London Borough of Hounslow — case 202344511

Decision Case ID 202344511 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Hounslow Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 29 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a ground-floor 3-bedroom flat. She has a learning disability and also advised the landlord she had difficulty accessing the bathing facilities at the property. In September 2023 she reported issues with the hot water supply to the bath shower mixer tap. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Response to issues with the hot water supply to the shower.

Handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We found that there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s response to issues with the hot water supply to the shower. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Response to issues with hot water supply to the shower The landlord did not adequately investigate the resident’s ongoing concerns or clearly explain the limitations of the shower arrangement, which contributed to delays and unnecessary frustration.

Additionally, the compensation offered did not reflect the length of time the issue remained unresolved. Complaint handling Although there were minor delays meeting target dates at both stages of the process, these were not considered unreasonable. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 26 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience associated with its response to issues with the hot water supply to the shower. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. No later than 26 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened February 2024 The resident reported concerns about low water pressure in the bathroom, which was preventing her from being able to use the mixer tap shower attachment.

The landlord responded, explaining that its repairs team would not install new equipment. It advised the resident to arrange and pay for her own plumber if she wished to install an electric shower or pump. The landlord also provided information about contacting an occupational therapist (OT) if the resident considered herself disabled and required additional support. 6 March 2024 The landlord raised a formal complaint for the resident following intervention from us about the hot water supply to the shower mixer tap.

It acknowledged the complaint the following day. 14 March 2024 The resident contacted the landlord to explain that she had fallen in the bath and now required a shower. The landlord replied the following day, requesting medical evidence to confirm any medical conditions or disabilities. 26 March 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response, outlining the actions it had taken, including a surveyor’s inspection. It also explained the process for obtaining an OT assessment should any improvements or adaptations be required.

The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. 14 May 2024 The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She explained that the shower attachment was not fit for purpose, as it only produced cold water—even when not used as a shower and only used as an attachment while bathing. As a resolution, she requested a functioning shower. 20 May 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised that it would issue a final response by 18 June 2024.

19 June 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response, setting out the further inspections it had carried out. It explained that the mixer tap shower attachment was not functioning because the hot and cold water pressures were unequal. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, stating that it had been unable to find a resolution. Additionally, it acknowledged that the resident should not have been advised to employ her own plumber. It offered her £50 in compensation and arranged for an additional inspection to explore whether the functionality of the shower hose attachment could be improved.

Referral to the Ombudsman In March 2024, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, stating that she wanted the landlord to repair the shower. During recent contact with us, she confirmed that the landlord had since installed an electric shower, which she was satisfied with. However, she remained unhappy about the length of time it took the landlord to complete the work. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Response to issues with the hot water supply to the shower Finding Maladministration The landlord’s repair policy sets out the following response times: Emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours. Urgent repairs will be attended within 5 working days. Routine repairs will be attended within 20 working days. For more complex repairs, the policy allows up to 40 working days for completion.

The evidence shows that the resident had been reporting problems with the hot water pressure since September 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the property in October 2023. However, the records do not indicate what action, if any, was taken during the visit. Internal correspondence dated 7 November 2023 also states that the contractor failed to leave any notes about their attendance. Accurate and timely documentation is essential for tracking progress and ensuring outstanding repairs are monitored and managed effectively.

On 26 February 2024, the resident again reported low water pressure in the bathroom, explaining that it was affecting her ability to bathe. The landlord’s case notes indicate that it informed the resident the issue had been addressed several times and that it could not offer further assistance. She was advised either to make alterations to the bathroom herself or to contact the occupational therapy team. The following day, the landlord provided her with the necessary information regarding an OT assessment.

While referring the resident to the OT team was an appropriate step to progress matters, it was not appropriate for the landlord to suggest that she carry out works herself. The evidence shows that the resident had repeatedly raised concerns and that the landlord was aware of her frustration. It therefore could have responded with greater empathy to her situation. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 6 March 2024, the landlord raised a works order for a surveyor to attend the property and determine what action, if any, could be taken—for example, whether the resident would qualify for the installation of a shower.

