Karibu Community Homes Limited (202426405)

Background

1. The property is a 3 bed house. The resident lives with his elderly parents. In September 2023 a leak started in his parent’s bedroom from a pipe in the loft. The landlord repaired the leak and agreed remedial works to the damaged ceiling. The resident complained in February 2024 because the landlord had not completed the repairs and decorations following the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs following a leak and the associated offer of compensation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
   1. Repairs following a leak and the associated offer of compensation.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord accepted that its poor communication and management of contractors caused an unreasonable delay in completing the repairs. However, it did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident, or each of his complaint points in its responses. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the significant impact on the household in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
5. The landlord did not acknowledge a complaint made by the resident. Its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 were issued outside of the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. Its offer of compensation did not put things right in the circumstances.

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. The records show the damage to the resident’s bedroom, walls, and ceiling was considerable. The resident told the landlord that there was water leaking into a bedroom on 18 September 2023. He said he contained the water with buckets and asked it to inspect as an emergency. Before conducting any inspection, it arranged for a roofing contractor to inspect the roof. This caused a delay of 3 working days to identify the cause of the leak. Its initial response to the reported leak was unreasonable.
7. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays completing the resulting repairs in its stage 2 response. It also accepted that that its communication with the resident between September 2023 and September 2024 was poor. It appropriately apologised for this and the issues caused by it changing contractor. While it was fair to apologise for the failings, the landlord did not fully address the delays identifying the cause of the leak early in the timeline.
8. The resident said that the landlord agreed to decorate following the ceiling/wall repairs in 2023. In his emails to the landlord in June 2024, he said the landlord’s contractor had painted the ceilings but not returned to complete the wall decoration. In its stage 2 response in September 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged these concerns. However, it did not address them. It did not clarify what works were outstanding, or what it had previously agreed to. This was a failing which contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
9. In his complaint to the landlord on 23 June 2024, the resident said he had taken additional time sending evidence to the landlord of the damage done by the leak. He said that it did not have proper records of the repair and the lack of communication between it and its contractor caused the delay. While the landlord acknowledged the communication failures and issues with its contractors, it did not use its complaint handling to effectively consider the impact on the resident’s time and trouble as a result.
10. The landlord also failed to address the overall impact of the repairs on the resident and his family. He said that he was unable to use a bedroom for 9 months at the time of his complaint in June 2024. This meant his elderly parents slept in the living room during this period. This would have had a significant impact on him and his family. The landlord did not acknowledge this impact or show that it had put things right for the resident.
11. We found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs following a leak and the associated offer of compensation. We have considered the landlord’s compensation offer of £400 against our guidance on remedies. Our guidance says compensation of £600-£1,000 is reasonable for a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
12. In this case, the landlord acknowledged some of its failures but did not fully address them, or the impact on the resident across almost a year. Its recognition of some of its failures has been a mitigating factor when considering a reasonable remedy in this case. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300 compensation for the impact of its failures on the resident.

13. The landlord’s complaint handling policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
14. The resident complained on 18 February 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this complaint at the time or in its later responses and this was a failing. It caused the resident additional time and trouble as he complained again on 21 June 2024.
15. The landlord acknowledged the second complaint 4 working days later, on 28 June 2024. It then issued its response 12 working days later, on 16 July 2024. It did not address or apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response.
16. The records are unclear if the landlord treated the resident’s call on 23 July 2024 as a request to escalate his complaint. However, there is no other request to escalate recorded so we have considered that it did. Therefore, it is unreasonable that it took 47 working days to issue its stage 2 response, on 26 September 2024.
17. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response. Its offer of £50 compensation was broadly reasonable for this delay. However, it failed to consider the resident’s earlier complaints or the delay at stage 1.
18. We found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s complaint in February 2024. It failed to issue its responses at both 1 and 2 within the timescales set out in its policy. Its offer of £50 compensation did not put things right in the circumstances.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This reflects our guidance on remedies for the landlords failure to fully address the resident’s additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint and the adverse impact as a result.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord acknowledged that there was a record keeping failure when it changed contractors in April 2024. It must ensure that it keeps clear and accurate records of repairs.

Communication

21. The resident highlighted confusion in the landlord’s correspondence and lack of understanding of the outstanding repairs. This reflected its record keeping failures and in part resulted from its changing of contractors in April 2024.