Southern Housing (202345678)

Decision
Case ID	202345678
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 July 2026

Background

1. The landlord upgraded the property’s kitchen in June 2023. The resident, who has difficulty with mobility, then said the works were unsatisfactory. She was not satisfied with its response and complained. A relative has helped her with her complaint to us. For the purposes of this investigation we have referred to them both jointly as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of concerns about the kitchen renovation.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of concerns about the kitchen renovation.
   2. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. We have found:

The resident’s reports of concerns about kitchen renovation

1. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns fully in its complaint responses and did not justify its decision not to carry out some works.

The complaint

2. The landlord failed to progress the resident’s stage 2 complaint investigation in line with its policy.  

 

 

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 Choose an item. to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for its response to the resident’s reports o concerns about a kitchen renovation £100 for its complaint handling. This landlord must pay this and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct any payments already paid from the payment.	No later than 26 August 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the kitchen and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must: a)      Provide a view as to whether it is possible to install the resident’s dryer. b)     If so, provide a timetable for the installation of it.	No later than 26 August 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 November 2023	The resident complained. She said: She had not had a working kitchen since June 2023 The landlord had carried out works but these were incomplete The hob and a dryer required installation She was a diabetic and so needed to be able to cook
5 December 2023	The landlord requested an extension until 11 December 2023.
8 December 2023	The landlord requested an extension until 14 December 2023.
15 December 2023	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had now completed all the works. It had delayed in carrying out snagging It had failed to explain the reason for the changes to the layout It offered £100 in compensation
11 January 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said: The landlord had not completed the works The compensation offered was “an insult” She had bought a new hob and wanted the landlord to install it. She wanted the landlord to install her dryer
11 March 2024	The resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said the works were not yet completed and she had had no cooking facilities for 9 months. She said she wanted compensation of £100 a month for this.
17 May 2024	We wrote to the landlord asking it to provide a stage 2 complaint response
18 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: The works had now been completed. The hob wasn’t working when the contractor first attended. So much time had passed since the works had taken place that it could not reimburse her for the new hob. It would not install the dryer as she had altered the kitchen layout It offered increased compensation of £165
11 July 2024	The resident confirmed that she wanted us to investigate her concerns. She said the works were still not complete

 

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 have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Resident’s reports of concerns about kitchen renovation
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

5. The resident says that these problems persisted after the landlord’s final response letter in June 2024 and some continue today.
6. We have no power to investigate complaints where a landlord has not had the chance to put things right through its complaints process first. The resident has not, so far as we know, complained about these issues since June 2024 and so we have not investigated them. She could complain again if she chooses and then ask us to investigate if she is not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we have investigated

