Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202425047)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425047

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
1. Excess cold and unaffordable fuel bills.
2. Disrepair to front door.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 1 August 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 6 children who were aged between 4 months and 17 years at the time of the complaint. We have seen evidence that the resident told the landlord in December 2022 that one of her children had asthma. However, the landlord advised us that there were no markers on its system to indicate that the resident or her children have any vulnerabilities.
On 20 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was struggling to pay her electricity bill and her children were huddled around 1 electric heater. The landlord completed a referral for its support fund and issued a £30 food voucher and a £49 energy voucher on 23 December 2022.
On 6 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to tell it that her fuel bills were over £500 per month and asked if any help was available. The landlord called her that day and advised her about a local government scheme that could help with funding towards energy payments. It offered her support to complete the form but she declined. It issued a further £50 fuel voucher via its support fund.
On 13 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that her front door had dropped, causing a draught. An operative attended on 24 April 2023 to adjust the door.
On 6 June 2024 the resident called the landlord again about her energy bills. She said that she had complained to her supplier. The landlord gave her the contact details for the energy ombudsman and advised her to contact them if she was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint.
On 9 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
1. Her energy company had changed her tariff and it took a year for them to resolve the issue. This resulted in a bill for £5,144 with some bills totalling £1,200 and £1,400 per month.
2. She had spoken to the landlord and the member of staff had said “yeah storage heaters cost a fortune”.
3. Several neighbours were also having the same problem and the landlord had changed the heating system for one neighbour so they could do a mutual exchange.
4. The landlord was putting her at financial hardship by refusing to change her heating system.
5. Her front door needed repair and she had reported it 4 times in the past 2 years.
6. She wanted to know if the property had cavity wall insulation.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 16 July 2024 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2024. It said that:
1. It had upgraded the heating system in the property on 11 November 2021 and therefore it would not consider another replacement at this time.
2. Utility bills were the resident’s responsibility and therefore it was limited in the support it was able to provide.
3. A tenancy support advisor had worked with the resident to establish that there were no faults with the heating. They had also given her the contact details of the energy ombudsman.
4. She completed a mutual exchange in 2022 and took on the property knowing that it had storage heaters.
5. It had last repaired the front door on 24 April 2023 with no follow-on work required. It would raise another repair job for the door.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 27 July 2024. The landlord responded on 19 August 2024. It said that:
1. It partially upheld her complaint with regards to a permanent repair of the front door and an answer regarding the cavity wall insulation.
2. It had no plans to upgrade the heating system in the property.
3. Its tenancy support team could signpost her to other agencies that could help with heating costs. It also had a contingency fund that it could sometimes use. However financial support was limited and would not cover the costs she had detailed.
4. It would overhaul the front door on 23 September 2024. It felt that it could have managed the door repair better.
5. It had not been clear in its stage 1 complaint response whether the property had cavity wall insulation. After looking at the energy certificate it appeared that there was no cavity wall insulation and it was not considering this work currently.
6. It offered £175 compensation for the confusion in its stage 1 response about the cavity wall insulation and because it had not been effective in repairing the door.
In September 2025 the resident advised us that the landlord has offered to trial a new heating system in the property but she is unsure when it will provide this. She also said that the front door needs to be repaired again.

