Karibu Community Homes Limited (202421911)

Background

1. The resident complained about an ongoing leak which has caused damp and mould, and a collapsed ceiling in her home. She felt the landlord was not taking enough action to resolve the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak, and the resulting collapsed ceiling, damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leak, and the resulting ceiling collapse, damp and mould, and repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to of the leak, ceiling collapse, damp and mould, and repairs

4. The landlord did not demonstrate that it was proactive in resolving the source of the leak, which was a long-running issue in the resident’s property. The landlord did not repair the resident’s ceiling for several months, leaving her with a hole in her bathroom ceiling. The landlord also failed to follow its damp and mould policy and respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s initial complaint and respond appropriately. Its complaint responses lacked detail and did not address all issues raised by the resident.

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.

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.

6. In her complaint to us, the resident stated that she had first reported issues with leak in July 2023. The first repair record relating to the leak shows that a contractor attended on 4 September 2023 and carried out internal decorating work. No further records are available relating to when this job was raised or what work was carried out. In the absence of this information, we cannot determine that the landlord’s response was reasonable at the time.
7. The next available record shows that an emergency out of hours job was raised on 15 April 2024 for a flooded roof which was causing a leak from the ceiling. Records show that a contractor attended the same day. This was appropriate and within the timeframe for an emergency repair set out in the landlord’s repair policy, which states that emergency repairs should be dealt with within 24 hours. The contractor cleared a blockage, allowing water to drain from the roof. The contractor noted a roofer would need to attend, they noted the design of the roof was faulty and causing water to sit on the roof, resulting in the leak.
8. The records show a repair was raised on 23 April 2024 for a roofer to attend. The notes on the repair say “lift large area of decking, leak seem to be worse under the planters. Decking will remain lifted until advised to put back”. The job was marked as complete on 28 May 2024. It is unclear what repairs were carried out in this timeframe, if any, and if this resolved the leak.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 May 2024. The landlord replied on the same day, advising the resident that it was waiting on an update from the surveyor. The landlord has not provided the surveyor’s report to us. There is no evidence of any further contact between the landlord and the resident until 20 May 2024, when the resident emailed the landlord to explain that she was still waiting for an update for the ongoing leak. She described the damage caused, including staining on the floor, walls, and surfaces. The resident also expressed concern about the health risks associated with the damp and mould caused by the leak. From available records, this is the first instance that the resident reported these concerns. There has been no evidence provided of the landlord responding to this email or providing any further information to the resident about its response to the leak.
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it takes a zero-tolerance policy to damp and mould and that when it receives a report of damp and mould, an operative will attend to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issues. There is no evidence that the landlord considered or followed its damp and mould policy in relation to the resident’s report. The time taken to address the resident’s concerns was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
11. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 26 May 2024 informing it about the collapsed ceiling. The resident detailed the damage caused and the impact this situation was having on her physical and mental health. The landlord did not respond to these claims. She also repeated her concerns about the health impacts of damp and mould present in the property. The landlord did not acknowledge or address these concerns in its responses to the resident. This was not appropriate because it was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
12. A contractor attended the resident’s property within 24 hours of the reported ceiling collapse. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy. In an email to the landlord on 28 May 2024, the contractor said it had made the ceiling safe and cleared the mess caused by the collapse. It also told the landlord the roof of the building needed urgent attention before the ceiling could be repaired. The contractor suggested an interim solution of installing a tarpaulin on the roof.
13. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 28 May 2024. It told the resident the roof was the responsibility of a managing agent. Despite the ongoing issues with the leak and the fact these had been linked to problems with the roof in April 2024, this is the first time the landlord referred to the roof as being the responsibility of the management agent. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building. Even if the managing agent is responsible for arranging the works, the landlord is responsible for the actions of agents acting on its behalf.
14. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its correspondence with the managing agent relating to the roof repairs. There is no evidence of it raising the interim solution suggested by the contractor, or providing any further information to the resident.
15. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident disputed what the contractor said and told the landlord she had to tape bin bags to the ceiling to contain the leak and the debris from the collapsed ceiling. The landlord requested photographs and a report from the contractor from their attendance at the resident’s property, however, it is unclear from the available evidence whether this was provided.
16. The landlord did not dispute in its complaint responses that there were delays in resolving the issues in the resident’s property. In its stage 2 response it outlined that both the managing agent and itself had made attempts to repair the roof which were unsuccessful. It said it was undertaking a dynamic roof investigation and once completed it would be able to resolve the ongoing leak. It offered £300 in compensation, which was an increase from its offer of £150 at stage 1.
17. It is unclear from available repair records when this leak was resolved. In correspondence to us in February 2025, the landlord advised a temporary repair had been carried out. It said a long term solution would be identified following a survey of the building. This was over a year after the resident’s first reports of a leak.
18. We understand that it can take more than one attempt to rectify a leak and roof repairs would be categorised as major works and take time and planning, especially when there is another party involved. However, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident up to date and show consideration to any interim actions it could attempt to make the area weatherproof and mitigate the internal damage.
19. If it could not do so, it would have been reasonable to show consideration to whether the property was habitable in the meantime given the reported health concerns and the extent of the issues. This would have been in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The policy says that in complex cases where more intrusive building work is required or there is a serious health risk to the resident, it will consider the circumstances of the resident and engage with them about the potential of moving to alternative accommodation. The landlord has not evidenced it has done so in this case.
20. The landlord has not provided any evidence of internal inspections or risk assessments related to the damp and mould or collapsed ceiling. It is a failure that there is no evidence of it following up in any way until the resident contacted it about the unresolved ceiling damage in the bathroom and continuing issues with leak and damp and mould on 6 January 2025. This was 7 months after the ceiling collapsed. Although the ceiling had been made safe, the repair had not been completed.
21. The landlord responded to tell the resident the surveyor managing the works was no longer working for it and no updates had been logged in the repairs history since the damage was caused in May. It then raised a routine job for the ceiling repair and cleaning of the mould. A contractor attended and completed this work on 18 January 2025. Given that the issue of the ceiling repair was first reported on 26 May 2024, this falls significantly outside the target of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident has advised us that the decorative repairs remain outstanding. The landlord’s repairs policy states that redecoration is the responsibility of the tenant. The resident told us that the landlord has previously done some decorative repairs in relation to this issue. However, the resident says these have not been completed and the landlord has stated it is not responsible.
22. To conclude, we consider that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak, ceiling collapse, and associated repairs. While the £300 offered went some way to address the delays, it did not take into account the additional failures identified in this report and therefore it did not put everything right. In recognition of the additional failures and in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings the in our investigation, we order the landlord to pay an additional £300 on top of the £300 offered in its stage 2 response. This brings the total amount of compensation to £600.