7. The resident had lived at the property for over a decade when these events took place. By mid-2023, the property’s kitchen needed renovation as it had not been updated for more than 20 years. In April 2023, the landlord commissioned a new kitchen design which complied with current building regulations.
8. The landlord has sent us a copy of the kitchen plan dated 23 April 2023 which has been signed by the resident. The landlord’s contractor carried out works in June and July 2023. The works were originally intended to take 2 weeks but took 6 weeks. Whilst the resident was concerned by the delay, we have seen no evidence that this was due to a failure on the part of the landlord.
9. When the contractor completed the kitchen renovation in mid-June 2023, the resident told it that she was unhappy with the result. She said it had installed the sink wrongly, the cooker was difficult to access and she did not like the new floor. She said she was a diabetic and needed a functioning kitchen. The contractor refused to make any changes saying it had installed the kitchen according to the agreed plan. 
10. The resident reported the same concerns to the landlord the next day and on several occasions by email over the next month. It arranged a “handover meeting” on 27 June 2023. to address her concerns.
11. At the handover meeting, according to an email the landlord sent on 24 August 2023, the landlord explained that building regulations had changed in the last 20 years and so it had no choice but to install the kitchen as it had. The door had to open outwards, the cooker had to be positioned where it was and the old floor had had to be replaced.
12. The email also stated that the landlord had made several attempts to carry out snagging in the kitchen but the resident refused to allow access while it refused to restore the old kitchen layout. While she refused to allow access, it could not carry out the works and so is not to blame for delay over the summer and autumn of 2023.
13. At a further meeting at the property on 8 September 2023, according to an email sent to the resident on 17 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to reinstate the tile floor. The landlord said that, for health and safety reasons, it could not do so. It agreed a snagging list which included replacing a shelf under the sink, replacing chipped unit doors and reconnecting the gas hob. She also wanted her clothes dryer to be repositioned as it would not fit under the countertop because of a protruding wastepipe.
14. The resident says that these works were not done. The landlord said that it had arranged for them to be done on 3 November 2023 but the resident cancelled the appointment. Again, this delay was not caused by the landlord’s actions. Works were carried out at a rearranged meeting on 16 November 2023.
15. On 17 November 2023, the resident complained. She said that the contractor had not completed the works. It had reconnected the hob but it was leaking, cupboards were chipped, the fridge needed to be repositioned, an extractor had not been installed and the tumble dryer was not installed. There were also sharp edges on cupboards. She said she wanted compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2023 to ask what works remained outstanding and when she would be free for a visit. It attended in December 2023 to carry out works. We have not seen a record of what was discussed at the visit.
17. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 December 2023. It said that all the works were now complete but it accepted that it had been too slow. It also said that it should have explained the changes it intended to make to the kitchen layout better. It said that the hob had been broken before the contractor carried out the works. It offered her £100 compensation for distress or inconvenience.
18. On 11 January 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said the works had not been completed. Many snagging tasks remained. The cupboard was still chipped, the hob did not work and it she had used it without problem the day before works began. It had still not installed the dryer and the compensation offered was insultingly low.
19. The resident said she had bought a new hob for £128 and wanted the landlord to refund her and install it. She also said she wanted additional compensation.
20. The landlord did not respond to this escalation request for some time and the resident asked us to investigate in late March 2024. We contacted the landlord who then acknowledged the request on 25 May 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2024, more than 5 months after the escalation request. We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling separately, but clearly, the delay also impacted the ongoing situation with the kitchen.
21. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord repeated its assertion that the hob had not been working when the works began but provided no evidence. It offered to install the replacement as a “gesture of good will”.  It increased its offer of compensation by £65. It said this was because of distress and inconvenience and because the resident had had to chase it to get the works done. It said it was not responsible for installing the dryer as she had asked to have a cupboard installed in the position where it was meant to be. As she had altered the kitchen, it was not responsible for moving the dryer.
22. In our view, the landlord’s responses were inadequate. With regards to the hob, the landlord said, in its stage 1 response, that it was broken before the kitchen was replaced. The resident denied this. She said it was working the day before the old kitchen was removed and that it must, therefore, have been broken by the contractor. The landlord never addressed this claim in its responses or provided evidence to the contrary.
23. On 22 July 2026, the landlord told us that its contractor had told it that the hob was broken when works commenced in June 2023. We have seen no evidence of any communication to this effect at that time. The first time the landlord stated that the hob had been broken was in the stage 1 complaint response of December 2023, 6 months after the initial works were complete and it was at around this time that we see evidence of the contractor telling the landlord this. We would also ask why, if the landlord and the contractor knew that the hob was broken in November 2023, they reinstalled it.
24. In our view, at the least, the landlord was responsible for a failure to evidence and communicate with the resident effectively and this led, or contributed to, her having no cooking facilities at the property for a further 5 months.
25. At stage 2, although it increased its offer of compensation, it failed to address that the resident had been without a hob for 13 months. It failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities or consider whether temporary cooking facilities may have been needed.
26. Turning to the dryer, the resident said, in her complaint in November 2023 that the dryer had to be moved because a wastewater pipe made it impossible to place the dryer where it was shown in the plans. The landlord’s position in its stage 2 response was that the resident had changing the layout of the kitchen
27. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the waste pipe in its complaint response. In a letter to us on 22 July 2026, it repeated its assertion that the resident had altered the prescribed kitchen layout, however, it has not provided evidence to support its assertion and we are unable to make a determination on this point.
28. In summary, the landlord delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen installation, failure to acknowledge that the resident went without access to a working hob for a prolonged period of time and failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns around the installation of a dryer amount to maladministration and we have ordered the landlord to pay increased compensation of £400 for its repairs failures.
29. We have also ordered it to inspect the kitchen and provide its position on whether or not it is possible to install the resident’s dryer.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:

30. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Code which says that landlords should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a complaint response within a further 10 working days. It must acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.  It can also ask for a maximum of 20 extra working days to deal with complex complaints
31. In this case, the landlord replied at stage 1 a few days late but asked the resident for an extension before doing so, so there was no detriment caused to the resident.
32. At stage 2, however, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 January 2024. It did not respond until 18 June 2024, 110 working days later and only then after our intervention. The reply was significantly outside of its policy timeframes, which it did not acknowledge or apologise for in its stage 2 response.
33. The significant delay at stage 2 amounts to maladministration and we have ordered the landlord to pay a sum in recognition of this failure. It must pay her £100 which is in line with our guidance on compensation.

Learning

34. We encourage landlords to visit our website to view resources on topics such as complaint handling, repairs, knowledge and information management, and Awaab’s Law.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s escalation request may indicate poor record keeping. It might consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.

Communication

36. The landlord failed to explain its reasoning to the resident in its complaint responses. It might consider training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaint responses are complete and appropriate.