London Borough of Waltham Forest — case 202448860

Decision Case ID 202448860 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Waltham Forest Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 15 January 2026 Background The resident complained that after the landlord replaced his bathroom suite in 2024, it only agreed to a like-for-like replacement of tiling around the bath. He said a full wall of tiling was needed to prevent water ingress into the wall when showering. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s request for a full wall of tiling in his bathroom.

The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We found that: There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for bathroom tiling. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons There was an avoidable delay in the landlord arranging to replace the tiles. The landlord did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord met its complaints policy timescales at both stages of the complaints process.

It sent clear comprehensive complaints responses explaining its position on the resident’s complaint. 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 Works order The landlord must tile the wall next to the resident’s bath, to the full height of the wall. The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date.

It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. No later than 12 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 10 December 2024 The resident’s MP asked the landlord to log a complaint on the resident’s behalf. She said: The resident was told that the tiles in his bathroom would be repaired. When the landlord’s contractors attended, they told the resident that they were only authorised to install 3 rows of tiling around the bath.

This was a like-for-like replacement. ` The resident refused the works. There is a shower attachment on the bath. He was concerned that if the wall was not fully tiled, using the shower would cause water ingress into the wall. 24 December 2024 The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process, saying: After the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about the tiling, it arranged to do the tile replacement on 16 October 2024. It had only authorised a like-for-like replacement of the tiling.

5 February 2025 The resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to escalate his complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. 13 February 2025 The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, saying: It was willing to do the works it had specified. The delay to the repair was caused by the disagreement between the landlord and the resident about the works that were required. It was the landlord’s practice to do like-for-like repairs, in line with its repairs policy.

Although the resident said the landlord’s contractor had told him that a full wall of tiling was needed, this was not reflected in its communication with the landlord. While individual operatives may have differing opinions, this did not override the landlord’s specification of works. It acknowledged that the number of people involved in the resident’s case may have contributed to confusion and frustration. It would not arrange for a surveyor to visit the property as the scope of works had been agreed.

If problems occurred after the repair had taken place, then they could be reported as a new repair. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He told us he did not believe the landlord was taking his concerns seriously. He reiterated his concern that the wall would be damaged if he used the shower unless the wall was fully tiled. He said he had been given inconsistent information about the work required. 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 The resident’s request for a full wall of tiling in his bathroom Finding Service failure It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy.

In this case, there were gaps in the landlord’s record keeping around its response to the resident’s request for tiling around his bath. The landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom suite in around March 2024. Ordinarily, social housing landlords replace fixtures and fittings like-for-like. As there was previously tiling around the resident’s bath, the landlord should have replaced this when it replaced the bathroom suite. This would have minimised inconvenience to the resident.

It is unclear why the landlord did not do this. Its failure to do so caused the resident time and trouble chasing the works. In April 2024, the resident’s MP told the landlord the resident was concerned about the missing tiles. Initially the landlord said it did not intend to replace the tiling, because tiles were not specified when it fitted the resident’s new bathroom suite. It did not explain if it had made a decision that the tiles were not needed, or if this was an accidental omission.

This was a failing by the landlord. If the landlord had decided not to reinstate tiling around the bath, it should have contemporaneous records showing the reasoning behind this decision, and it should have shared its decision-making with the resident. We have not seen any evidence it did so. In September 2024, the landlord agreed to install tiling in the resident’s bathroom. Its records do not explain why it took 5 months for it to reach this decision, or why it changed its decision, which is a further record keeping failure.

However, the change in its decision was positive, for the reasons given above. The resident’s bath has a shower attachment. We asked the landlord for more information about how and when the shower attachment was installed, but it did not respond. As such, we accept the resident’s account. The resident told us that previously his bath did not have a shower attachment. He said a shower attachment was agreed and installed by the landlord with the support of his GP. In most cases, it is appropriate for landlords to do like-for-like repairs.

This helps them allocate their resources effectively. However, each case should be considered on its individual circumstances. In this case, the resident’s facilities had changed but the landlord failed to fully consider this. In properties with showers, including shower attachments, it is common practice to install a full wall of tiling. This protects the walls from water ingress. It is likely that using a shower without wall tiling will cause water to seep into the wall and damage the property.

As such, the landlord’s response that it would only replace the tiling like-for-like was not reasonable. The landlord advised the resident that any property damage caused by using the shower could be reported as a new repair. This suggested the resident should continue using the shower even if this risked damaging the property, which is not a long-term or customer-focused approach. While the resident can use the bath in his home, he told us the situation has caused him worry.

He has not felt able to use the shower attachment in case he causes property damage. Overall, the failings listed above amount to service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for tiling. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to tile the wall around the resident’s bath at full height. This is discussed further in the orders section of the report. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No Maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord met its policy timescale at both stages of the complaints process. The landlord sent clear, comprehensive complaint responses at both stages of the complaints process, explaining its position on the resident’s complaint. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) Landlords should ensure that there is a complete audit trail of their decision making processes in response to residents requests.

Communication The landlord sent full and unambiguous responses to the resident’s complaint. This was an example of good practice.