Assessment and findings

Excess cold and fuel bills

There is no statutory obligation for the landlord to carry out improvement works. However, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on it to keep in good repair and working order the installations for water and space heating.
The landlord is also expected to meet the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort in the property. Social landlords are exempt from the regulations governing minimum energy efficiency requirements and would not be obliged to make improvements to improve energy efficiency. The landlord would, however, be responsible for ensuring that there were no repair issues which meant that the standard was not being met.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the tenancy support team had established that there were no current problems with the resident’s heating. However, although there is evidence that it regularly serviced the heating, we have seen no evidence from the repairs log or notes to show that the landlord inspected the heating after any of the resident’s reports that the property was too cold. Following the residents reports of excess cold the landlord should have checked to make sure the heating was working effectively, was fit for purpose, and that the property was within the healthy temperature range. However, we can see no evidence that it did this and was therefore meeting its obligations under the Decent Homes Standard and HHSRS. This failure meant that the resident felt that the landlord had not taken her request seriously which caused her distress. It also cost her time and trouble contacting the landlord again.
The resident told the landlord about her high electricity bills. The tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for utility bills. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to consider reimbursement unless the usage had increased due to disrepair. However, it would have been appropriate for its tenancy support team to give full budgeting advice, including liaison with and review of her energy supplier, or to make a referral to another agency to complete this. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This was a missed opportunity to maximise the resident’s income and ensure that she had explored all options to make the property affordable. It offered a small payment from its support fund, which was a positive step. However, this would not resolve the problem long term as the resident’s bills were so high.
In summary, the landlord is not obliged to make improvements to the property and therefore does not have to replace the heating system. However, we have seen no evidence that it ensured that the heating was working effectively and that it was meeting its obligations under the Decent Homes Standard and the HHSRS. This was particularly concerning considering that there were young children in the property, one of which had asthma. It also gave no meaningful budgeting advice. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of excess cold and unaffordable fuel bills.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused. We have also ordered it to inspect the heating and assess its effectiveness and to offer full budgeting advice to the resident. As we have seen no evidence that it has considered a wider energy efficiency assessment on the property with associated advice to the resident, we have recommended that it also considers this.

Door

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to respond to routine repairs within 28 days. An example of a routine repair is adjustment and easing of doors.
There is evidence that the resident reported that the door was draughty twice before she complained. The landlord considered one of these reports within its responses, which occurred 16 months prior to the complaint. This was reasonable as the other report was prior to that and the landlord is not obliged to consider issues that are not brought to its attention within a reasonable period.
An operative attended and adjusted the door 43 days after the resident reported it and therefore the landlord did not meet its target of 28 days. By this time the resident had already told the landlord about the excess cold in the property and told it how she was struggling with the cost of heating her home. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the repair. However, this was not the case.
The landlord offered the resident £175 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process, a proportion of which was for its handling of this aspect of her complaint. We consider this to be reasonable redress in the circumstances. We have recommended that it pays this sum if it has not already done so.
Since the complaint there have been 2 further repair logs for a draughty front door. The landlord took 116 days to adjust the door on the first occasion and 47 days on the second occasion. As this is a recurring issue, we have also recommended that a supervisor or independent contractor inspects the door to see if there are any underlying causes for this.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to all aspects of the complaint and that complaint handlers must consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
In her complaint the resident asked if the property had cavity wall insulation. The landlord did not respond to this in the stage 1 complaint response. In the stage 2 complaint response it said that the property did not have cavity wall insulation. However, this was incorrect as it has provided this Service with a 25-year cavity wall insulation guarantee for the property dated 1999. This error shows lack of a full investigation into the complaint which cost the resident time and trouble escalating it.
The landlord offered the resident £175 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process. A proportion of this was for its failure to respond to her question about cavity wall insulation at stage 1. We consider this to be reasonable redress in the circumstances. We have recommended that it pays this sum if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excess cold and unaffordable fuel bills.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of:
1. Disrepair to the front door.
2. The complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of excess cold and unaffordable utility bills.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to confirm what vulnerabilities the household has. It must then update all its systems to reflect this so that it can adjust the delivery of services as appropriate.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report a supervisor or independent contractor must inspect the heating system. This is to ensure that the system is fit for purpose and that the landlord is fulfilling its obligations under the Decent Homes Standard and the HHSRS. We have allowed extra time to complete this order as it would be best carried out when the weather is colder.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must contact the resident to offer full budgeting advice to include income maximisation and fuel provider options. If the resident accepts this offer an appointment for the assessment must be offered within a further 3 weeks.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident as soon as possible to update her about its offer to trial an alternative heating system in the property.
The landlord should pay the resident the £175 compensation already offered if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider conducting a wider energy efficiency assessment on the property as a whole with associated advice to be given to the resident.
A supervisor or independent contractor should inspect the front door to see if further work or a replacement is required to ensure there is not an ongoing issue with draughts.