The repair log records that an inspection took place on 8 March 2024. However, no notes were provided to confirm the outcome of the inspection. It was evidenced as complete on 22 March 2024. As previously noted, it is essential that landlords record the actions taken and the decisions reached in order to maintain a clear audit trail and to demonstrate how issues have been investigated and addressed. At this stage of the investigation, the landlord had not demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to fully address the resident’s concerns.

The resident had repeatedly reported the issue, and the absence of contractor notes should have prompted the landlord to carry out further investigation. This would have enabled it to provide a clearer explanation of any limitations associated with the existing shower arrangements and to better manage the resident’s expectations. Throughout March 2024, the resident and the landlord communicated regarding her medical condition and disability. The resident explained that she had fallen while using the bath.

The landlord advised her to contact the aids and adaptations team and to provide supporting medical evidence from her GP. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the existing shower hose and head were gravity‑fed and intended solely to assist with hair washing in conjunction with the bath, not to function as a standalone shower. It stated that its repairs service could not take further action because any additional works would constitute an improvement rather than a repair.

This was reasonable advice, but the information was only given during the stage 1 complaint response, despite the resident raising concerns for several months. This position should therefore have been communicated to her sooner. The landlord’s response further explained that any request for improvements would require authorisation following an OT assessment, which was appropriate and consistent with the guidance provided on its website regarding aids and adaptations. The landlord also stated that it did not hold any information on file regarding the resident’s disabilities or medical conditions.

This is concerning, as internal correspondence from 2019 and 2021 makes reference to the resident’s learning disability. This represents a further failure by the landlord to maintain accurate and up‑to‑date records. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, stating that the shower attachment was not fit for purpose. The landlord’s stage 2 response was more thorough and provided the resident with additional detail regarding the water‑pressure issues. This included how these affected the use of the shower attachment.

It advised that the only viable solution would be to install a pump or electric shower. The landlord also noted that the resident had discussed her medical issues and disabilities with it, and concluded that an OT assessment remained the most appropriate route. The landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it had not identified a resolution to ensure adequate hot‑water flow to the shower and that the resident had been given incorrect advice about seeking her own plumber to carry out improvement works.

It offered £50 in compensation and confirmed that its mechanical and electrical team would visit the property with a view to assessing further works to the shower. This was a resolution‑focused step; however, the compensation offered did not reflect the length of time the issue had been ongoing (at least 8 months). The landlord appropriately identified that installing a pump or electric shower could better meet the resident’s needs. However, it is unclear whether it considered this an improvement or a repair solution at that stage.

In any case, this option could have been explored much earlier had a thorough investigation been undertaken from the outset, and the lack of adequate records likely contributed to the delay. In summary, the landlord did not take adequate steps to investigate the resident’s long‑standing concerns about low hot‑water pressure or the usability of the shower attachment. Missing contractor notes should have prompted further action, and the landlord delayed in explaining the limitations of the gravity‑fed shower, which would have helped manage expectations earlier.

Although the stage 2 response was more thorough and proposed appropriate solutions, this came too late, and the compensation offered did not reflect the prolonged impact. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1, a written decision will be issued within 10 working days of acknowledgment. At stage 2, a written response will be provided within 20 working days of the escalation acknowledgment.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within one working day and advised that it would provide its response by 26 March 2024, in line with its policy timescales. The stage 1 response was then issued within 13 working days of acknowledgment. Although this was 3 working days outside the 10‑day target, it remained within the overall 15 working days permitted under the policy. Therefore, the delay is not considered unreasonable. On 14 May 2024, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2.

The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days and advised that it would provide its response by 18 June 2024, which aligned with its policy timescales. The landlord issued its final response on 19 June 2024, which was one working day outside the timescale but again did not amount to an unreasonable delay. In summary, although target dates were missed at both stages of the complaints process, the landlord’s handling of the complaint broadly complied with its policy timescales and the minor overruns did not amount to unreasonable delays.

They also did not cause any additional negative impact to the resident. Learning Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord: Knowledge and information management (record keeping) It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly in relation to actions taken and contractor notes. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication The landlord should improve follow-ups to ensure timely communication with the resident to foster transparency and trust. It should also consider reviewing its application of its complaints policy to ensure that it fully adheres to the required timescales when investigating and responding to complaints.