the shower was and why when she first reported the fault. It offered £150 as a gesture of good will for its miscommunication.
  12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered (apology, compensation, and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. While we appreciate that the situation would have likely been distressing for the resident, the landlord’s apology, replacement of the shower, and compensation offer was reasonable. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint. Its compensation offer of £150 is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, when a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s request to fix or replace the shower.

Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £150 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.