Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202320126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320126

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

10 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, in particular:
1. The condition of the kitchen.
2. The condition of the bathroom.
3. Concerns about damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3 bedroom house. She moved into the house following a mutual exchange with another resident in May 2023. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 May 2023 and said she had just moved into the property and was unhappy at its condition. She raised numerous repairs issues, and a concern about damp and mould in the downstairs toilet. She said she wanted it to fit a new bathroom and kitchen as they were in a poor condition.
The landlord sought to complete a mould wash in the downstairs toilet on 15 May 2023, but this did not go ahead. This was because it noticed a raised bed was built against the exterior wall. It decided this needed removing before a mould treatment would be effective inside. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 May 2023 and apologised for its communication about the kitchen and bathroom replacement. It said it did plan to replace them both, but was unable to say when this would happen.
The resident made a complaint on 13 June 2023. She said she was unhappy with the condition of the property, and said the landlord had told her it would repair or replace “components” at the property. She raised a concern it had given no plan about how it would progress. She raised particular concerns about the condition of the bathroom and kitchen stating they were “old beyond expected lifespans” and needed replacing. She also raised a concern about damp and mould in the downstairs toilet. She expressed a concern the damp, mould and the condition of the kitchen and bathroom all posed a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It said that when during the mutual exchange the resident accepted the property in its condition at that time and any repair issues would need to be raised. It gave a list of repairs that were raised and when they were completed, or when it planned to complete them. It said the kitchen identified as being in a “poor state” at its mutual exchange inspection. It said the kitchen was installed by the previous tenant, and because of this they had accepted repair and maintenance responsibilities for it. It said the resident had taken on this responsibility when accepting the property. It said it was going to complete a full property inspection on 10 July 2023, and would also assess the concerns about damp and mould, and the condition of the bathroom.
The resident asked the landlord to take her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure on 27 June 2023. She said she was told the kitchen and bathrooms would be replaced before she moved in, and said its complaint response had not addressed her concerns about “hazards” present in the property.
The landlord completed an inspection on 10 July 2023. The notes from the inspection stated the kitchen units were “falling to pieces with rusty handles”. It said the bathroom was “aged and in a poor state of repair”. It recommend a further survey for “new kitchen and bathroom suites”. It also recommended a further survey of the roofline of the property to identify a solution to “disperse water appropriately”. It recommended the removal of the raised bed on the exterior wall of the downstairs toilet. This was to prevent water sitting against the wall above the damp proof course.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 7 August 2023. It partially upheld the complaint, and apologised for the “lack of clarity” in its communication about the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom. It said these would be done as part of a “long term asset” strategy and it was not possible to give a date the works would go ahead. It offered £50 in compensation in recognition of the disappointment caused by “inadvertently” raising the resident’s expectations about when it would replace the kitchen and bathroom.

Events after the complaints procedure

The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2023, and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns and that it had not yet replaced the kitchen and bathroom. She raised a concern about ongoing damp and mould, and that the landlord had not addressed all of her concerns in its complaint responses.
The landlord completed a mould wash at the property on 24 October 2023, and removed the raised bed on the exterior wall on 8 December 2023.
The landlord installed a new bath and fittings in the bathroom on 22 April 2023.
The landlord told this Service on 13 August 2024 that based on its “stock condition survey” of 23 March 2023 it was due to replace the kitchen in 2027, and the bathroom in 2037. The landlord later told this Service, in January 2025, that works to replace the kitchen would start on 3 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised numerous repairs with the landlord shortly after moving in to the property. While the resident was evidently unhappy with the overall condition of the property, the evidence shows she had accepted the property in the condition it was in at the time of the move. On receipt of the resident’s concerns the landlord raised repairs, based on what was reported. This investigation has focused on the repairs raised as part of the resident’s complaint in June 2023. These were the condition of the kitchen, bathroom, and the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the downstairs toilet.
Our investigation has focused on these repairs issues in line with paragraph 42.a. of our scheme which states a matter must have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure before we can investigate. As the other repairs were not raised as part of the formal complaint, they are not within the scope of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of other repairs, she may wish to raise a complaint with it.
When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her physical wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence.
These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner, and any works will be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The condition of the kitchen

