Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Karbon Homes Limited (202316964)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316964

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:
    1. handling of internal and external repairs to the property’s walls and floors, and the bathroom extractor fan.
    2. response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 19 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase repairs to large cracks in the internal walls at the property. The landlord said it could not see any outstanding works on its systems, so it organised a survey of the property for 18 May 2023. On 14 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the repairs were still outstanding after the inspection. The resident said she was concerned there were structural issues at the property, given the large cracks, water damage to the property’s interior, and the presence of damp and mould. On 7 July 2023, the resident requested a rent suspension or alternative accommodation until the landlord had completed the works.
  3. The resident contacted us about her concerns and on 2 October 2023 we asked the landlord to raise a complaint about its handling of various repairs and the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We asked the landlord to respond by 23 October 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 October 2023. It said that:
    1. It had contacted the resident on 16 October 2023 and arranged a site visit for 18 October 2023.
    2. It had completed roofing works to clear the gutters and fill cracks in the brickwork on the flat roof on 5 October 2023.
    3. The landlord agreed to replaster some areas, to move an extractor fan, and to instruct an independent surveyor to investigate discolouration of the vinyl in the property’s utility room.
    4. Operatives would attend on 6 November 2023 to measure up to level the bathroom floor and would then contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the works.
    5. The landlord offered compensation of £300 for delays in completing the works to the bathroom floor, gutters and flat roof, and bathroom extractor. It said the compensation included an amount for redecoration of the replastered areas, and an amount to recognise the stress and inconvenience the delays had caused to the resident.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 October 2023. She said that works were still outstanding to the kitchen, utility, living room, both bedrooms, the landing, and the bathroom. She also reported that a leak had restarted in a recently redecorated bedroom. The resident said the amount of compensation offered was too low. She requested a minimum of 50% rent reimbursement from May 2023 to date and asked the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs. She also asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of redecorating the bedroom. The resident noted she had not received a response to her request for rent suspension or alternative accommodation, sent on 7 July 2023.
  5. The landlord provided its final complaint response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 11 January 2024. It said that it had spoken to the resident on 6 December 2023 and visited the property on 20 December 2023. The landlord accepted that it had taken an excessive length of time to complete the repairs, and it apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. It increased its offer of compensation to £525 and said that it would redecorate the resident’s living room, as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord said it would not rehouse the resident, or offer a rent rebate, as it had confirmed on 1 August 2023 that the property was habitable. The landlord listed the works completed, and the works still outstanding. It said that:
    1. In the kitchen, it had completed the plastering to an acceptable finish, and the resident was responsible for replacing the cracked laminate floor. It said she had been informed of this on 1 August 2023.
    2. The landlord would erect scaffolding and complete external works to the gable end wall, and to a rear step and doorframe, which it hoped would resolve the issues with water ingress in the utility and one of the bedrooms.
    3. The landlord would attend on 17 January 2024 to replace the bathroom floor. It would also attend on 19 January 2024 to block up a vent, and to plaster internally and point externally. It would also refix a curtain pole in one of the bedrooms at this visit and repair the bathroom ceiling where it had removed the extractor.
    4. The landlord had not identified any works required to treat damp and mould.
  6. After the final complaint response, the resident wrote to the landlord on 25 February 2024. She referred to ongoing issues with water penetration and listed the works that had not been completed or required follow-on works. The resident asked the landlord to provide some repairs information. On 20 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to £1,540. At that time, works were still required to make good the utility room ceiling after the bathroom works, and to redecorate several areas. On 1 May 2024, the landlord agreed to pay the resident the £1,540 that she had requested. The landlord has told us that it has now completed all required works, as the resident has declined further disruptive investigations to determine the cause of water damage in the utility.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 December 2024. She asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of internal and external repairs to the property’s walls and floors, and the bathroom extractor fan. She also asked us to investigate its response to her reports of damp and mould. The resident said she wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation and to complete any outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Internal and external repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s repairs obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These include that it will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the gutters and roof, external walls, doors, internal walls, floors and ceilings, plasterwork and steps. The landlord’s obligations do not extend to internal painting and decoration.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy defines standard repairs as non-emergency repairs of a routine nature. The landlord will complete standard repairs within 20 working days. Major repairs are those that are disruptive or intrusive, requiring careful planning. The landlord will complete these within 60 working days. The policy says that the landlord will complete repairs at a time that is mutually convenient and offer a range of appointment days and times.
