Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202422538)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422538

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

25 June 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 repairs to the resident’s wet room and damp and mould.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. She occupies a bungalow (the property) and has a medical condition which affects her breathing. The landlord was aware of this condition.
On 21 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that 20 tiles on the wet room wall were broken. There was no record of the landlord attending to repair these.
On 26 October 2023 the resident called the landlord about an appointment for the wet room repair and reported she had damp and mould in the property.
On 9 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that there was water running down the walls of her kitchen and dripping down the wall from under a window.
On 1 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord for compensation for damage to her possessions and decorations from damp and mould. It spoke to her on 23 March 2024, when it recorded that she had emphysema, and acknowledged her concerns as a stage 1 complaint on 26 March 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 April 2024. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect her property, and it had pre-booked a mould treatment for 26 April 2024 while it awaited the surveyor’s report. The landlord said it may offer support with redecoration and would consider compensation for damaged possessions after the inspection. It offered the resident £175 compensation for its delay in repairing her wet room.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 12 April 2024 and identified the repairs required to deal with the damp and mould in the property. The inspection report also recorded that it should instruct a damp specialist to inspect the property. He noted that the carpets in the bedrooms were saturated, and wooden flooring had been damaged by damp. The surveyor also noted that the damp proof course was low and new external drainage was needed.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord cancelled its job to carry out mould treatment in the property. It completed a repair to the wet room wall on 23 May 2024. On 3 June 2024 the resident called the landlord to chase the repairs and escalated her complaint on 12 June 2024. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had done nothing to resolve the damp and mould which had continued to damage her decorations and possessions.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2024. It set out a schedule of repairs which had been identified on the inspection on 12 April 2024. However, a recommended roof replacement was not included in the schedule. The landlord increased its offer of compensation for the resident’s inconvenience to £250 and offered a £70 contribution to her redecoration costs. It asked her to provide evidence of the damage to her personal belongings and 2 quotes for replacement floor coverings for it to consider reimbursing her.

Events after the final complaint response

In July and August 2024, the landlord carried out a mould treatment at the resident’s property and attended for the windows and external doors.
On 10 September 2024 the resident told us she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response as it had not adhered to the schedule of repairs it set out. She wanted it to complete the repairs and increase the compensation it had offered her.
The landlord replaced the wet room on 15 September 2024. The resident made an insurance claim against the landlord’s liability insurance on 17 September 2024.
The landlord completed work on the windows and external doors on 9 December 2024. It carried out a damp survey on 18 December 2024 which identified that a gutter was blocked, and the bathroom extractor fan required replacement.
The landlord’s insurer rejected the resident’s insurance claim on 16 January 2025. The landlord made a revised offer of compensation to her on 23 January 2025 of:
1. £250 for her inconvenience, which it offered in its final complaint response.
2. £70 contribution to redecoration, which it offered in its final complaint response.
3. £500 for damage to her possessions.
4. A contribution of £15 per square metre for replacement carpet, or £25 per square metre for replacement carpet and vinyl.
The resident reported further damp and mould issues in her property and the landlord inspected on 20 March 2025. It identified repairs which included installing drainage to prevent water penetrating above the low damp proof course in the property. The landlord told us on 9 June 2025 it had scheduled these repairs for between 25 and 30 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints whish concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident told the landlord on 21 January 2025 that she was unhappy its liability insurer had rejected her liability insurance claim for damage to her possessions. We are unable to consider this issue in our investigation in line with the Scheme, above. If the resident wishes to pursue compensation for her damaged possessions, she may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a legal claim through the courts.
The resident said that the damp and mould in the property affected her health, leading to her having “severe chest infections”. We acknowledge her account, however, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any negative effect on her health. This is a matter better suited to a personal injury claimthrough the courts. As mentioned above, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making such a claim if she wishes to pursue this. We will, however, consider if any failings by the landlord led to her experiencing distress and inconvenience as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
In line with the Scheme, we would ordinarily consider the events from 12 months preceding the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This would be from March 2023 onwards in this case. However, we have used our discretion to consider events from January 2023 when the resident first reported the damage to her wet room. This was only slightly outside the 12 months, and it was a significant event which led to the complaint, so it is fair to include it in our investigation.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy says it has 3 repairs priorities:
1. Emergency repairs. These are repairs which pose an immediate risk to the resident or the property. The policy says it will respond to these within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs. These are repairs that are not an immediate hazard, but which need to be done quickly to prevent an issue deteriorating. The policy says it will respond to these within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs. The landlord’s policy says it will respond to these within 28 days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room

