From 13 January 2026, we will 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.

Karbon Homes Limited (202430991)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430991

Karbon Homes Limited

29 August 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 reports of various repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord and occupied a 3-bedroom house with her partner and young child from March 2021 until May 2025, when they moved out of the property. The landlord told the Ombudsman its records show the resident had a mental health condition.
  2. The landlord has said the resident first reported issues with draughts in her property, coming from her front door and lounge window, in November 2023. It had the door and window inspected, first by its in-house surveyor and then by an independent contractor. Both found no works were required to either the front door or lounge window.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to log a formal complaint on 11 April 2024. She said she had been complaining about her front door and front room window for a number of months and had asked a member of its staff to contact her numerous times to no avail. She said her child’s health was being affected by the continuous draught and coldness in the property, “despite the heating being on & costing us fortunes”. She felt it was “extremely unfair, rude and unprofessional” to be ignored and for her child’s health “to be disregarded so flippantly”. She requested a phone call as soon as possible and for the matter to be escalated.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 April 2024, stating:
    1. The resident had reported concerns about her front door on 27 November 2023. Its surveyor had inspected the door on 11 January 2024 and advised it was appropriately sealed. Its external glazing contractor had also confirmed no works were required to the door or front room window. The resident was advised of this on 27 February 2024 and asked that the issue be investigated further.
    2. It had contacted the resident multiple times on 28 and 29 February and 1 March 2024 to arrange and re-arrange a visit to her home. It had visited her on 5 March 2024, discussed the issues with her, and agreed to investigate the report from the contractor. Having done so, on 12 March 2024, it had confirmed it would not carry out any remedial works to the door or window. The resident had contacted it again on 28 March 2024 and it had tried to call her, without success, on 2 April 2024.
    3. It had been in touch with the resident about this issue numerous times and had taken the issue seriously by asking for an inspection by an external contractor. Therefore, it did not uphold this element of the complaint.
    4. The issue had been investigated thoroughly by it and its contractor. It found no remedial works were required and had informed the resident of this on multiple occasions. It would, therefore, also not uphold this element of her complaint.
    5. It accepted there had been failings in the timescales for carrying out an inspection and informing the resident of the outcome of the contractor’s report. It had, therefore, upheld this element of the complaint and apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused to her and her family.
    6. It was recruiting more staff and looking at how it could improve communications with external contractors to reduce wait times for residents.
    7. It offered £50 compensation for the time it took to carry out the first inspection and provide the outcome of the contractor’s report.
  5. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 5 May 2024, but this was acknowledged by the landlord on 13 May 2024.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 11 June 2024, stated:
    1. It had visited the resident’s home to discuss draughts she was experiencing in her hallway and lounge for some time, causing her to use more heating. It noted draughts coming from “the clear gaps around the seals to your front door”. Due to the lounge’s size and layout, the sofa could only be placed under the window, which was likely a contributing factor “due to the design of the insulated panel beneath the window”.
    2. The resident had raised concerns about the water marks on the render outside the lounge window. Upon inspection, it noted this was “superficial staining” due to the external insulation works and timber frame surrounding the window.
    3. It had also discussed other issues the resident had raised regarding the drains to the rear of the property and the squeaking floorboards to the first floor.
    4. Having inspected the issues reported, it had agreed to have the following works undertaken by its contractors:
      1. The front door to be inspected and, if it was beyond repair, it would be replaced.
      2. The lounge window to be inspected and altered, if necessary.
      3. The drains to the rear of the property to be inspected and any necessary repairs carried out.
    5. Its repairs team would investigate the issue regarding the floorboards. This was not an urgent issue, but it appreciated the inconvenience caused, especially with a small child in the house trying to sleep on an evening. The rooms would need to be completely emptied to allow any required works to be carried out.
    6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and sincerely apologised for the issues she had experienced. It understood her frustration, having had multiple previous inspections and the issues not being identified and rectified.
    7. It offered £200 compensation for the delays, poor communication and the inconvenience of having to use additional heating to combat the draughts.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 13 November 2024. She said:
    1. She was told during a visit on 10 June 2024 that works would be carried out, but this did not materialise.
    2. She had had a new front door fitted, but could still feel a draught and the house was very cold. It was costing lots in fuel to heat the property and she had to keep the blinds closed to retain the heat.
    3. Her 2.5-year-old child kept getting chest infections due to the cold.
    4. There was “a perfect square” damp mark around the window and she was told it would be a massive job to resolve, but that was not her concern.
    5. She had called the landlord multiple times and had received no communication back from it.
    6. She had tried to be reasonable with the landlord but had not got anywhere with its complaints procedure. There was no consistency in the process and she felt she had been “passed from pillar to post” since raising the complaint. Going forward, she wanted communication with one specific case handler.
