Southern Housing (202340006)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340006

Southern Housing

6 October 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a planned kitchen renewal.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 5-bed house.
  2. The resident’s kitchen was due for renewal in 2020. However, it did not take place at that time. The resident made a complaint about delays in the kitchen renewal on 26 September 2023.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It said planned works had been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the renewal was now due to take place in the 2026-7 financial year.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2023. She said she did not feel the COVID-19 pandemic justified the delay.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. It said it had provided the correct information in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged delays in its complaint handling, and offered £100 compensation for those delays.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us. She is unhappy that the kitchen had not yet been renewed at the time she referred her complaint.
  7. The landlord has told us that the resident’s kitchen, bathroom, and windows are now scheduled for renewal in the 2025-6 financial year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We are only able to investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. When speaking to us, the resident said there had been a leak in her property, and that there were also issues with damp and mould. These concerns were not part of her complaint, so we cannot consider them as part of this investigation. If the resident wants us to look into those concerns, she would need to bring them to us after completing the landlord’s complaints process.

Kitchen renewal

  1. The Decent Homes Standard says that kitchens have an expected lifespan of 30 years, and are ‘reasonably modern’ if up to 20 years old. However, this does not mean that any kitchen over 20 years old automatically needs to be replaced (or that any kitchen less than 20 years old does not). A landlord only needs to replace a kitchen if it is beyond economic repair (if it would cost more to repair than to replace). Any renewal outside of those circumstances would be an improvement, not a repair.
  2. Improvements are outside of the landlord’s repairs policy, and it is for a landlord to decide when to replace older kitchens which are not beyond economic repair as part of its planned works programmes.
  3. In this case, the landlord intends to renew the resident’s kitchen. It said this decision was based on a stock condition survey, and the age of the kitchen (more than 25 years old). The renewal was originally scheduled for 2020, but was postponed. The landlord has confirmed that this was because of delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, when it prioritised external planned works over internal to protect its residents and contractors.
  4. The landlord initially rescheduled the renewal for 2021. It has then continued to push the renewal back to future planned works programmes. It told the resident in its complaint response that it had moved the renewal back to the 2026-7 financial year due to budget restrictions (with the possibility of bringing it forward to the 2025-6 financial year if the budget for it was approved). Since then, it has brought the renewal forward to the 2025-6 financial year.
  5. We understand that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision to postpone the renewal, and does not think that delays from the pandemic are a good reason. However, we have seen no evidence which shows the kitchen is in need of immediate replacement rather than repair. A surveyor who went to the property in October 2023 to inspect a repair issue also confirmed to the landlord that the kitchen was not beyond economic repair.
  6. Given that a surveyor has confirmed the kitchen is not beyond economic repair, it is for the landlord to decide when to renew the kitchen as part of its planned works programme. While we appreciate this will be disappointing for the resident to hear, we find there has been no failing by the landlord in postponing the renewal.
  7. Having said that, however, the evidence provided does not show that the landlord communicated its decision appropriately. We would have expected the landlord to tell the resident that works had been rescheduled, and when it was likely the works would now go ahead. It has not shown it did so, despite the resident repeatedly chasing up a date for the renewal.
  8. The evidence provided shows the resident asked the landlord to confirm the date of the rescheduled renewal in January 2021. The landlord told her the works were due to go ahead in 2021, but it was subject to available budgets. It then failed to provide any updates, despite telling her it would do so. Its communication records show this was due to poor internal communication.
  9. It asked for information on a start date from the relevant team, but received no response. Instead of chasing a response, it did nothing. It then did similar in June and September 2021, when the resident chased a response. Had the landlord communicated appropriately, it’s possible this complaint could have been avoided.
  10. The resident then chased updates on multiple occasions in 2023, and the landlord has provided no evidence of responding at all until the resident made a complaint. This was clearly inappropriate and caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. It was also a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations around the renewal.
  11. We have not seen any evidence which suggests the overall outcome would be different had the landlord communicated appropriately. However, its poor communication caused the resident unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. We therefore find there has been maladministration.
  12. To put things right, the landlord must issue a written apology for its poor communication. It must also pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication around the renewal. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must log and acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. It must then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
  2. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 5 working days, but its stage 1 response was 5 working days late. At stage 2, its acknowledgement was 5 working days late, and its stage 2 response was 1 working day late.
  3. The landlord has accepted this was a failing and offered £100 compensation. The compensation offered is in line with our published remedies guidance for minimal failings of a short duration. It is therefore a reasonable offer of redress, and the landlord does not need to do anything further with regard to its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of a planned kitchen renewal.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves its complaint handling failings satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the communication failings set out above.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen renewal.
  2. The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of this determination. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying that compensation.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should let the resident know the intended start date for her kitchen renewal within 4 weeks of this determination.
  3. The landlord should let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of this determination.