Southern Housing (202424654)

Background

1. The resident is a joint tenant with her partner and they live in a 3-bedroom house. They moved into their property in 2008. The resident states she has been requesting a new kitchen since 2018, due to its condition. The landlord agreed to renew her kitchen in 2024-25, then advised her it would now complete these works in 2026-27. As she disagrees with this decision, she has referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her kitchen and her request that it be replaced not repaired.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her kitchen and her request that it be replaced not repaired.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord followed its procedure on planned repairs by ultimately deciding to replace the resident’s kitchen in 2026-27.
   2. It was in line with its procedure that it offered to complete repairs in the interim.
   3. It had raised the resident’s expectations by agreeing to replace the kitchen in 2024-25. However, it provided reasonable redress for failing to manage her expectations.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

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.

6. Although it is noted that the resident has stated she has been requesting a new kitchen since 2018, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
7. Following a stage 1 response to a previous complaint, on 19 October 2023, the landlord raised a job order for its contactor to assess repairs in the kitchen. The contractor in its report requested a senior surveyor inspect and assess whether to agree a new kitchen. It stated this was because several units were rotten and the resident did not want them repaired as she understood the landlord agreed a new kitchen over 2 years ago. A surveyor consequently inspected on 23 December 2023.
8. It was in line with its Responsive Repairs policy that the landlord initially sought to carry out repairs to the kitchen. This states “A responsive repair addresses works to maintain your home or a component in it, until the next cycle of planned programmes. So, for example, it would be a repair to a kitchen drawer (responsive) rather than the replacement of a whole kitchen (planned).” However, after the contractor reported rotten units and the resident’s wish for a new kitchen, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged a surveyor inspection. This allowed it to assess the condition of the kitchen at that time and prioritise any works.
9. After the inspection of 23 December 2023, the landlord added the resident’s kitchen onto its planned works programme for 2024-25 for kitchen replacements. The landlord advised the resident of this on 13 February 2024. However, on 13 August 2024, the landlord advised the resident that the kitchen replacement programme for that year placed on hold due to unforeseen changes. It subsequently told the resident it would replace her kitchen in 2026-27.
10. The landlord’s website contains information on its planned works programme. It states “Our home condition survey programme helps us understand the work required to maintain your home in the long term. It’ll ensure we can include any work required, such as repairs, maintenance, and improvements, in our future plans.” The website further states the average timescales, guided by 5 yearly stock condition surveys, for kitchen replacement is 20 years. The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out a stock condition survey in line with its procedure on 13 May 2021. It noted that kitchen was installed in 2006 and due for renewal in 2026. Its decision to renew the kitchen in 2026-27, would be 20 financial years after installation This was in line with the procedure too.
11. The landlord still had an obligation to keep the kitchen in good repair pending the renewal. It has raised orders on 23 September 2024 and 4 March 2025 to assess the condition of the kitchen which was appropriate. However, it is not evident that it has completed works. Its records show that an operative on 12 March 2025 “called to overhaul units” but did not gain access to complete works.
12. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations by originally advising her it would replace her kitchen in 2024-25. It apologised and offered compensation that was in line with its compensation framework for discretionary awards. It explained why it would not replace the kitchen until 2026-27 and why it would not bring these works forward. It also sought to carry out repairs in the interim. The landlord therefore provided reasonable redress for its failure to manage the resident’s expectations.

13. The landlord handled the resident’s complaints in accordance with its complaint handling policy. It was fair in its approach and sought to put things right for the resident by explaining its position.
14. The landlord issued its responses within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The resident complained on 30 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 6 September 2025. It then sent the response at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 17 September 2024. It sent the response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalated complaint being acknowledged.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The resident referred to refurbishment works in 2018. This was completed by the resident’s landlord at the time before it merged to form her current landlord. The landlord does not have a record of these works. It may wish to consider if there is any further due diligence of its information systems relating to the merger. It can consider the recommendations of our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already completed this exercise.

Communication

16. The overall communication was clear after the landlord inspected in December 2023. However, an internal email noted the landlord could not bring forward the kitchen replacement forward as:
    1. It would need to go through a procurement process.
    2. It would not be cost effective to add the resident’s property to the following year’s programme as it did not have a contractor for her area.
17. The landlord should consider whether it could have disclosed and expanded on this information for further explanation as to why it would now only replace her kitchen in 2026-27.
18. At times, the landlord referred to a single year (eg. 2026), and other times the full financial year (2026-27). It should consider using the full financial year for clarity, and the relevant months.