    7. To resolve matters, she wanted the repairs to be completed so she and her child could live comfortably and not have to spend lots of money on heating the house.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. At some point, between her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the resident raised concerns about the drains to the rear of the property and squeaking floorboards to the first floor. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would arrange to have the drains inspected and the floorboards investigated. These issues were not included in the resident’s original complaint and have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of these issues. We will, however, address any related complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report. The resident may refer these matters to us for separate investigation once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. While older reports relating to the resident’s concerns about her front door in April 2021 give context to the complaint, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with the landlord and this Service in a reasonable timeframe, normally 12 months of the issues arising. Those earlier issues were not referred to this Service at the time. The resident noted her dissatisfaction that numerous previous reports had not been satisfactorily resolved in her email to the landlord on 26 November 2023. Therefore, we have considered events from December 2022 onwards.
  3. The resident has told this Service she believes the draughts and coldness in the property have made her child unwell. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or award damages for this. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Various repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy provides the following categories and timescales for completing repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs – something which could cause or lead to danger to someone’s health or safety, or serious damage and destruction to property repairs – within 24 hours.
    2. Standard repairs – those that cannot be defined as an emergency and are of a routine nature – within 20 working days.
    3. Major repairs – generally disruptive or intrusive pieces of work that require careful planning and consideration of customers’ requirements prior to works commencing – within 60 working days.
  2. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  3. In this case, there appear to be gaps in some of the evidence provided to the Ombudsman. Records show the resident first reported concerns about draughts and coldness coming from her lounge window on 7 December 2022. There is no information about a job that was completed on 2 February 2023, so we cannot ascertain what, if any, works were undertaken at the time, to allow an objective assessment as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the landlord’s actions. This amounts to a record keeping failure and/or a failure to provide this Service with information for our investigation. There is also limited evidence of the steps the landlord took to address subsequent reports. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess if it took timely and appropriate actions.
  4. It is clear from the evidence that the resident’s reports relating to the front door and lounge window pre-dated November 2023 by at least 11 months. An urgent job for the front door and lounge window was raised on 11 December 2022 and completed on 2 February 2023. This was 39 working days after the issue was reported, which was unsatisfactory given the 20-working-day timeframe for completing standard repairs in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Similarly, it took 31 working days to carry out an inspection following the subsequent report on 26 November 2023. Thereafter, an independent survey was carried out on or around 9 February 2024, a further 21 working days later. This reflects a significant delay by the landlord to undertake appropriate investigations.
  5. On 11 January 2024, the landlord found the front door “meets all seals” and there was“ no draught in [the] hall”. The independent contractor also concluded there was nothing wrong with the lounge window or the front door. However, they suggested it could “insulate the window that goes to the floor with a stud wall, cill and insulation”. There is no evidence what, if any, consideration was given to this suggestion at the time.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord sought to demonstrate it had taken the resident’s report seriously by requesting an independent survey. However, it failed to discuss with her the outcome of the independent survey, which was notified to it by the contractor on 15 February 2024. When she chased the contractor’s report on 27 February 2024, it appears to have chased the contractor for an update, indicating a failure to effectively monitor the outcome of contractor appointments.
  7. It is unclear why a further on-site inspection was deemed necessary on 28 February 2024. This took place on 5 March 2024 but did not materially progress matters for the resident. Instead, the landlord appears simply to have advised at this attendance that it would investigate the contractor’s report. On 12 March 2024, it advised it would not carry out any remedial works to the front door or lounge window. This was over 15 months after the issue was first reported, which was an excessive and unacceptable delay.
  8. While the landlord has provided a list of dates and times of telephone calls made to and from the resident between 11 February and 24 April 2024, there is limited information to show what it discussed with her. The available evidence shows the landlord was not proactive in its communications with the resident and, on occasion, she chased for information and updates. In the circumstances, we have concluded that its communications with her were inadequate.
  9. Following the resident’s formal complaint, there were multiple attendances by the landlord and its contractor to inspect the front door and lounge window. The visit on 10 June 2024, recorded in the stage 2 response, accepted there were potential issues that warranted further investigation. In November 2024, the resident told this Service she had had a new front door fitted. We have seen no evidence relating to this so it is unclear when these works were carried out. Based on the stage 2 response, we can deduce that the front door was, in fact, defective and beyond repair. In the circumstances, the delay in resolving the issue was excessive and caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident as she believed draughty conditions in the property were adversely affecting her child’s health.
  10. Furthermore, the landlord did not take timely steps to investigate or address the resident’s complaint about coldness in the property, which was inappropriate. It attended with its contractor on 25 September 2024 and checked the panel beneath the lounge window to ensure it was insulated. It investigated the lounge window with a thermal imaging camera on 2 October 2024 and found no remedial works were necessary.
  11. More recent records are somewhat confusing and inconsistent. Specifically, the landlord attended the property on 26 February 2025 to investigate the lounge window in response to the resident’s report that her child had another chest infection. No draughts or remedial works were identified. Its notes appeared to attribute issues to “childrens toys stored against radiator cover blocking heat” and “low usage of the central heating”. In the circumstances, it is unclear why a works order was raised on 27 February 2025 to overhaul the lounge window.
