Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202432825)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her 7 children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
   2. The resident’s concerns that she had been left without a usable kitchen.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
   2. There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns that she had been left without a usable kitchen.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

5. There was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out any meaningful action to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Whilst the landlord acknowledged there had been failures, its apology and offer of compensation were significantly below what we would expect to see given the extent of its failures and the significant impact of those failures on the resident.

Resident’s concerns that she had been left without a usable kitchen

6. The landlord left the resident without the use of her kitchen for an excessive and unreasonable amount of time. Whilst the landlord acknowledged there had been failures, its apology and offer of compensation were significantly below what we would expect to see given the extent of its failures and the significant impact of those failures on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with both its own policy and the Code.

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.

Our investigation

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The courts are best places to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. 

What we did investigate

9. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property including but not limited to the roof, walls, ceilings, window frames, drains, gutters and external pipes
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time of the resident’s initial complaint states:
    1. it will ensure its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue
    2. inspections and responsive repairs to diagnose and alleviate damp will be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible in accordance with its repairs policy and damp and mould assessment framework
    3. where its surveyors consider conditions within a home to be prejudicial to health or extensive works are required, it will consider the individual circumstances and wishes of the household. This includes any vulnerabilities and whether it is appropriate to move the resident out of their home at an early stage.
11. The above is consistent with the Ombudsman’s published spotlight reports on damp and mould, ‘It’s not lifestyle’.
12. By the time of the landlord’s final response of 19 November 2024, the resident had been reporting mould growth in her property dating back to December 2019 and the issue had not been resolved.
13. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it had ‘failed’ in respect of the time taken to address the damp issues in the resident’s home. It also acknowledged there had been a lack of clarity and a plan to resolve these.
14. To put things right, the landlord offered the resident a total of £425 compensation and said:
    1. it would complete works at the resident’s property, after Christmas. The landlord provided the resident with details of who would be responsible for progressing any subsequent works or actions. The landlord said they would provide her with updates and timescales as well as addressing any concerns she might have.
    2. its lettings team were ‘actively looking’ for suitable properties and would also look for temporary alternative accommodation whilst the works were undertaken.
    3. with regards to learning from the complaint, it needed to communicate better and ensure it kept in regular contact with its customers. The landlord said it should also aim to provide ‘a more robust set of actions’.
15. We are not satisfied the above provided reasonable redress in this case. This is because its response and the level of compensation offered:
    1. failed to reflect the excessive amount of time the resident had been waiting for the damp and mould to be resolved
    2. failed to reflect the extent of the delays in repairs being completed, including those recommended following its inspections of the resident’s property. These included but were not limited to:
       1. the job raised by the landlord on 6 October 2021, following the resident’s report of 1 October 2021 that her water supplier had attended that day and identified a slow leak to a water pipe in her kitchen which needed ‘immediate’ attention. The landord’s repair records state this was completed on 3 November 2021. However:

(1)  on 24 November 2022, over a year later, the landlord raised another job to repair the pipe following a report from the resident of ‘severe damp and mould throughout her property’, which she believed to be the result of the long-term leak

(2)  the landlord’s repair records state that the repair was not completed until 11 October 2023, over a year later

2. The recommendations made following its inspection of 9 October 2023:

(1)  whilst a job was raised on 13 October 2023 for ‘urgent’ roofing repairs, the landlord’s repair records note these were not completed until 4 June 2025, some 18 months later

(2)  the surveyor noted that works to the damp proof course had been quoted for 3 years earlier, in 2020, but were ‘never carried out’

(3)  the resident was to be provided with a dehumidifier for the lounge. However, she advised the landlord on 30 April 2024 that she had never received the recommended dehumidifier

(4)  the surveyor noting in their report that ‘this issue could have been avoided had work been undertaken back in 2020/21

