Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202230612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230612

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

29 July 2024

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 and improvements to the resident’s property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he has limited mobility and has several health issues. The resident has a full-time carer, as well as family and friends who help him. The landlord’s records show that it was aware the resident has limited mobility and that he has ‘some health conditions’.
The landlord had agreed to carry out a number of repairs and improvements to the property (specified in paragraph 24 below) but it had not provided the resident with a plan of work.
On 25 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident said that:
1. he was dissatisfied the landlord had not provided him with a scope of works
2. he was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord
3. he was unhappy with the delay in the landlord decorating and recarpeting the property, which the landlord had agreed to in order to resolve a previous complaint
4. no work had been completed at the property since the end of June 2023. The resident said this was affecting his mental health, and he was suffering from anxiety
On 10 August 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It said:
1. the works were progressing to plan and being overseen by senior management of the landlord and contractor
2. support was provided to the resident to assist with moving furniture so that the decorating and carpeting could be completed
3. it was communicating regularly with the resident, with dates and actions confirmed by phone and email
4. the resident had requested additional items of work, which required an agreement of costs with the contractor. The landlord anticipated a timeframe of 4 weeks for the additional works to commence
5. there had been delays in completing the works prior to April 2023, some of which were outside the landlord’s control. It had tried to progress works as quickly as possible
6. it apologised for the delays and the progression of the works. It advised that some delays were unavoidable and referred to moving power lines to allow external works to commence and ensuring that the work was of a good standard
7. it acknowledged the impact the delays were having on the resident’s mental health
8. the landlord offered compensation of £75, made up as follows:
  1. £50 for the inconvenience
  2. £25 as a goodwill gesture following damage to the resident’s plants
The stage 1 response referred to a list of points and concerns which the resident sent to the landlord on 9 August 2023. The landlord said it would refer this list to its contractor and would form part of the on-going works.
On 10 August 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. there were discrepancies in the landlord’s account of events regarding the power lines and termination of contractors
2. the landlord had previously agreed to build the cupboard to cover the electrics
3. the contractor had spoken to him about the crack across the floor. The resident said that the landlord had only seen photographs of this, and no one had inspected the floor
4. the resident asked who had inspected the bathroom floor. He said that the shower screen had been fitted to the high point of the floor which meant water ran off correctly, but this had made the space in the shower narrower
5. the landlord had previously told him that it would investigate the puddle which formed outside. The water had previously come into the hallway. The landlord had filled the gap to prevent water coming in, but this had resulted in a 7cm deep puddle forming when it rained. The water then ran off into the soil at the front of the brickwork which the resident was concerned could cause a damp problem in the future
6. he was unhappy with the work carried out in the front room. The wall which had damp and mould on it had been dot and dabbed without any treatment to the wall. The opposite wall, which had also been damp, had been painted but had started to show yellow staining
7. he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered
The landlord visited the resident on 8 September 2023 to answer some of the resident’s concerns and to clarify points from the stage 1 complaint.
On 8 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said:
1. it apologised for the inconsistences which the resident had pointed out and provided explanations for these
2. with regards to the cabinet fitted over the electric consumer unit, the landlord repeated that if the resident wished to carry out this work himself, he would not need to request permission. It apologised that the resident had been previously told the landlord would complete this work and that it had reflected this in the compensation offered
3. the cracks in the floor were checked by the landlord on 8 September 2023. It was satisfied the cracks were non-structural and would not affect the building
4. it was satisfied the floor level in the bathroom was technically correct. It acknowledged the resident felt the area was restricted. It could not increase the shower area for the same reasons outlined at stage 1 and there was no further solution that it could provide
5. the guttering had been reviewed/upgraded so that any rainwater from the building would be better controlled in the future
6. it apologised for the impact upon the resident’s mental health and acknowledged that works had been outstanding at the resident’s home for considerable time
7. it increased its offer of compensation to £300, as follows:
  1. £250 to reflect the delays in completing the works, the impact on the resident’s health and the inconvenience caused
  2. £50 for damage to the resident’s plants
The resident remained dissatisfied and said the following works were outstanding:
1. the stairs carpet needed to be fitted – this had been delayed due to an approved contractor being required to remove and refit the stairlift
2. the internal doors needed adjusting following fitting of the carpets
3. he was not happy that the landlord had not treated the mould on a wall in the living room and had boarded over it
4. damp was showing through one of the newly painted walls
5. there was a gap in the fire wall between the resident’s property and next door which needed to be filled as it was causing a draught
6. the cracks in the bathroom needed to be filled
7. the shower area in the bathroom had been reduced due to replacement of the shower screen
8. the new gutters were overflowing, resulting in a pool of water at the back door and the front gutter was overflowing on the bend
9. the canopy over the back door had not been replaced as promised
10. the outhouse roof had not been replaced as promised
The landlord informed this service on 14 April 2024 that the works were completed to the resident’s satisfaction during the week commencing 1 April 2024.
On 14 May 2024, the resident confirmed to this service that the landlord had completed all the repairs. However, he remained dissatisfied with the following:
1. he was unhappy with the time it had taken to complete the repairs and improvements to his property
2. the landlord had reduced the size of the shower area which was affecting him
3. the landlord had replaced the wooden loft hatches in his kitchen and first floor with plastic ones. These were vibrating and allowing draughts through the property