  12. The landlord’s complaint responses accepted its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports relating to the front door and lounge window. It is unclear whether the compensation offered at stage 2 (£200) was in addition to or in substitution of the offer made at stage 1 (£50). The compensation and goodwill payments policy provided to us, which is dated March 2022, does not include any guidance on the levels of discretionary compensation it should award for different complaint outcomes, so we cannot assess if it applied its policy appropriately.
  13. Overall, it is appropriate to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs because:
    1. Gaps in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggest a failure to keep adequate records and/or to provide information for our investigation.
    2. There was a delay of over 12 months in the landlord carrying out investigations into the resident’s reports of draughts and coldness coming from the front door and lounge window.
    3. There were delays in carrying out an initial inspection and arranging a second opinion from an independent contractor in response to the resident’s report on 26 November 2023.
    4. The landlord failed to advise the resident of the outcome of the contractor’s visit and did not demonstrate it gave appropriate consideration to the suggestion to overhaul the lounge window.
    5. There was an excessive delay in identifying and resolving issues with the front door.
    6. The landlord failed to take timely steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns about coldness in the property.
    7. There were multiple attendances and repeated inspections, which did not progress the investigations into the resident’s reports.
    8. The landlord’s communications with the resident were inadequate and she occasionally chased for updates.
  14. The resident’s concerns for the impact of draughts in the property on her child’s health represents, at least, a moderate degree of distress and inconvenience over a 15-month period, for which we consider it appropriate to award compensation. There was a prolonged impact to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to undertake timely investigations and the time it took to identify and resolve issues with the front door. We are satisfied there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we take the view an award in the mid to high range for maladministration is proportionate.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and suggestions policy, dated July 2022, states:
    1. It will acknowledge a complaint within 1 working day of it being raised.
    2. It aims to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. If this is not possible, it will deal with the complaint within 10 working days. If the matter is particularly complex, an extension of a further 10 working days will be requested from the complainant.
    3. At stage 2, it will offer to telephone the complainant to investigate their concerns before sending a written complaint outcome.
    4. It aims to provide a stage 2 response within 5 working days. If this is not possible, it will notify the complainant and a response will be provided within 20 working days. Exceptionally, and with good reason, it may seek to agree an extension of a further 10 days to respond.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days. While outside the 1-working-day timescale in its policy, this is in line with the timeframe of 5 working days provided in the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). Its stage 1 response was issued 11 working days later. Although just outside the 10-working-day timeframe in its policy and the Code, there is no evidence this slight delay had any material impact on the resident. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for it to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response, which it did not do.
  3. The stage 1 response itself accepted some of the landlord’s failings up to this point and tried to put things right by way of a compensation offer (£50). It also sought to identify learning it had taken from the complaint. It clearly intended to demonstrate compliance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes). However, the response failed to address the resident’s concerns about coldness in the property, which was a missed opportunity to investigate this element of her complaint.
  4. The stage 2 acknowledgement was issued on 13 May 2024. It noted that the resident had requested escalation of her complaint by way of an email dated 5 May 2024. Therefore, this appears to be within the 5 working days expected, with reference to the Code.
  5. The stage 2 response was dated 11 June 2024, which was 21 working days after the acknowledgement. However, it is unclear when this was actually sent to the resident. She has told the Ombudsman the landlord visited her on 10 June 2024 but she did not receive an email until 11 July 2024. This appears to be consistent with an entry in the landlord’s records dated 12 July 2024. There were also a number of records relating to the stage 2 response dated 16 July 2024. Again, this points to poor record keeping. Additionally, there appears to have been a delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 response, which was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the resident’s escalation request, which further highlights its poor record keeping and/or failure to provide information to this Service. Consequently, it is not possible to assess whether or not the stage 2 response addressed all aspects of her concerns. From the available evidence, the response appears to address the resident’s key concerns, accepting its shortcomings and proposing appropriate actions to undertake further investigations. However, in line with the Code, it ought reasonably to have treated the resident’s concerns about drains and floorboards as a new stage 1 complaint. Its failure to do so was unsatisfactory.
  7. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s further complaint, apparently raised on 16 October 2024, about “the timescales, communication and care from us regarding your outstanding repairs” and continuing issues with draughts. Therefore, we cannot assess whether or not the landlord’s refusal to accept the complaint was reasonable, in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
  8. In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint amounts to service failure. It should pay her compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused, as reflected by her further complaint in October 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about the drains and floorboards.
    3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £600, which comprises:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failings in the handling of her reports relating to various repairs.
      2. £100 for its failings in the handling of her complaint.
      3. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
      4. If already paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct from the total compensation payable under this order the £50 offered in its stage 1 response and £200 offered at stage 2 (unless the stage 2 offer replaced the stage 1 offer, in which case it should deduct the £200 only).

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 44 to 47 of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has done so within the last 12 months.