Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202442334)

Decision
Case ID	202442334
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Freebridge Community Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 January 2026

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of her property and told it that she was unable to afford to run the oil heating system. She asked it to replace the heating system and help her relocate to a different property in another area of England. She remains unhappy with its response to her complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs.
   2. Response to the resident’s heating concerns.
   3. Response to the resident’s rehousing request.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the heating concerns.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the rehousing request.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord but have made a recommendation.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

8. The landlord acknowledged, apologised and reasonably compensated the resident for its delays in treating damp and mould and completing repairs. It explained in its complaint responses how and when it would resolve outstanding repairs. It then completed some of this work, but not all of it, in line with the resident’s wishes.

Response to the resident’s heating concerns

9. The landlord was not obliged to replace the oil heating system. It offered the resident appropriate advice and support in response to her affordability concerns.

Response to the resident’s rehousing request

10. The landlord offeredthe resident appropriate advice and support in response to her rehousing request.

Handling of the complaint

11. The landlord complied with its policy when processing and responding to the complaint.

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord provides the resident with a written update on all outstanding repairs and planned improvements in the property, including to the heating system, kitchen and roof. It should provide completion dates where known and include details of any work, such as replastering, which it would carry out but for the resident asking it not to do so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 3 April 2024 and 17 October 2024	The resident reported damp and mould on 3 April. The landlord attended the property and treated the damp and mould on 17 May. The resident then reported further repair issues so the landlord conducted a repairs survey on 1 July. It took the following action over the next 3 months: It inspected the electrics and found no issues with the wiring. It inspected the plumbing and ensured there were no leaks. It replaced bathroom and kitchen taps. It attended the property to remove an electric heater that no longer worked, to repair the bathroom extractor fan, and to repair cracks in a bedroom ceiling. Its records show the resident refused it entry. It attempted to repair plasterwork beside the front door but was unable to complete this as there was wallpaper in place. It carried out a further damp and mould treatment.
18 October 2024	The landlord carried out a full damp and mould survey of the property and identified some minor repair works. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord and complained about the condition of her home. She asked it for a copy of all relevant inspection reports it held.
25 October 2024	The landlord left the resident a voicemail to acknowledge her complaint.
29 October 2024	The landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint. She explained: She was unable to decorate the property as it was covered in woodchip wallpaper which had damaged the walls behind it. There were no bedroom door handles, cracks in ceilings and not enough plug sockets. Repairs were required to the roof, plumbing, windows, external doors and extractor fans. She did not use the heating system as she could not afford oil. She wanted the landlord to help her to relocate to a new property in a different area of England.
30 October 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would investigate all the issues raised in her email and on the phone call as a stage 1 complaint.
13 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It was sorry it had delayed in treating the damp and mould reported in April 2024 and in completing some of the repairs identified in its July 2024 survey. It offered £200 for any inconvenience caused. The electrical specification in the property was satisfactory and there were no outstanding plumbing repairs. However, there were a number of other outstanding repairs, including those identified by the October 2024 damp and mould survey, that it wanted to complete. It did not usually provide residents with copies of inspection reports. It instead provided a table detailing repairs it had completed since April 2024 and outstanding work with proposed completion dates. The resident was responsible for removing wallpaper and decorating. If she found when removing the woodchip wallpaper that plaster was degraded, she should contact its repairs team for assistance. It had previously decommissioned her heating as she told it she was not using it. It advised her to try and use it again. It suggested she contact its repairs team to arrange for the system to be recommissioned and to speak to her tenancy officer for advice. It also signposted her to a price comparison website. If she wanted to move, she should clear her rent arrears. It advised her to contact its income team to discuss a repayment plan. It had no influence over external factors affecting her ability to move to a new area, but its lettings team could discuss moving options with her. It also signposted her to a mutual exchange website.
14 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she felt the landlord had blamed her for the various repair issues but that the property was in poor condition when her tenancy began. She reiterated her heating concerns and asked it to install a more efficient system.
20 November 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged her escalation request. It said it would respond by 18 December 2024.
16 December 2024	The landlord carried out a further repairs survey of the property.
18 December 2024	The landlord told the resident it required more time to compile a thorough stage 2 response and would issue it by 20 January 2025.
19 December 2024	The landlord attended the property and replaced an extractor fan in the bathroom, fitted loft insultation and cleared guttering.
20 December 2024	The landlord visited the resident to discuss its survey findings and agree a plan for completing remaining repairs. It told her it intended to carry out further roof works at a later date as part of a planned works programme.
17 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response in which it upheld its stage 1 findings. It included an updated repairs table showing work it had completed and work that remained outstanding. It said it was liaising with the resident to agree suitable dates for completing the work. It noted that she had declined its offer to remove the woodchip wallpaper and replaster the entire property. It said it had told her it could do the work on a room by room basis or it could provide temporary accommodation and do it all in one go, but she declined both options.
27 January 2025	The landlord visited the resident again to discuss its complaint responses, outstanding repairs, options for completing replastering, heating and moving. During the meeting the landlord offered the resident an appointment with a tenancy support advisor, which she declined.
30 January 2025	The landlord sent the resident an addendum letter to its stage 2 response. It summarised the main issues discussed during the 27 January 2025 meeting and noted the resident wanted it to replace internal doors but did not want any other repair work to proceed at that time. It said she should let it know if she changed her mind. It explained it had reviewed the £200 compensation offered in its stage 1 response for distress and inconvenience and agreed to increase this to £500.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s management of repairs in her property. She told us she wanted it to complete all outstanding repairs, except the replastering, and for it to replace the oil boiler with a more efficient system.