There were significant failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room. When the resident reported the repair to the landlord on 21 January 2023, it did not attend until 11 December 2023. This was an excessive delay which was significantly longer than its published repair timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay but did not explain why it happened in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord inspected the wet room wall on 11 December 2023 and recorded the scope of the work needed. There was no evidence that it made an appointment to carry out the work until the resident called the landlord on 1 March 2024. It therefore failed to progress the work appropriately, and the resident was required to spend time and trouble to move the repair along.
When the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 12 April 2024, they recorded that the wet room needed to be completely replaced. After the landlord completed repairs to the damaged wet room wall on 23 May 2024, its internal records on 6 June 2024 showed that the surveyor maintained that the wet room required complete replacement and “the property is not currently fit for habitation”. Despite this, the landlord failed to act on its surveyor’s advice and did not arrange to move the resident out temporarily until the repairs were done.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff. If it chooses not to act on this advice, it should have a good reason why. Its internal records showed that it considered it did not need to move the resident as there was “no immediate hazard to the customer’s health”. However, there was no evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, which it was aware of since 23 March 2024, in its decision. There was no evidence that the landlord assessed the potential risk to the resident’s health, or whether her health may have been disproportionately affected by remaining in the property. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had a good reason not to move the resident and it acted inappropriately by allowing her to stay in a property which had been deemed to be uninhabitable.
Despite the landlord’s surveyor relaying to the landlord on 6 June 2024 that the wet room replacement should be done immediately, it did not complete this until 13 September 2024, over 3 months later. This meant that it allowed the resident to continue to stay in an uninhabitable property, by its own definition, for 14 weeks. We will therefore order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident based on the value of her rent for those 14 weeks. Compensation will be discussed in more detail below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

There were several significant failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
The resident first reported damp and mould in her property to the landlord on 26 October 2023. It recorded this in the repair notes for the wet room wall repair and noted that this needed to be inspected. However, when it attended on 11 December 2023, there was no evidence that it inspected the damp and mould. This was a failure to respond appropriately.
The resident then re-reported the damp and mould to the landlord on 9 February 2024 when she highlighted that water was running down the walls of her kitchen and dripping down the wall from under a window. The landlord appropriately offered her a dehumidifier to reduce the damp. However, it was unreasonable that it still did not arrange to inspect the reported damp and mould to determine the cause.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not raise an inspection for the damp and mould until after the resident spoke to it twice more and raised a stage 1 complaint. When it inspected the property on 11 April 2024, this was approximately 5 and a half months after her first report on 26 October 2023. This was an unreasonably long period. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould “It’s not lifestyle”, recommends that landlords ensure their responses to damp and mould are timely to reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s response in this case was not timely or urgent.
The landlord attempted to carry out mould treatment on 26 April 2024, however it could not proceed. Its job notes recorded that there was “too much stuff in the way and (the resident) has a bad back”. Given that the landlord was aware at this point of the resident’s vulnerabilities it was unreasonable that it did not work with her to move her possessions to carry out the repair. The landlord did not recognise, until 19 June 2024, that its tenancy management team needed to work with the resident to prepare the property for repairs. It completed the mould treatment on 15 July 2024 approximately 3 months after its original appointment. The landlord could have avoided this delay by engaging with the resident sooner.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 4 July 2024 set out a schedule of repairs to address the damp and mould. However, these repairs were identified on its inspection 3 months earlier on 12 April 2024. The landlord did not explain why it had not raised these repairs sooner. The list of repairs the landlord relayed in its final complaint response also omitted the surveyor’s recommendation of replacing the roof. The landlord’s final complaint response was unreasonable as it was not transparent and failed to acknowledge its delay in starting work.
There was no evidence that the landlord acted on any of the other repairs it identified on its inspection on 12 April 2024 until 19 August 2024 when inspected the windows. It then ordered a replacement part and completed the repair on 9 December 2024. While we accept that repairs may take longer than the landlord’s published timeframes when specialist parts or equipment are required, this was still an unreasonably long time to complete the window repair. We would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed of progress during any delay, however there was no evidence of it doing this.
From the evidence provided it is unclear if the remaining repairs set out in the landlord’s final stage complaint response were completed. The landlord’s internal records on 13 December 2024 showed that it was uncertain if the following repairs were done:
1. Repairing cracks in the ceiling.
2. Asbestos testing.
3. CCTV drain survey.
4. Structural survey of the property.
5. New concrete path and drainage.
The landlord has not provided any evidence, in the form of repair logs, job notes, or inspection reports to confirm that these repairs were completed. We have also not seen evidence that the landlord checked and replaced any insulation or carried out a structural survey. We therefore cannot conclude that the landlord acted appropriately by completing the repairs it said it would in its final stage complaint response.
The landlord’s internal records showed that the resident’s roof was scheduled for replacement in the 2025-2026 financial year, however, there was no evidence that it informed the resident about this. It is significant that this recent inspection in March 2025 found that the property’s guttering was misaligned, and the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had acknowledged this almost a year prior. This indicates that there was either poor workmanship, or the landlord failed to do the repairs it said it would. Either way it shows a failing by the landlord.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was poor as it delayed excessively in inspecting the damp. It then took an excessive length of time to start some repairs, some repairs remain outstanding, and the damp and mould in the property remains unresolved.