  3. The resident says that at an inspection on 1 March 2023, she made the landlord aware of large cracks in internal walls on one side of the property and water damage throughout. An inspection report from the visit on 1 March 2023 described cracked areas in the kitchen and both bedrooms as “surface cracks”. The landlord’s policy is that cracks of less than 5mm are considered decorative and the responsibility of the tenant to repair, in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement. It may have been reasonable that no repairs were raised but the landlord should have explained the parties’ repairs obligations to the resident at the inspection visit. There is no evidence that it did so. The landlord’s communication with the resident about these issues could have been better.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident chased the works she believed had been raised on 19 April 2023. The landlord conducted a second inspection on 18 May 2023, to confirm if any works were required. It acted appropriately by reinspecting the property, as its notes from the previous inspection did not provide enough information to determine whether it was responsible for any repairs. This also gave the landlord the opportunity to check that the issues had not got worse.
  5. The landlord’s records do not confirm what repairs it identified or what jobs it raised after the second inspection on 18 May 2023. The resident says the landlord made an appointment for 14 June 2023 for replastering. In the absence of more detailed notes, it is not clear whether these works should have been identified at the first inspection on 1 March 2023. The operative could not complete the plastering works on 14 June 2023 and so he returned on 19 June 2023.
  6. The landlord arranged the plastering works within 22 working days of the inspection on 18 May 2023. Although this was slightly beyond the target timeframe of 20 working days, we do not consider that the short delay adversely affected the resident. The landlord should have communicated the extent of the works and that the repair would take longer than a day to the resident and its contractor. Its failure to do so inconvenienced the resident, as she had to provide access for a second appointment at short notice.
  7. The inspection report from 1 March 2023 noted water ingress in 2 bedrooms. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this, or raised any repairs following that visit or the inspection on 18 May 2023. At a third inspection on 23 June 2023, the landlord said it noted water ingress in 3 areas and logged jobs to rectify. There is no information about what these jobs were, which has hindered our ability to fully investigate this aspect of the complaint.
  8. At an inspection on 30 June 2023, the landlord raised the possibility of subsidence. It completed another, specialist inspection, which was appropriate given its concerns. Its internal emails from 1 August 2023 confirm that it found no evidence of subsidence, but the landlord did not log the inspection on its systems. The landlord failed to maintain adequate records and so we cannot conclude that it took reasonable action to investigate this issue, or to complete any repairs it was responsible for.
  9. As part of the resident’s complaint, she said that she was unhappy with the quality of the replastering works, and she believed the landlord should redecorate these areas. The resident also asked the landlord to reimburse the £285 she had spent on additional replastering. The landlord’s internal emails of 1 August 2023 confirmed that all other works were complete and that redecoration of the replastered areas, small cracks less than 5mm, and replacement of floor coverings, were the resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this information to the resident at that time.
  10. In its final complaint response of 11 January 2024, the landlord said it was satisfied that it had completed the works to an acceptable standard, and that the resident was responsible for redecoration. We do not have the expertise required to quality assess works, but we would expect the landlord to review works if a resident complained about the quality of the workmanship, which it did in this case.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that redecoration of the replastered areas was the resident’s responsibility as this reflects the tenant’s obligations in the tenancy agreement. The final complaint response said that it had communicated this to the resident on 1 August 2023, but we have not seen any evidence that it did so. The landlord may have been able to resolve this aspect of the complaint sooner if it had communicated more effectively with the resident to make its position clear. The landlord offered to complete some redecoration works, as a gesture of goodwill. It also offered a contribution of £150 towards the replastering works, as these had not been agreed in advance. This demonstrated its willingness to be flexible to try to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction.
  12. The inspection report from the visit on 1 March 2023 records that the tenant reported that the bathroom floor had dropped. There is no evidence that this was investigated. The landlord should have arranged an inspection and raised any necessary repairs within its published timescales. The resident emailed the landlord on of 14 June 2023, reporting water damage to the utility room floor, and that the bathroom floor was sinking. The landlord then inspected the property’s flooring on 30 June 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord did not raise any works at this time, as it needed to establish whether the uneven flooring and staining were due to subsidence. The landlord has not explained why there was a delay of almost 5 weeks between the inspection on 30 June 2023 and the internal emails of 1 August 2023, where it discussed what works were required to the bathroom floor. We cannot conclude that this delay was reasonable.