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	The landlord’s handling of repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. The landlord appropriately acknowledged through its complaints process that it had delayed in April 2024 in treating damp and mould and in July 2024 in completing some repairs. It apologised and offered the resident £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. It explained in its stage 2 addendum letter that it had calculated this amount in line with its compensation policy. The policy states it will offer up to £250 in cases where a failure, such as a delay, has had a high impact on a resident. The landlord therefore offered the top amount of £250 for each of its 2 periods of delay. We are satisfied this was reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The landlord also attempted to put things right through the complaints process by carrying out a damp and mould survey and also a repairs survey to identify any outstanding issues. It completed some repairs between its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. It met with the resident prior to issuing the stage 2 response, and met with her again shortly after it was issued, to discuss its action plan for completing the remaining work. This was good communication and customer care.
14. During its meetings with the resident, the landlord listened to her concerns about the disruption the replastering work would cause and proposed two reasonable solutions. It said it could complete the replastering on a room by room basis which would mean she would not have to move into temporary accommodation. However, she indicated this would cause too much disruption given it could take the landlord up to 8 weeks to complete the work. The landlord explained that if she moved into temporary accommodation, which it would provide, it could replaster the entire house all in one go which its estimated would take approximately a week. The resident said she did not want to move into temporary accommodation as it would cause her difficulties getting to and from work. The landlord reasonably offered to provide taxi transportation between the temporary accommodation and her workplace, but she declined the offer. The landlord made clear in its complaint responses that its offer remained open and she could let it know if she changed her mind.
15. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response, repairs remained outstanding to the chimney, windows, internal and external doors, plasterwork, kitchen extractor fan and roof. Shortly after receiving the stage 2 response, the resident told the landlord she wanted it to replace the internal doors but did not want it to complete any of the other work. The landlord appropriately discussed this with her during a further visit to the property and then issued a stage 2 addendum letter in which it summarised her wishes. It made clear in the letter that if she changed her mind, she should get in touch with it to arrange appointments.
16. As the landlord had not identified any urgent repairs or serious hazards, it was reasonable that it did not insist in its addendum letter on completing the outstanding work at that time.However, the resident’s wishes did not negate its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement and we note it appropriately continued to engage with her to agree a way forward for completing the work.
17. Since then, the landlord has repaired the chimney, repaired seals around windows and external doors, replaced the internal doors and installed a new kitchen extractor fan. It has arranged to carry out roof works as part of a planned works programme in early 2026. It has not removed the wallpaper and completed any replastering work. It is not obliged to do all of this work given it is the tenant’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement to redecorate, however it told her its goodwill offer remained open. The resident recently told us her position remains the same and she does not want the replastering work to go ahead. She told us that she hopes to relocate to a new property during 2026 so would prefer the landlord to carry out the work after she moves out. It is therefore not due to a failure by the landlord that it has not completed this work.
18. The resident has raised numerous concerns with us about various events and issues that have arisen in recent months, all of which post-date the landlord’s final complaint response. For example, she told us that:
    1. The new internal doors are not suitable.
    2. Further window repairs have arisen.
    3. She asked the landlord to install a shower in the bathroom, but it refused.
    4. The landlord’s communications about roof works and a potential kitchen upgrade have been poor.
    5. The landlord carried out further damp and mould treatment in late October 2025 but that it did not treat mould in her bathroom which was continuing to appear.
19. We have not investigatedthese issues as the landlord has not had an opportunity to address them through its complaints process. We advised the resident to report her concerns directly to the landlord and, if she wishes, she may ask it to raise a further formal complaint. However, rather than await her contact, we have recommended that the landlord proactively writes to the resident about remainingrepairs and its proposed improvements to the property. This may assist with resolving some of her concerns.
20. We have also notified the landlord of the resident’s concerns that it has not treated damp and mould in the bathroom. We advised it to consider whether Awaab’s Law is applicable. In response, it told us that it has attempted to arrange a further inspection of the bathroom and awaits the resident’s getting back to it to confirm a suitable date. We encourage her to do so and the landlord to follow this up if it doesn’t hear back from her.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s heating concerns
Finding	No maladministration

