Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Home Group Limited (202306745)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306745

Home Group Limited

2 April 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 complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for new kitchen units.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom house. In April 2022 there was a leak in the kitchen which damaged a number of the bottom units throughout the kitchen. Following this the landlord agreed to replace the damaged units.
  2. In January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it was unable to source replacements which precisely matched the colour of the existing units as these models had been discontinued by the supplier. It offered instead to source units which matched the existing colours as closely as possible. The resident refused this and raised a stage 1 complaint in January 2023.
  3. The landlord responded on 1 February 2023 and reiterated that it could only offer replacements to the nearest colour. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 March 2023. She explained that, given the landlord was unable to restore her kitchen to its original condition before the leak, it should replace the entire kitchen with new matching units. She also advised that she would be willing to contribute modestly to the cost of doing so.
  4. On 17 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It offered the following 3 options as possible resolutions:
    1. It would replace all missing doors with the closest match, or;
    2. Replace all doors and gables below the worktops with the option to undertake further replacements on a rechargeable basis, or;
    3. Contribute £350 towards the cost of replacing the kitchen.
  5. The resident was not satisfied with this, and the dispute has not progressed since this point. To resolve her complaint she considers the landlord needs to offer a complete kitchen renewal, or at least make a majority contribution to allow the resident to do so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service has been provided with records relating to repairs at the property from 2017 to 2023. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. As the resident made a formal complaint in January 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2017 to December 2021 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s requests from December 2021 up to its final response in April 2023.

How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for replacement kitchen units.

  1. The repair records throughout 2022 are limited. For instance, the first works raised on 9 September 2022 to replace the kitchen units document that these works were “cancelled as customer request.” However, there is no further explanation documented as to why this was cancelled.
  2. This is then repeated in the repair logs from 21 September 2022 and 15 November 2022. Following this there is “no access” documented at an attempted December 2022 visit. Repair logs from 13 January 2023 note “access gained…work commenced”. We can see that at some point over the next week or so the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s offer to replace missing kitchen units with non-identical parts. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that the landlord made this offer to the resident at its 13 January 2023 visit. In its stage 1 response of 1 February 2023 the landlord set out this offer and explained it was unable to source the existing units.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the resident’s kitchen units. Information on its website explains that it operates a planned maintenance programme where it pays to have kitchens and bathrooms renewed. However, it also notes that there are typically a number of years between upgrades.
  4. While we recognise the resident was frustrated that the landlord was unable to offer identical units, we do not consider it was obligated to do so. Ultimately, its repairs policy obliges it to restore the overall function and condition of the kitchen units, and its offer to install parts to the closest possible match fulfilled this obligation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2023 and asked the landlord to renew the entire kitchen since it was unable to offer matching replacement units. Following this we can see the landlord consulted with various contractors to see whether it was able to source matching units. Emails from 22 March and 24 March 2023 indicate that none of the contractors stocked the existing colour. We consider the landlord acted sympathetically and thoroughly here by casting a wider net to see whether it could source the original colour.
  6. On 17 April 2023 the landlord offered the resident a choice of the following 3 options:
    1. The landlord would replace all missing doors with the closest match, or;
    2. Replace all doors and gables below the worktops with the option to undertake further replacements on a rechargeable basis, or;
    3. Contribute £350 towards the cost of replacing the kitchen.
  7. Though we accept the resident is not satisfied with this, we consider this was a reasonable offer to try and resolve things. We can see the landlord attempted to source the matching units. We can also see the resident’s planned cyclical maintenance is not scheduled until 2034. Therefore, the landlord is under no obligation to fully renew the kitchen as per her request.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord has attempted to fulfil its repairs obligations by offering to restore the original functionality of the kitchen. While we recognise it was disappointing for the resident that this offer did not entail restoration of the original cosmetic features, we consider the landlord handled the resident’s requests for new kitchen units appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s requests for new kitchen units.