We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Karibu Community Homes Limited (202329401)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329401

Karibu Community 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 damage caused by a leak.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 13 May 1996. The property is a 3-bed house.
  2. On 3 January 2023, the landlord raised a works order for repairs linked to reports of water coming through a ceiling due to a leak from the roof. The landlord raised a further works order on 19 January 2023 for guttering repairs. It raised another works order on 26 April 2023 for repairs to a leak coming from the bedroom ceiling.
  3. On 27 July 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that the landlord had not repaired the ceiling as there was still evidence of damp and cracks. The resident said that the contractor failed to attend on multiple occasions and were not helpful when she chased the repairs.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 August 2023. It apologised and said contractors failed to advise it of the required follow on works. The landlord said it had met with the resident on 2 August 2023 and agreed to carry out several repairs, including the installation of a shower and flooring that the resident purchased themselves.
  5. On 18 December 2023, the resident apparently requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord failed to provide details of the escalation request, despite requests from this Service.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023. It acknowledged that it had not completed the repairs agreed at stage 1, including to the damage caused by the leak. The landlord said it had raised further works orders to complete the outstanding repairs. It added that it would attend the property in January 2024 to arrange some of the works through a different contractor. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delays.
  7. The resident continued to chase the proposed works in January 2024. Evidence provided shows that some of the works remained outstanding in June 2024, including redecoration, flooring and a mixer tap. Despite multiple requests from this Service, the landlord did not provide exact dates for the completion of each of the works proposed through the complaint period.  

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that where “water is penetrating the property”, this is an urgent repair and should be completed within 5 working days. The repair policy says that any repairs with less of an urgency are routine repairs, which should completed within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord did not provide a completion date for the works to address the leak reported on 3 January 2023, despite multiple requests from this Service. The lack of information provided by the landlord means the severity of the leak and any temporary steps taken to address it are unclear. As the landlord then raised a works order for guttering repairs, it is likely the landlord identified this as the cause of the leak.
  3. Similarly, the landlord failed to provide any detail or a completion date for the guttering repairs works order raised on 19 January 2023. Repair logs note an appointment on 26 January 2023 but it is unclear if the landlord attended or completed any repairs.
  4. Given that there was a report of another leak through the bedroom ceiling on 26 April 2023, this indicates that even if the landlord did complete works in January 2023, this did not provide a lasting repair.
  5. Within the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2023, she requested corrective and decorative works, rather than any repairs to address an outstanding leak. This seemingly confirms that the landlord repaired the leak between 26 April 2023 and 27 July 2023. The landlord has therefore been unable to demonstrate that it conducted the water ingress works in line with the urgent repair timescale set out in its policy.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in August 2023 that it then failed to carry out the required follow on works because these were not passed on by its contractor. This indicates communication failings between the landlord and its contractor. Having done so, the landlord should have ensured that it completed the required repairs quickly.
  7. However, despite agreeing to those works, it did not raise any new works orders until after the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 December 2023. This meant that it failed to take any action on the agreed works for over 4 months after the stage 1 response. This is a significant service failing by the landlord, showing a lack of urgency and understanding of the resident’s position. The delay in completing remedial works, particularly redecorations and flooring, will likely have caused the resident inconvenience.
  8. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord again failed to complete all the required repairs within an appropriate timeframe. This is evident in some of the repair logs which show attendance at the property for related jobs in June 2024, over 6 months later. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord, causing further unnecessary delays in the completion of the works.
  9. Landlord records show that it agreed to chase the contractors for an update on 15 January 2024. However, the resident had to chase the landlord again on 20 March 2024 for said updates. This failure to provide adequate oversight of both the works and communication with the resident is another service failure on the part of the landlord.
  10. Within the resident’s complaint submission, there is no reference to the works remaining outstanding. However, this Service could not establish whether the landlord completed all repairs despite requests for information we made to it.
  11. The lack of clear evidence provided by the landlord, despite multiple requests for specific dates and information, hampered this Service’s investigation. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations.
  12. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it could not provide relevant information when asked. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  13. In summary, the landlord did not provide a prompt lasting repair to the initial leak and then failed to attend to the required follow-on works. Despite acknowledging these failings in its initial complaint response, it did not raise the agreed works for over 4 months and then took more than 5 months to fully progress them.
  14. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £100 compensation. Given the landlord’s failings extended over more than a year, this compensation was insufficient. We found that the failings adversely impacted the resident in terms of likely time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused. On this basis, this Service will make an increased compensation offer.
  15. Throughout the complaint, the landlord failed to demonstrate adequate oversight of works with poor record keeping likely a contributing factor. Having considered the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.         

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £500, this includes the previously offered £100, and a further £400 in compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of her reports of damage caused by a leak.
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should offer to carry out an inspection of the property to ensure that all works are now satisfactorily completed.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.