A Lynn man in dispute with Freebridge has been threatened with a court injunction by the housing agency.
Ian Reeve, of Hillington Square, has been asked to remove a banner hanging up in Millfleet Court calling Freebridge “mega bullies”.
Mr Reeve, 64, remains at loggerheads with the housing group over financial expenses incurred during the phase one refurbishment of Hillington Square.
A frustrated Mr Reeve said: “They’ve threatened me with an injunction before. I feel they are bullying me for telling the truth.
“I’m at the stage now where I’m losing sleep. It’s ruined my life and has taken all of my savings away.
“Because of the money I’ve lost, I’ve now got to have to think about going back to work and I’m 65 in July. Why should I pay for their mistakes?”
Freebridge director of housing Robert Clarke said: “At Freebridge Community Housing we understand that there will be times when our customers may want to complain.
“To help them do this we have a compliments, comments and complaints process, details of which are available at our office or via our website.
“If after following this process a customer is still unhappy with the outcome they can then contact the Housing Ombudsman Service for further advice.”
A few months before the improvements commenced, Mr Reeve moved Betty Reeve, his ill mother who he cared for, into a care at Amberley Hall while he went on holiday.
On his return from going abroad, Mr Reeve was advised to keep his mother in care by the home or risk losing her place once the refurbishment began.
Mr Reeve explained: “When I went to pick my mum up I was told that there might not be a place to bring her back once the improvements started.
“I thought for the sake of a few weeks I might as well leave my mum in there, but six months later the work still hadn’t started and it was a lot of money down the drain.
“Had I known that it was going to take Freebridge such a long time to begin the refurbishment work, I wouldn’t have moved my mother into the home in the first place.”
Mr Reeve, who also undertook work to gut the property himself, took his protests to a complaints panel meeting.
But after listening to the evidence from their tenant, a written response from Freebridge rejected Mr Reeve’s claims that he had incurred extra financial costs as a result.
Their reply stated that Mr Reeve and his mother had been offered alternative accommodation to live in while the work was carried out, while he didn’t need to carry out any significant work on the property himself.