Compensation

In its final complaint response on 4 July 2024, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for her distress and inconvenience and £70 towards her redecoration costs. On 23 January 2025 it increased its offer to include an additional £500 towards her damaged possessions and a contribution towards replacing her floor coverings of £15 per square meter for carpet, or £25 per square metre if she wanted carpet and vinyl. The landlord was not obliged to offer the £500 towards damaged possessions, or the contribution towards new floor coverings, as there was no record of the resident providing evidence of the cost of her damaged items. However, the landlord’s final offer was not enough to fully address the extent of the negative effect on the resident caused by its failings.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs amounts to severe maladministration. To recognise that the landlord allowed the resident to remain in the property for 14 weeks, despite its own surveyor finding that it was unfit for habitation, we order it to pay her compensation of £1,497.72. This award of compensation is based on 14 weeks of rent, which the resident paid at £106.98 per week. It was not reasonable for the landlord to charge the resident rent for a property which was not fit to live in, when it had not offered her alternative accommodation.
The £250 the landlord offered did not take into account that it did not do all the repairs it said it would. We will order it to pay the resident £800 compensation, to replace its offer of £250. We will also order it to pay the £70 it offered towards redecoration costs. The award of £800 is in line with our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website. This says that awards of between £600 and £1,000 are appropriate when there have been failings by the landlord leading to a significant effect on the resident.
We will also order the landlord to pay the resident the £500 it offered previously for damaged possessions. It must also reoffer to contribute £15 or £25 per square metre for the resident’s replacement floor coverings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room and damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £2,867.72. This is made up of:
  1. £1,497.72 for its failure to move the resident out while her wet room repair was unresolved.
  2. £800 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It may deduct the £250 it offered her for this in its final complaint response if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
  3. The £70 for the resident’s redecoration costs which it offered in its final complaint response. It does not need to pay this if it can evidence it has already paid this to the resident.
  4. The £500 towards the resident’s damaged possessions which it offered her on 23 January 2025. It does not need to pay this if it can evidence it has already paid her this.
2. Contact the resident to re-offer its proposed contribution to replacement floor coverings of £15 per square metre for replacement carpet, or £25 per square metre for replacement carpet and vinyl.
3. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. This apology must come from a senior member of staff at director level or above and comply with the guidance for apologies in our remedies guidance.
4. Complete the ongoing repairs for damp and mould in the property, scheduled for June 2025 and carry out a post inspection. A copy of this inspection report must be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 8 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show it has carried out a review of its handling of this case. The case review must be led by a senior manager and must include, but does not need to be limited to:
1. Identifying why there was a period of 10 months before it first attended to inspect the reported damage to the resident’s wet room wall.
2. Identifying why it did not follow all the repair recommendations made by its surveyor.
3. Consider why it did not move the resident out, against its surveyor’s recommendation, in view of her health vulnerabilities.

Recommendations

If any further repairs are identified from the landlord’s post-inspection, then it should complete these within its published timeframes.