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint’s procedure.”

The evidence suggests that repairs and improvement work to the resident’s property had been ongoing since 2017. The resident said that he raised a complaint in 2021, which completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 14 July 2021. However, the resident did not bring that complaint to the Ombudsman until May 2023. The issues from 2017 were not referred to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the date of the final response and so will not be investigated by this service.
Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from July 2023 onwards when the resident made a complaint to the landlord about outstanding repairs and works in the property. The Ombudsman has referenced events that pre and post-date this period for context only.
The resident said the issues in his property had a significant impact on his physical and mental well-being. He said that it had also impacted upon his angina. When it is alleged that a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and condition of the property.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and improvements to the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to maintain and improve its homes to a high standard. It is committed to providing a high-quality repair service that considers residents needs, the landlord’s resources, statutory obligations and external affecting factors. The responsive repairs service complements its planned and cyclical maintenance programmes to ensure stock is well maintained, up to date and meets the needs of residents.
The landlord’s repair policy states that repairs are categorised as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – which must be completed within 24 hours. Examples include the total loss of heating or hot water, unsafe electrical fittings, serious roof leak, serious water leak or unsecure property.
2. Urgent repairs – which must be completed within 7 days. Examples include contained water leak from any type of fitting, toilet cistern and pan problems, faulty extractor fan affecting electrics.
3. Routine repairs – which must be completed within 28 days. Examples include making safe and repairing fencing, gates and garage doors, dripping or leaking taps or shower unit, blocked guttering, ease and adjust doors and windows.
4. Planned maintenance – in cases where a repair can be more cost effectively conducted as part of a programme of planned or cyclical works, the landlord will consider this option and inform residents accordingly. It will then be referred to the appropriate team. There are no timescales assigned to cyclical or planned works within the repair policy and this service has not had sight of any separate procedure to cover planned and cyclical works.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of any delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents
In his complaint, the resident was unhappy with how long it had taken to complete the repairs and improvements to his property, which had been ongoing since 2017. He repeatedly had to chase the landlord for updates and there were prolonged periods of time when no work had taken place. He explained how the delays had impacted upon his mental health and caused him stress and anxiety.
The landlord agreed that works had been ongoing at the property since 2017. This had been a large project which had involved major works to bring the resident’s property back to an acceptable standard and in line with its policy and procedures. The landlord spoke to the resident on 27 July 2023, following his complaint. The resident explained he was unhappy because:
1. he had no plan of works
2. there was a lack of communication from the landlord
3. the resident provided the landlord with details of the repairs and works which he considered outstanding
The outstanding works complained about were as follows:

The front room

the cracks needed plastering
the holes in the corner of the windows needed filling
the damp was coming through one of the walls
there were cracks across the floor
the door frame was bowed and the resident could not close the door

The middle room

there was a crack where the door used to be

The hallway

there had been a leak in the flat roof. The resident said the landlord had attended in June 2023, but it was unable to repair the roof due to rain. The resident said the repair was outstanding