The landlord’s records indicate that the mutual exchange inspection took place on 15 February 2023. The notes from the inspection indicate that the kitchen was “past its lifecycle” and required replacement. It also identified the kitchen as “non standard” and stated the outgoing tenant reported the incoming tenant (the resident) was “happy” with it and would repair/upgrade it herself. We have seen no evidence that the landlord sought to discuss this matter with the resident at the time which was a failing in its communication. It is worth noting that it is an accepted part of the mutual exchange process that an incoming resident will take on repair responsibilities for items the outgoing tenant had responsibility for. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to complete any make safe repairs needed to ensure the property remains safe for a resident to inhabit.
Following the resident raising her concerns about the kitchen, in May 2023, the landlord’s communication about the matter was unclear at caused further confusion. The landlord initially stated the resident was responsible for repairing/replacing the kitchen, but later said it planned to replace the kitchen but did not know when. This raised the resident’s expectations.
The comments in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out its position that the resident was responsible for repairs to the kitchen. It set out she had agreed to this. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Given the known condition of the kitchen, that it did not seek complete interim make safe repairs was a failing in its handling of the matter. It is noted it did raise a job to replace a kitchen cupboard door, but we have seen no evidence that this repair went ahead.
In her stage 2 complaint, the resident claimed the landlord had said it would replace the kitchen before she moved in to the property. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, we have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord said it would do so. However, its communication about the matter lacked clarity which may have raised the resident’s expectations about when it planned to replace the kitchen. This caused her a disappointment. It is worth noting that it is not for this Service to determine whether the kitchen needed replacing or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s inspection of 10 July 2023 described the kitchen as “falling to pieces with rusty handles”, and recommended completing a survey with a view to replacing the kitchen. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord followed up on this at the time, or sought to complete interim repairs to ensure it was safe. Considering its own assessment of the condition of the kitchen, this was unreasonable. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of her kitchen. The lack of appropriate follow up on the findings of the landlord’s own survey may have increased the distress she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for its poor communication about the kitchen issue. However, its response did little to help manage the resident’s expectations about when it planned to replace the kitchen. The response also was silent on the findings of its survey in July 2023, which lacked transparency. Its own findings were that the kitchen was “falling to pieces”. To then suggest it would be placed on a future programme of works without offering to complete interim repairs was unreasonable.
The comments in the landlord’s correspondence to this Service in August 2024 are concerning. The landlord appeared to rely on a stock condition inspection survey from March 2023 to set out that it would not replace the kitchen until 2027. We have seen no evidence that it has communicated this position to the resident, which was a failing in its communication. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the landlord has not set out its position on when it planned to replace the kitchen.
That the landlord relied on an inspection from March 2023, when a more recent inspection (July 2023) described the kitchen as “falling to pieces” and needed replacing. This was unreasonable and evidence the landlord may have fettered its discretion and applied a blanket approach to kitchen replacement without considering the particular circumstances in the resident’s case. The landlord’s records do not indicate it has sought to complete any interim repairs to the kitchen or followed up on the recommendations of its July 2023 inspection. This may have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
We do however welcome the fact the landlord is progressing with the kitchen replacement ahead of its original date of 2027. This goes some way to putting right its earlier failings in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £50 for its poor communication in relation to the kitchen and bathroom issues. We have determined it offered £25 for each issue. Considering the above failings we have determined the landlord’s offer of £25 for its handling of the kitchen issue did not fully put things right for the resident.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. depending on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order of a further £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident in the circumstances.

