We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southern Housing (202431230)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431230

Southern Housing

12 September 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. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s refusal to pay for repairs to a fridge-freezer.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident made a service request about a faulty fridge-freezer on 29 April 2024. The landlord attended on 5 May 2024 and identified a fridge-freezer within the property was faulty. The landlord fitted a new fridge-freezer on 14 June 2024. The resident thereafter asked the landlord on 20 June 2024 to remove the new fridge-freezer and refit the original fridge-freezer she had since repaired, which it did.
  3. The resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2024 requesting the costs of repairs be refunded and confirmation that she would be allowed to take the repaired fridge-freezer with her when she moved.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 July 2024. It gave a timeline of events, explained it had installed a new appliance and that this had been an adequate replacement. It advised its tenancy agreement stated that it could not guarantee like for like replacements. It therefore refused to reimburse the resident or allow her to take the repaired fridge-freezer with her on moving.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 July 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She sent a separate email stating that she had called the landlord’s contact centre before having the repair completed. She stated during this call the landlord had advised her she would be able to receive a refund if she obtained a receipt for the repair.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 September 2023 upholding its stage 1 response. It advised it had investigated the complaint and found no evidence it had provided any advice suggesting it agreed to pay for the repair. It stated it would review its decision if the resident was able to provide any evidence it had.
  7. The resident raised her complaint with us, requesting the landlord reimburse her for the repair work. She also wanted permission to allow her to take the repaired fridge-freezer when she moved.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that where it has provided any white goods it would keep them in good repair. The landlord has also not disputed it was responsible for the fridge-freezer repair. It attended a service request on 5 May 2024 and identified that it could not repair the fridge freezer. It committed to provide a replacement fridge-freezer which was reasonable. It is unclear from the repair notes what the repair issue was however the resident continued to use the fridge freezer and was not dissatisfied with the landlord’s action’s or the length of time taken to replace it.
  2. The resident was however dissatisfied with the replacement fridge-freezer which was fitted on 14 June 2024. She complained it was not a like for like replacement and she was unable to store all of her food in the new fridge-freezer. The images provided show, although it was not the same brand it was a similar size to the original fridge-freezer. Additionally, the landlord did not have an obligation to replace for a like to like item and therefore the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
  3. The resident made a request on 20 June 2024 for the landlord to return and take away the new fridge-freezer and refit the original one. She advised the landlord she had had the original fridge-freezer repaired (on 15 June 2024). The landlord agreed to do this which showed it was responsive to the resident’s needs, as she had stated it was smaller than her original fridge-freezer. The landlord acted reasonably in the handling of the fridge-freezer repair and within its repair responsibilities.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 25 July 2024 it advised her it had investigated the complaint. It stated it had found no evidence the resident was advised it would refund her the repair costs. The landlord acted fairly by offering to review this part of the complaint if she was able to provide any evidence it had. Although we do not dispute the resident’s statement we have also not seen any evidence, the landlord had advised her she would receive a refund of the repair costs.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response was appropriate and in line with its obligation. It advised her that under the tenancy agreement there was no requirement for it to provide a like for like basis. We have also not seen any evidence that there was any repair issues with the new fridge-freezer provided between 14 and 20 June 2024. The resident therefore had a fully functioning appliance when she took steps to repair the original fridge-freezer on 15 June 2024.
  6. The landlord also advised the resident that she would not be able to remove the original fridge-freezer, as her tenancy agreement states the property must be left with all goods remaining. This is in line with its policy and procedures and not unreasonable.
  7. In absence of any evidence of the landlord making a commitment to refund the repair costs we have found there to have been no failure in the landlords refusal to pay for repairs to a fridge-freezer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s refusal to pay for repairs to a fridge-freezer.