The bathroom

the shower was leaking when in use
the extractor fan was not replaced

The hall to dining room

there were cracks in the wall that had been painted but then come back

The kitchen

the new loft hatch needed finishing and made good

The upstairs

2 rooms were empty awaiting contractors

The external work

the new guttering was twisted

The stage 1 response referred to a programme of works which the landlord expected to receive from its contractor. A copy of this has not been provided to this service. This is a failure by the landlord.
The landlord attended the property on 31 July 2023. It is unclear from the records what work was carried out on this date. The resident mentioned in his email to the landlord of the same date that this was to start the upstairs works and to start removal of a chimney. In its stage 1 response dated 10 August 2023, the landlord referred to a list of outstanding issues which the resident provided to it on 9 August 2023. The landlord advised that it would discuss the items on the list with its contractor and they would form part of the ongoing works.
When the landlord received the list of repairs, it was reasonable that it wanted to check if these were within its contractor’s scope of works. The Ombudsman would have expected, however, that a full scope of works would have been shared with the resident, so he knew what was going to be completed and by when. The landlord was required to then categorise the repairs into the timescales set out above. There is no evidence that it did this and that was a failure by the landlord to proactively manage and update the resident on the repairs in the property.
There were 4 items from the resident’s list which the landlord said it would not raise with its contractor as follows:
1. The cabinet fitted over the electronic consumer unit: this was work which the landlord was not responsible for. It had been unable to find a record to say this had been included in the original specification. If the resident wished to build a cupboard himself, he could do so and would not need to request permission.
2. The cracks across the front room floor: this had been caused where the floor had been patched with 2 different materials. It was non-structural and there were no safety implications. Once the carpets were fitted, the crack would not be seen.
3. The bathroom, the floor required levelling and the shower space made bigger: the landlord stated it was satisfied that the level and fall for the water to run off was correct. It was unable to increase the space in the shower area. It would assess this when the bathroom was next due for renewal.
4. Water ingress and puddles forming at the back door when it rained: the landlord was not clear whether the puddle was internal or external. It asked the resident to confirm so that it could investigate further.
Whilst the landlord was entitled to say it was not responsible for the cabinet for the electrical consumer unit, the landlord acted unreasonably with its explanations on the cracking and the water ingress. The landlord ought to have inspected to determine the cause of the cracking and if it was responsible to repair. It should have considered whether there was a hazard from falling. The landlord failed to adequately consider this here and so that is a failure. The position is the same regarding the water ingress. The landlord ought to have inspected the property to determine the cause and where the water was pooling.
In respect of the space in the shower, both parties agreed that the landlord has replaced the shower screen more than once to try to stop the escape of water. The resident’s position is that this has reduced the size of the area, and this makes it difficult for him to manoeuvre around the shower space.
In response, the landlord said it inspected the bathroom floor and was satisfied the bathroom was functional and it would be unable to increase the shower size. The landlord advised the resident it would assess this again when the bathroom was next due for replacement.
The landlord ought to have inspected the bathroom and considered if the resident was able to use it. There is no evidence that an inspection of the bathroom floor level took place either before the resident’s complaint or after. As referred to at paragraph 8 of this report, the landlord visited the resident on 8 September 2023 to answer some of the resident’s concerns and to clarify points from the stage 1 complaint. The landlord has not provided any notes or records of the visit and therefore we are unable to establish if the level of the bathroom floor was inspected on this date. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
Additionally, the landlord ought to have considered its obligations under its aids and adaptations policy which states:
1. We shall work closely with all teams to identify opportunities to proactively complete aids and adaptations where the need for such can be clearly identified and is supported. Where appropriate, this will be carried out on the advice of a qualified occupational therapist, including signposting and the use of assistive technology.
2. We shall support and assist a tenant through the process of applying to the local authority for a disabled facilities grant where the cost of the aids and adaptations work exceeds the prescribed amount (£500), or in respect of all work identified after the annual budget is expended.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident is vulnerable with mobility issues. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the resident and support him to obtain an occupational therapist assessment. This would have provided the landlord with the relevant evidence to decide whether the space in the shower was adequate or whether additional work was required. There is no evidence the landlord suggested or considered whether an occupational therapist assessment was appropriate or whether it was appropriate to signpost/apply for a disabled facility grant. This is a failure by the landlord because it failed to comply with its aids and adaptations policy.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 October 2023 to advise that no work had progressed at his property since 12 September 2023, apart from the carpets being fitted on 20 September 2023. He informed this service that there were still works outstanding at his property. The resident explained that he had recently been in hospital to have his third pacemaker fitted. He said that the stress of the situation was getting too much, and his mental health was suffering. He explained that he was finding it difficult to keep chasing the landlord to complete the works.