21. The resident told the landlord during the complaints process that she was not using the heating system in the property as she could not afford oil. She asked it to replace the oil system with storage heaters as she suggested these would cost her less to run.
22. As a social housing provider, the landlord has limited resources which it must manage responsibly. This means that in line with its repairs policy, it will usually only replace components such as heating systems if they have broken beyond repair or have reached the end of their serviceable life. Neither of these circumstances were applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint and her request was based purely on the cost of oil. While we sympathise with her concerns, the landlord was under no obligation to replace the oil heating system and it was not a failing that it refused to do so.
23. Through its complaint responses, phone calls with the resident and home visits, the landlord encouraged the resident to start using the oil heating system. It advised her to contact its repairs team so the boiler could be serviced. It appropriately acknowledged she was concerned about affordability, suggested she seek support from her tenancy officer and signposted her to a price comparison website for oil heating. This was a reasonable and supportive response to her concerns.
24. In November 2025 the landlord’s contractor surveyed the resident’s property with a view to installing electric storage heaters. The resident told us in December 2025 that she had heard nothing further from the landlord. We understand this was because it was awaiting a quote from its contractor. It has since received the quote and told us it intends to proceed with the installation. If it has not already informed the resident of this, it should include details within the written update we have recommended it provides to her.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request
Finding	No maladministration

25. When making her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to help her relocate to an area of England in which it did not own any properties. On its initial call with her to discuss the complaint, the landlord appropriately managed her expectations and explained it was limited in the assistance it could provide. This is because it only has control over its own housing stock. It has no power to direct how local authorities and other housing associations in other parts of the country should allocate their properties. It reasonably advised the resident to contact its lettings team who could discuss moving options with her. It reiterated this advice in its complaint responses and also provided a link to mutual exchange website covering properties across the United Kingdom.
26. The landlord appropriately explained within its stage 1 response that in order to move, the resident would need to be up to date on her rent payments. As she was in arrears, it advised her she could contact its income team to discuss an affordable and sustainable repayment plan. It noted in its stage 2 response that she had since been in contact with the income team and agreed a repayment plan. She told us recently that she has adhered to the plan and will soon have cleared her arrears. She may wish to liaise with the landlord about her moving options once she has done so.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

27. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and responded at stage 1 within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and indicated it would issue its stage 2 within 20 working days. However, it then told her on the deadline date that it required up to a further 20 working days to respond as it wanted to ensure its response was thorough. Thiswas reasonable as it was at that time carrying out some repairs and had scheduled a home visit. The extension therefore enabled it to provide a more detailed and substantive response. Itfollowed the correct process for extensions set out in its policy and the Code and it issued its stage 2 response within the new deadline.
29. A week after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, one of its senior officers met with the resident. They discussed her concerns and dissatisfaction with the complaint responses, including her view that the compensation offered was too low. The senior officer reviewed the previous complaint responses and sent an addendum letter to the resident in which they agreed to increase the compensation from £200 to £500. They also used the letter as an opportunity to summarise the issues discussed during the visit and to outline next steps. This demonstrated that the landlord was committed to resolving the issues the resident had reported. The increased compensation offer meant that we were able to find it provided reasonable redress to her substantive complaint about repairs.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping was good. It provided us with sufficiently detailed records relating to its various surveys and appointments at the property as well as copies of relevant emails and notes of phone calls with the resident. This enabled us to carry out a through investigation.

Communication

31. The landlord demonstrated good practice in communications during the complaints process. It rang the resident when it first received her complaint in order to discuss her concerns and ensure it captured them all within its complaint definition. During its stage 2 investigation it visited her at home and discussed its survey findings and next steps. It carried out a further home visit once the stage 2 response was issued to encourage her to agree to the proposed works. It listened to her concerns and provided appropriate advice and signposting support.