From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Karibu Community Homes Limited (202423515)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423515

Karibu Community Homes Limited

24 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about allegations of abusive noise from her home.
    2. Concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat where she lives with her adult son who is also her carer. The landlord, a housing association, owns the property and is aware of her disabilities. This includes a visual impairment, loss of hearing, dementia, and mobility concerns.
  2. The resident told us that she complained to the landlord on 9 November 2024. Her complaint related to a letter she received regarding an allegation of abusive noise from her home. She added that a staff member had insulted her via email. She received no response and contacted us on 27 November 2024 for assistance in raising her complaint.
  3. We contacted the landlord on 3 occasions in December 2024 and January 2025. We asked it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint and gave dates by which to do so. A Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) was issued following its failure to respond to her. We, therefore, considered that her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and accepted it for investigation.
  4. The resident wants the landlord to apologise for its poor communication and its staff member’s conduct.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she said that the situation had caused stress and anxiety which affected her and her son’s mental health and health conditions.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Concerns about allegations of abusive noise from her home

  1. While the landlord provided evidence which related to previous complaints about other matters, it provided limited evidence to us in relation to this complaint. This has affected our ability to effectively assess the timeframe of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2024. It said it was writing “with great concern” regarding several reports of disturbing noise from her home. It received multiple accounts of “frequent abusive noise” that was causing distress to the local community. It offered support and said it was liaising with adult social services. It said that any further incidents would be investigated by its team and the police to ensure no abusive behaviour was taking place. It urged her to speak with it about the matter as it needed to understand the circumstances surrounding the reports.
  3. We appreciate that receiving such a letter would likely have been distressing for the resident and her son. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact her as it has an obligation to safeguard its residents and investigate any reports. It acted in line with its domestic abuse policy which states that it will work with partner agencies to support individuals and share information with other agencies. That said, knowing the resident’s vulnerabilities, it does not appear to have fully considered its approach to the situation or how sending an alarming letter may have affected her.
  4. The resident responded to the landlord the following day. She said she had tried to telephone and was told it would call her back, but it never did. She asked for a call and for the matter to remain confidential. She explained her medical conditions and stated that there was “zero” abuse in her home. She said she had a social worker and could provide evidence of this.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to confirm who made the allegations. She suspected it was the neighbour above who she had previously had issues with. She added that she was scared of her neighbour. She said that her son had PTSD, OCD, depression and anxiety, and did sometimes shout due to her hearing difficulties. She added that there had never been any bruises or injuries on her and that sometimes people with mental health “act up” if they are stressed.
  6. The landlord’s records of the same day note that the resident telephoned to speak with the staff member who sent the letter. There is no evidence to show that they returned her call or responded to her communication. This suggests a record keeping failure. Its failure to respond likely added to her distress given the nature of the allegations.
  7. While the landlord failed to respond, it is likely that it would have been unable to disclose who made the reports. Often reports are anonymous and its letter suggests that it was from multiple sources.
  8. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow up on the reports it received, but it failed to demonstrate any follow up actions such as liaising with the resident’s social worker. It would have been reasonable to discuss her fears about the neighbour and provide reassurance as to whether it was likely to take any further action.
  9. The identified failings are significant and we have made an order for the landlord to apologise.We have also ordered an amount in compensation within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident.

Concerns about staff conduct

  1. The resident received an email from the landlord on 8 November 2024. It is clear that the email was not meant for her and should have been sent internally. She provided evidence to us which shows that the staff member tried to recall the email.
  2. The email read “tread carefully with this family. Son wrote this email and definitely not his mother. I have met both and believe me, she is unable to articulate what is written. Please let me know if you need any support”.
  3. While the landlord realised its error and tried to recall the email, the resident had already seen it. The email was inappropriate and it is understandable that she felt insulted and this caused distress.
  4. The resident’s son responded on 11 November 2024. He asked for a telephone call and said he had written the email on his mother’s behalf. He added that they had done nothing wrong and they were not a bad family. He said they both had mental health concerns due to stress. He said that they had done nothing wrong but were worried. This shows the effect the email had on the resident and her son.
  5. The landlord responded the same day stating that it never said the resident and her son did anything wrong. It said it was just informing a colleague that the son wrote the email and not the resident. It added that “we must remain objective and ensure we treat everyone equally with respect”. It said that next time the son was writing an email for the resident to ensure he stated that he was writing on her behalf.
  6. The landlord’s response was dismissive and lacked respect. It failed to acknowledge that it sent the email in error or apologise for any distress it may have caused. It was also not unreasonable to assume, given the resident’s sight impairment, that her son would assist her in communicating with it. We have made orders in respect of the failings.
  7. Our recommendation regarding professional communication is not only for respect and courtesy. We would want the landlord to consider that in the event of a Subject Access Request (SAR) residents are entitled to see all communication about them.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident told us that she complained to the landlord on 9 November 2024. While we do not dispute this, we have seen no evidence of her complaint. However, she contacted us on 27 November 2024 to assist her in raising her complaint.
  3. We contacted the landlord on 2 December 2024 and asked it to provide its complaint response by 23 December 2024. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response on 6 December 2024. She said she had not received a response to her complaint made a few weeks prior.
  4. We chased the landlord on 7 and 20 January 2025 asking for responses by 14 and 27 January 2025 respectively. We also telephoned it on 29 and 30 January 2025 but there was no response.
  5. As the landlord failed to provide a complaint response, we issued a CHFO on 17 February 2025 and gave a further opportunity for it to respond by 24 February 2025.
  6. The landlord again failed to provide a response and we, therefore, considered the complaint to have exhausted its complaints procedure. This is in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  7. It is not known why the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint. Its failure to respond was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy or the Code. We have ordered it to pay compensation to the resident for her time and trouble. The amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this or put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about allegations of abusive noise from her home.
    2. Concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £600 broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its failure to address the resident’s concerns about its letter regarding the abusive noise.
      2. £200 for distress and inconvenience for its failure to apologise for the error in sending the email or investigate the matter.
      3. £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This must include an apology for the email sent by its staff member.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that its complaint handling staff respond to complaints in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
  2. The landlord should ensure that its staff act professionally at all times via written communication whether this is internally or externally.