The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property on 29 January 2024. The following works were identified:
1. the internal doors were rubbing on the carpets following their fit. 8 doors required easing and adjusting
2. there was silicone around the top of the wall between the ceiling and walls in the bathroom
3. the windows and doors throughout the property needed to be eased and adjusted to close any gaps
4. there were signs of moisture coming through the face of the old fireplace so that the following was required:
  1. to fit a vent and use the hole in the wall to clean out the old soot and cement spoils from chimney
  2. apply stain block to the wall
5. there was silicone around the top of the skirtings and additional skirting was required to cover the gap under the existing skirting
6. the outhouse roof was in a bad state and required renewal
7. the main roof down pipe and gutter was becoming overwhelmed and overflowing
8. the side post was showing signs of rot
9. the damaged path needed to be broken up and re-laid together and any shrubs growing through the path needed to be dug up
10. the flaunching and manhole chamber needed replacing
11. the gulley surround needed to be refit
The landlord logged the works on 29 February 2024 with a target date of 28 March 2024. The landlord completed the repairs and works by the first week of April 2024. It is not clear why these works were not identified in September or October 2023. It is also convenient to note here the works were completed 9 months after the resident made his initial complaint. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delay in the landlord completing the works was reasonable. This is a failure by the landlord.
Throughout the complaint, the resident repeatedly chased for updates. He explained how the delays had affected his health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs and improvements may require additional time for the landlord to complete, there is an expectation that the landlord communicates with the resident to keep them updated. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated the delay to the resident. This was a further failure.
On 14 May 2024, the resident informed this service that the landlord had replaced the old wooden loft hatches, in the kitchen and on the first floor, with plastic ones. These were vibrating and draughts were coming into the property. The resident said the landlord had agreed to install clips to prevent the hatches vibrating, which was outstanding. He also advised that the landlord had informed him that it could not stop the draughts.
The resident made the landlord aware of the kitchen hatch in his initial complaint. However, the surveyor had not identified the loft hatches in the report of 29 January 2024.
This service has seen an internal email dated 21 March 2024 in which the landlord referred to using a thermal camera to show the resident where the draughts were coming from. It is not clear what area of the property this referred to.
There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could verify whether the landlord has investigated the loft hatches and identified if further works are required. This is a failure by the landlord.

Conclusions

Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works and improvements to the property, in that:
1. it unreasonably delayed in carrying out the works and improvements
2. it did not communicate those delays to the resident
In summary, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology, acknowledgement of the impact on the resident’s wellbeing and an offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Whilst the offer of compensation was positive, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount does not reflect all the failings by the landlord and the impact on the resident identified in this report.
There was a period from at least 27 July 2023 to 14 May 2024 where the repairs remained outstanding and were not completed in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures. This is likely to have affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home over this 10-month period. It is not clear if some of the later identified work has been completed or the issue with the overflowing gutters has been resolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs and improvements to the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £950 compensation (an additional £650 to that awarded during the complaint procedure). The additional compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs and improvements to the property
  2. £300 for the failures identified in its handling of the reduction in shower space

The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident. The total compensation (£950) may be reduced by £300 if that has already been paid to the resident.

inspect the property to consider:
1. whether the overflowing gutters have now been resolved. If not, it must report on any likely works and share its inspection and scope of works with the resident together with likely timescales to complete those works.
2. inspect the loft hatches and agree to complete any identified works
3. inspect the space in the bathroom and support the resident in obtaining an occupational therapist assessment of the shower area if that is required

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide feedback to its repairs teams and contractors on record keeping.