The condition of the bathroom

The landlord’s records indicate that the mutual exchange inspection took place on 15 February 2023. The notes from the inspection indicate that the bath was “worn” and that the issue was passed to the landlord’s repairs team. It does not appear the landlord completed any repairs to the bath ahead of the resident moving in to the property in May 2023.
The resident raised a concern about the condition of the bathroom in May 2023, shortly after moving in. That the landlord did not inspect the bathroom at that time was unreasonable and caused the resident an inconvenience. The landlord’s communication about the bathroom was unclear as it said it planned to replace it but did not know when. This raised the resident’s expectations. That it did not seek to complete interim repairs at that time, ahead of replacing the bathroom, was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not acknowledge the fact it had not yet inspected the bathroom was unreasonable. It had been on notice about the matter for over a month without taking any action. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked learning about its handling of the matter. This inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord did not inspect the bathroom until July 2023, 2 months after the resident first raised concerns. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. Its inspection of July 2023 identified that a further survey was needed with a view to replacing the bathroom. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for its poor communication about the bathroom issue. However, its response did little to help manage the resident’s expectations about when it planned to replace the bathroom.
The response also was silent on the findings of its survey in July 2023, which lacked transparency. Its own findings were that the bathroom was “aged and in [a] poor state of repair”, and recommended a replacement. To then suggest it would be placed on a future programme of works without offering to complete interim repairs was unreasonable.
We welcome the fact it replaced bath in April 2024. However, this was nearly a year after it was on notice about the condition of the bath. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in the bathroom. The unreasonable delay may have increased the distress she experienced. It is unclear if it did further inspections or works in the bathroom. Considering it does not plan to replace the bathroom suite until 2037, the landlord must complete an inspection to identify any interim repairs needed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered £50 for its poor communication in relation to the kitchen and bathroom issues. We have determined it offered £25 for each issue. Considering the above failings we have determined the landlord’s offer of £25 for its handling of the bathroom issue did not fully put things right for the resident.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £150 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident for its handling of this issue.

Concerns about damp and mould

The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the downstairs toilet when she raised concerns in May 2023. The landlord promptly inspected and used its damp and mould risk assessment tool. This is evidence it took the resident’s concern seriously and investigated the matter with the appropriate thoroughness.
The landlord sought to complete a mould wash in May 2023, but it did not go ahead due to the issue with raised bed against the exterior wall. It believed this was contributing to the damp and decided to remove it before treating the mould inside. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it did not progress with the works to remove the raised bed at that time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident an inconvenience. The resident was evidently distressed at the presence of mould in the downstairs toilet. The lack of proactive follow up from the landlord may have increased the distress she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address its handling of the damp and mould issue up to that point, which was inappropriate. It was appropriate to set out it would look into the resident’s concerns in more detail at its coming inspection. However, the lack of assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point lacked learning and transparency.
The landlord’s survey of July 2023 recommended a further inspection of the “roof line” due to concerns about the guttering and “water dispersal”. We have seen no evidence the landlord followed up on this recommendation at the time. This is of particular concern considering issues with water dispersal can contribute to damp and mould issues. That it failed it follow up on the findings of its survey was unreasonable and evidence it was not proactive in seeking to reduce the risk of further issues with damp and mould. This inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. It is noted the resident did not explicitly reference damp and mould in her stage 2 complaint. However, she said that the landlord had not adequately addressed her concerns about “hazards”. The resident referenced damp and mould as a specific hazard she was worried about in her initial complaint. That it did not address the matter at stage 2 was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by this as she was left not knowing the landlord’s latest position on the issue, and what it planned to do to assist with the issue within the property.
The landlord completed the works to remove the raised bed in December 2023. This was 7 months after it identified the issue and an unreasonable delay. That it completed the works well outside of the timeframe set out in its repairs policy caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Considering its failure to inspect the roof line, and the resident’s ongoing concerns about damp and mould in the property. The landlord must complete a further inspection to address the resident’s ongoing concerns. The landlord’s comments to this Service, in January 2025, that it has had had no further reports of damp and mould since 2023 are noted. However, considering the evidence shows it failed to follow up on repairs it identified, and the resident’s ongoing concerns, it is deemed reasonable in the circumstances to order an urgent inspection.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £150 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £450 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £125 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen.
  2. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom
  3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
2. Instruct an appropriately qualified operative to inspect the resident’s property, including:
  1. A thorough inspection of the bathroom to identify any interim repairs needed.
  2. A thorough inspection of the areas the resident believes are affected by damp and mould issues. It must also inspect the “roof line” as recommended in its survey of July 2023.
3. Following the inspection the landlord must write to the resident, and this Service, setting out:
  1. A schedule of proposed works to the bathroom, with timeframes for the works.
  2. A schedule of proposed works to address the damp and mould within the property.
4. Considering its poor communication with the resident about the replacement of the bathroom, it must write to the resident setting out when it plans to replace it.

Recommendations

Considering the resident’s concerns about other repairs that are not within the scope of this investigation, it is recommended the landlord uses the above inspection to discuss the resident’s concerns about the other repairs in the property.