Karibu Community Homes Limited (202326587)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property, a 3-bedroom house since, October 2008. A family member represented her in her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the way the landlord dealt with concerns about insulation.
3. We have also considered the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about insulation.
5. We have found there was service failure in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about insulation

7. The landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s enquiries and unreasonably raised her expectations that insulation grants may be available. It apparently did not complete an assessment it committed to do in its stage 2 response, and this is still outstanding over 2 years later.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not raise a complaint or ask the resident if she wanted it to do so when the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction. There was a lack of independence in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords must ensure a home is safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm. If a home cannot be adequately heated, it is not safe and healthy. At the time the resident complained, the minimum EPC rating for social housing was E.
10. We are unable to say whether a property has adequate insulation, as we do not have the expertise to assess this. Because of this, we rely on the evidence available. We can also consider whether a landlord responded reasonably to a resident’s concerns.
11. We have seen a copy of an EPC for the resident’s home from September 2021. This is valid until 2031 and shows an EPC rating of C. It says it is “assumed” the loft and cavity walls in the property are insulated. It is our view that this does not provide sufficient assurance to the resident.
12. On 13 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident’s home in response to concerns she had raised about windows and draughts. During the visit, the resident told the landlord her home was cold. In an email to the landlord the same day, she referred to the landlord saying it would get a copy of the EPC and look at the next steps. The resident asked for a copy of the EPC.
13. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 17 April, 8 May, 15 May, and 18 May 2023. Following another email from the resident on 1 June 2023, the landlord replied to her the same day and sent her a link to the EPC. It said this showed a C rating for her home. The certificate included suggestions on ways to save energy, which included floor insulation and solar panels. The landlord said it was a very good rating and the suggestions in the EPC would be improvements, and it “would look to seek grants”.
14. We have found there was a failure in the landlord’s communication at this time, as it did not respond to the resident’s emails after 13 March 2023 until 1 June 2023. When it responded, it clearly explained the energy rating was good. However, it also raised the resident’s expectations by saying it would look to seek grants. It is our view that the landlord should have been aware that grants would be unlikely for a C rated property and it should have made this clear to the resident at this time.
15. On 4 June 2023 the resident thanked the landlord for the EPC. She said she did not remember an assessment in September 2021 and did not believe the EPC rating was correct. She wanted to know what the next steps were on applying for grants.
16. The resident chased for a response on 16, 25, 28 July, and 3 August 2023. On 3 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that because her home’s EPC rating was C, there were no grants available. It said properties needed to be E, F, or G rated to qualify for grants, but a change in September 2023 meant D rated homes would then be eligible.
17. The resident complained on 14 August 2023. She said when the landlord visited she showed it the problem with cold. She said despite chasing, the landlord had not responded to her questions. She wanted the landlord to assess the insulation in her home and apply for grants.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response on 25 August 2023, the landlord repeated that as the property had an EPC rating of C, there were no grants available. It said it had emailed the resident about this on 3 August 2023.
19. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 August 2023. She repeated that she did not remember an assessment in September 2021. She said she did not think there had been an assessment from inside the property. She said she had no record of the landlord’s email of 3 August 2023.
20. We have seen a copy of an email the landlord sent to the resident’s email address on 3 August 2023 but are unable to decide whether the resident received it.
21. In its final response on 29 September 2023, the landlord said its contractor would assess the loft insulation and if the depth was below industry standards, it would increase the insulation. It apologised to the resident for the poor service she had experienced.
22. In November 2025 the resident told us that the landlord had taken no action on the insulation since she made her complaint. She said as far as she was aware it had not inspected the insulation, and she had not received an update from the landlord.
23. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the way the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about insulation. Although the landlord apologised for its poor service and correctly explained why the resident’s home was not eligible for grants, it had previously raised her expectations. It also did not respond to her emails in a prompt way and apparently did not follow up on the commitments it made in relation to checking the insulation at stage 2. This caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
24. As we have seen no confirmation that the landlord has inspected the loft and cavity wall insulation and satisfied itself that the insulation in the property meets industry standards, we have made an order on this.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy says a complaint is “any expression of dissatisfaction”. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
26. Our Complaint Handling Code says at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must act independently.
27. On 3 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her emails about insulation. She said she had been very patient and if there were further delays she would raise a formal complaint. It is our view that this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, and the landlord should have raised a complaint at this time (or asked the resident if she wished it to do so).
28. The resident complained on 14 August 2023 about a lack of response from an officer to her questions about insulation. The landlord responded 10 working days later. However, the response came from the officer whose actions the resident had complained about, which meant there was a lack of independence in the response.
29. When the resident escalated her complaint on 29 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged it on 6 September 2023 and took 18 working days to send its response. It is our view that the time to respond after the acknowledgement was reasonable. However, the landlord did not meet its policy on sending an acknowledgement within 2 working days.
30. Overall, we have found there was service failure by the landlord in the way it dealt with the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord did not explore raising a complaint when the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction on 3 August 2023. There was also no independence in the landlord’s stage 1 response. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Communication

31. We have found there were failures in the landlord’s communication as it sometimes did not respond in a reasonable time to the resident’s emails. It also unfairly raised the resident’s expectations about the availability of grants.