3. failed to acknowledge the delay in its carrying out an initial inspection of the resident’s property. As stated previously, the resident had been reporting issues with mould growth in her property since 2019. However, the first record we have seen of the landlord arranging for a damp and mould survey of her property was on 9 October 2023, almost 4 years later
4. failed to acknowledge the repeated inspections that followed which also failed to resolve to the issue. These inspections included a leak and damp survey on 8 August 2024 and an inspection by a structural engineer on 26 September 2024. It has been noted that potential structural issues had been raised over 4 years earlier in March 2020
5. failed to appropriately reflect the significant impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her children. It is acknowledged that the landlord did take some action with regards to arranging alternative accommodation for the resident and her family. However, overall, its response was not timely nor did it reflect the urgency of the situation. This is because there was no mention of seeking to provide the resident with alternative accommodation until a leak and damp survey was carried out in August 2024. This was despite:
   1. in May 2020, the resident contacting the landlord to say she was especially concerned about the effect of the mould on the health of her newborn baby
   2. in July 2022, concerns being raised with the landlord by the resident’s GP about the impact the mould was having on the health of the resident and her children. The GP told the landlord the resident had a 12-week-old baby and 5 other children and that her mental health was declining
   3. in November 2022, the resident raising concerns with the landlord that she had 6 children living in the property and her youngest child was unable to crawl about because the damp and mould. The resident also advised the landlord that she was pregnant again and the issue ‘kept getting overlooked and forgotten about’

16. Given the extent of the landlord’s failures in this case, including its lack of urgency with regards to resolving the damp and mould, that it did not acknowledge the true extent of its failures in its complaint response and that the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the level of its failure, represents severe maladministration.

17. Following an inspection of the resident’s property on 9 October 2023, the landlord’s surveyor recommended that the resident’s kitchen units be removed and replaced, and for the mould on the wall behind to be cleaned. The surveyor noted the resident kitchen was ‘unusable’. The landlord raised a job for these works to be done on 10 November 2023.
18. It is unclear from the landlord’s records, when work to the resident’s kitchen was carried out. However, on 2 September 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that she had not had a kitchen for 4 weeks, which would mean the works were carried out on or around the 2 August 2024, some 9 months after the job was raised.
19. When she contacted the landlord on 2 September 2024, the resident also told the landlord she only had her cooker connected and had to use the bath to do any washing up. The resident also said she had no washing machine plumbed in despite having 7 children and that her fridge was plugged in, in another room.
20. In an internal email of the same day, the landlord noted that resident’s kitchen could not be reinstated after the leak had been fixed due to the extent of the water damage. It is noted that the leak was first reported by the landlord 1 October 2021 and was not fixed until 11 October 2023. That would also be consistent with the surveyors note of 9 October 2023 that the resident’s kitchen was unusable. That would mean, as of 2 September 2024, the resident had been without her kitchen for almost a year.
21. The landlord said the kitchen units and basin should be reinstated that week, which they were. However, the resident still only had a sink and 1 unit in her kitchen, as she confirmed in a call to the landlord on 11 September 2024.
22. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident’s kitchen had been reinstated by its contractor to ensure she had a ‘fully working kitchen again’. However, when the resident challenged this the landlord changed its position stating in its stage 2 response that the kitchen units were due to be installed on either 21 or 22 November 2024.
23. When the resident referred her complaint to us this had been done For the landlord to have left a family of 8 without a usable kitchen for over a year represents a signficant failure which would have understandable caused the resident considerable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
24. That the landlord failed to show any urgency with regards to restoring the resident’s kitchen, failed to acknowledge the seriousness of this failure in its complaint responses and failed to provide compensation that was proportionate to the level of its failure represents severe maladministration.

25. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
    1. the landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales
    2. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days of her complaint being received, doing so on the same day as the complaint was received (11 September 2024). The landlord then provided its provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged (11 to 24 September 2024). The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy and the Code.
    3. the resident escalated her complaint on 16 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’ escalation request within 5 working days of this being received (16 to 23 October 2024). The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 19 November 2024, within 20 working days (23 October to 19 November 2024). The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy and the Code.
    4. in its stage 1 response, the landlord incorrectly stated that the resident’s kitchen had been reinstated. This was put right by the landlord in its stage 2 response by acknowledging this failure, apologising and providing the resident with a corrected response

Learning

26. In its complaint responses the landlord said the learning it had taken from the complaint was that it needed to communicate better, ensure it kept in regular contact with its customers and provided ‘a more robust set of actions’. Whilst the landlord’s reference to learning is welcome, it made no commitment as to ‘how’ it would do the above. As a result, the landlord has been ordered to include a review of what actions it took as of a result of these learning points, and what the outcome was, as part of its overall review of this case.