Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202420305)

Decision
Case ID	202420305
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Freebridge Community Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

The resident reported unsatisfactory window repairs and poor external render. He complained to the landlord about the condition of his home and asked for a new kitchen as he said the existing was not fit for purpose.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Request for a kitchen upgrade.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

Repairs

The landlord did not complete the repairs to the resident’s home in line with its repairs policy timeframes. However, it acknowledged the failure and provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident.

Kitchen upgrade

The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. Upon further reports of dissatisfaction, it undertook further investigations and acted accordingly.

Associated complaint

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaint 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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £175 offered in the complaint responses. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to repairs is made on the basis that compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the standard of repairs completed within in his home. He said: the window contractor attended to resolve condensation but instead broke 2 windows and measured the replacements incorrectly the external render was in poor condition the kitchen was old and not fit for purpose
2 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It: apologised for the window repairs, accepted they were not done to standard and arranged a further appointment to complete the repairs explained it was progressing the external render repair but it required scaffolding told the resident that his kitchen was not due for an upgrade and advised him to report any repairs to the relevant team apologised for the delays and offered £175 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused
4 July 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: the landlord had not maintained the property and had not responded to his concerns about ineffective maintenance he was unclear about the action the landlord was taking to resolve the window repair he was unhappy about the delay to the external render repair the kitchen was in poor condition and needed to be updated
6 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident and said it would arrange for: a window contractor to resolve the outstanding issues scaffolding to be erected so the external render repairs could be completed the relevant team to consider whether it could alter the kitchen layout to make it more usable The landlord upheld the complaint. It also noted that the resident had accepted its £175 compensation offer for the inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said that although the landlord had completed some works, the issues he raised remained outstanding. He wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and invest in the property, which he felt needed modernisation and refurbishment.

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.

Complaint	Reports of repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident raised concerns about several repairs in his property. For clarity, each issue is addressed separately below, followed by our findings.

Windows

The resident reported draughty and difficult to lock windows on 15 January 2024. The landlord attended on 5 February 2024 to overhaul, make good and test the windows. The landlord attended within 15 working days, which was within its routine repair timescale of 28 days.
The landlord raised follow-on work for the windows. While some works were completed within the timescale for repairs, others exceeded the landlords 28 working day timescale. This led the resident to raise a stage 1 complaint on 13 June 2024.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to complete the outstanding window repairs and replacements by 4 July 2024. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to resolve the issues promptly. However, on 10 July 2024 the resident told the landlord the repairs were still outstanding and he did not know when the work would be completed. With no evidence of any communication from the contractor or landlord regarding the delay in the repairs or a proposed date, this was a communication failure.
The resident said the contractor could not complete any further repairs to the windows because moss was growing within the glazing units. The landlord agreed to instruct a surveyor to inspect the property, including the windows. This was reasonable given the reported difficulties the contractors had in completing the repairs and showed the landlord’s continued efforts to resolve the issues. In its stage 2 response on 6 August 2024 the landlord again apologised for the delays. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it was actively seeking to resolve the matter for the resident.
On 29 August 2024 the surveyor identified defects with the windows and cills and recommended replacing them. It is unclear why the landlord did not inform the resident of its decision until2 October 2024 as earlier communication may have reduced his concerns. The windows were replaced 51 days later, on 11 December 2024. The landlord does not publish timescales for planned repairs. Its repairs and maintenance policy explains that planned works operate alongside responsive repairs. However, 51 days would be considered a reasonable timeframe for replacement when factoring in the manufacturing process.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays during the complaint process. It took active steps to progress the window repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its qualified staff to attempt repairs before considering replacement. In doing so, it acted in line with its repairs policy to provide a cost effective repairs service. However, the resident’s frustration is understandable. He reported the issue in January 2024, and the windows were replaced in December 2024. The resident spent time and effort over 11 months reporting the issues and chasing updates.

External rendering

The resident first raised concerns about the wear and tear to the external rendering in May 2023, however, there is no evidence the landlord responded at that time. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure.
The resident raised his concerns again on 3 May 2024. The landlord attended on 8 May 2024, which was within its routine repairs timescale, and identified that scaffolding was required to complete the works. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 2 July 2024.
The landlord did not erect the scaffolding until 22 August 2024. While some repairs rely on external contractors, landlords are expected to keep residents informed throughout the repairs process. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident the reason for the 3 month delay or provided any updates. It would have been helpful to manage the resident’s expectations through more effective communication.
The landlord completed the render repairs on 23 August 2024 and carried out a post-inspection on 3 September 2024. The landlord said it was satisfied that the disrepair was resolved. However, the resident said he was dissatisfied with the appearance of the completed work. The landlord acknowledged that the external paintwork looked tired and required further attention. It passed this work to a contractor but explained that repainting was weather dependent and would be scheduled for spring 2025. The landlord accepted that further work was required and committed to completing it at the earliest suitable opportunity. This was a reasonable response.

Summary

Overall, the landlord did not complete the repairs within its policy timescales. However, it acknowledged the delays and apologised for the resident’s experience. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and address the concerns, including attending the property, raising follow‑on works, arranging a surveyor inspection, and replacing the windows and completing the render repairs.
The landlord offered £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to the repairs. This was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord’s actions and redress were proportionate in the circumstances. We have therefore found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of window and external rendering repairs.
We have made this finding on the understanding that the landlord has already paid the resident £175 it offered during the complaint process for the inconvenience caused by the delays.

Complaint	Request for a kitchen upgrade
Finding	No maladministration

The resident raised concerns about the age and condition of the kitchen as part of his stage 1 complaint on 13 June 2024. He said the kitchen was small and not fit for purpose and gave examples to explain why he held this view.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the kitchen was not considered to be at the end of its life cycle, so it could not agree to replace it. It advised the resident to report any repairs to the appropriate team. The landlord’s response was reasonable. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. We would not expect a landlord to replace a kitchen at a resident’s request unless it was beyond repair.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen on 29 August 2024. This showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and was committed to seeking a resolution.
Following the surveyor’s advice, the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen in the next financial year. It explained that it had brought the kitchen’s replacement date forward from 2031 to 2025. It also agreed to reconfigure the available space to provide a larger more usable kitchen. This was a reasonable response.
Having considered the evidence, the landlord acted reasonably in inspecting the kitchen and bringing forward its replacement date. While the landlord did not reach a resolution during the complaints process, it showed that it was seeking a customer-focused solution and agreed to replace the kitchen in 2025. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade.

Complaint	Complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
On 13 June 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement on 19 June 2024 and its response on 2 July 2024. The landlord provided its responses in line with its policy and the Code.
On 4 July 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlords complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 acknowledgement on 10 July 2024 and the response on 6 August 2024. The landlord provided its responses in line with its policy and the Code.
We did not identify any record-keeping failures. The information from the landlord was clear, consistent, and easy to interpret. It responded to the resident’s complaint points and it provided a response within the appropriate timescales. It also informed the resident he could bring his complaint to us if he remained unhappy with its response. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

It was right of the landlord to identify that the complaint has highlighted areas for improvement in its repairs and asset management team. The landlord may find it beneficial to read our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance – repairing trust (May 2025).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The information from the landlord was clear, consistent, and easy to interpret.

Communication

The landlord should have communicated with its contractors earlier in the process to understand the issues affecting the window repairs. It could also have informed the resident sooner, particularly when delays to the repairs occurred.