23. The landlord’s complaint policy says that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response will be provided within 10 working days from receiving the complaint. It says that stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response will be provided within 20 working days. The policy also states that if a resident informs the landlord they wants to complain, the landlord will treat that as a complaint. This complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to express concern about the ongoing leak and the damage caused. On 20 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say she wanted to make a formal complaint about the problems and the lack of information provided by the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this email.
25. The resident then emailed to the landlord on 26 May 2024 informing it about the collapsed ceiling. While the landlord responded to the resident on 28 May 2024 in relation to the repairs, it did not acknowledge the complaint.
26. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 29 May 2024, which the landlord treated as a stage 1 complaint. She expressed frustration that she had previously tried to raise a complaint but the landlord had not actioned this.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2024. This was 9 working days from the resident’s email of 20 May stating she wished to complain. This acknowledgment was not within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint policy, It provided its response on 5 June 2024. This was 1 day outside the target timeframe of 10 working days. Although the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s initial complaint of 20 May 2024, it response was not significantly delayed and so this had a minimal impact on the resident.
28. The landlord has not provided records of the resident’s stage 2 escalation. However, it has provided a copy of a stage 2 response sent to the resident, which is dated 9 August 2024. In the absence of the stage 2 escalation, it is unclear whether the landlord responded in line with its complaint policy. This was a record keeping failure.
29. There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Despite the resident stating on several occasions that she wished to raise a complaint, the landlord did not act on this and respond appropriately. This was not in line with its complaint policy or the Code. By failing to recognise the resident’s complaints, the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord to raise issues.
30. The landlord also failed to address all the issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses and provided limited information to the resident. This was not in line with the Code, which says that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. In her complaint, and in her emails preceding the stage 1 complaint, the resident expressed concern about damp and mould in the property as a result of the ongoing leak and the impact on her health. The landlord did not acknowledge this issue and offered no resolution in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses.
31. The resident also raised the need for a deep clean of areas of her property affected by staining as a result of the leak and the damage from the ceiling collapse. The landlord did not acknowledge this or provide any response in relation to this issue.
32. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at any stage and made no attempt to put things right. We consider the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s complaint to be maladministration. The resident was caused distress, frustration, and inconvenience as a result of these failures. In recognition of its complaint handling failures and the impact this had on the resident, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £100. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration.

Learning

33. Where other parties have responsibilities or obligations, such as managing agents, the landlord should ensure that there are clear procedures in place with these parties to ensure any issues are resolved at the earliest opportunity.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to this case was inappropriate. It has not provided all the outcomes of its survey and inspections, a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation, nor has it provided any evidence relating to its engagement with the managing agent. The fact that the departure of a member of staff led to a 7 month gap between the resident reporting the ceiling collapse and the repair being carried out is further evidence of poor record keeping and not having oversight of the repairs.
35. It is important that landlords keep clear, accurate, and accessible records. This will help avoid any confusion and help the landlord to form clear timelines around when an issue has been raised and what actions have been taken to resolve them.

Communication

36. The landlord demonstrated poor communication throughout this case. There were several occasions where it did not respond to the resident’s emails and it provided limited information to the resident. We encourage the landlord to consider whether any changes are required to ensure it communicates effectively with residents.