  13. The works to the bathroom floor involved considerable disruption, multiple trades and removal of the bathroom sanitaryware. The repair could reasonably be classed as a major repair, with a target time of 60 working days. The landlord levelled the bathroom floor on 21 March 2024. Calculated from 1 August 2023, this repair took the landlord 165 working days. The landlord has not explained why it took until 11 November 2023 for an operative to attend to measure up. It then took the landlord over 4 months to complete the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about the reason for these delays.
  14. Additional remedial works were required after the appointment on 21 March 2024, as the utility room ceiling had been damaged and the toilet was leaking. This was put right on 1 May 2024. The landlord replaced the bathroom vinyl flooring on 4 June 2024. The landlord’s overall handling of the repair to the bathroom floor and remedial works to the utility room ceiling fell short of the required standard. It unreasonably exceeded its published timescales.
  15. Details of the outcome of the landlord’s inspections are minimal, so we have been unable to establish what works were initially recommended to address the water penetration through the property’s walls. There is no evidence that the landlord took adequate action to investigate, or to raise repairs to resolve the issues, until we referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. This was unacceptable. As the landlord had failed to follow its policies and procedures, the resident had to complain to get it to act on its repairs obligations.
  16. On 5 October 2023, the landlord cleaned the front and rear gutters and sealed brickwork to prevent water penetration. This did not resolve the problem and after the resident escalated her complaint on 29 October 2023, the landlord inspected the property on 20 December 2023. It then raised jobs for further internal and external works. The landlord’s records from 13 November 2023 and 1 December 2023 show that its surveyor had difficulty contacting the resident to arrange an appointment. We understand that the resident was unavailable as she was at work, however, this contributed to the delay in the landlord completing a further inspection.
  17. The property was scaffolded on 22 January 2024, and repointing works were completed on 2 February 2024. The external works were major repairs, which the landlord completed 30 working days after the inspection on 20 December 2023. We are satisfied that after the complaint escalation the landlord did take reasonable steps to resolve the issues in a timely manner. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the overall delays in its final complaint response. This was appropriate, as it had missed an opportunity to identify and complete the necessary works much earlier.
  18. It is not clear when the landlord first identified that it needed to install a bathroom extractor fan at the property. The evidence shows that the resident expected this work to be completed at a visit on 5 July 2023, but this did not happen. The landlord’s records suggest that this work was not completed until 4 October 2023, which was an unexplained and unreasonable delay of 3 months after the first appointment date. The landlord then needed to re-site the extractor fan, as it was dripping onto the floor. Its records do not confirm when the date the fan was repositioned, but the stage 2 complaint response of 11 January 2024 said it had been completed by that date.
  19. Remedial works to fix the hole left in the bathroom ceiling were not completed until on or around 24 January 2024, which was approximately 7 months after the job to install an extractor was first raised. This was unacceptable. The landlord agreed to repaint the bathroom ceiling, but it did not complete this work until May 2024. The precise date is not recorded in its system notes. The resident had to chase the remedial works and redecoration, adding to her frustration.
  20. The first record of staining to the utility room floor is in the resident’s email of 14 June 2023. The landlord completed a drainage survey on 30 June 2023, which did not reveal any issues. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had arranged for a specialist inspection, however, there is no evidence that it had done so at that time. The landlord did not carry out a survey of the area until 20 December 2023, over 6 months after it became aware of the issue. This was unreasonable and outside of the requirements of its policy. The landlord did then act appropriately by completing the recommended works at the same time as the external repointing works, which minimised the disruption caused to the resident. The landlord has reasonably offered to complete more intrusive investigations, but the resident has declined these works due to the disruption.
  21. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to complete repairs to the resident’s property within a reasonable time. It offered £525 compensation, including £300 for the “stress” and inconvenience caused by avoidable delays, £150 to contribute to repairs the resident had completed at her own expense, and £75 towards the damaged laminate flooring in the utility. It also used its discretion to agree redecoration works to several areas, and to replace the bathroom floor covering. While this went some way to provide redress for the maladministration that had occurred, we do not think that this sum adequately reflected the adverse effect on the resident, which was significant.
  22. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the internal and external repairs to the property. The resident had to continually chase the landlord over a period of over 14 months before all repairs were resolved to a satisfactory standard. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to resolve issues at an earlier date, its communication with the resident was poor, and its lack of adequate record keeping meant that repeated inspections were required. The landlord could have taken a more holistic approach to investigating and remedying the issues, and it would have benefitted from producing an action plan to tackle all required works at the outset. This would have given the resident confidence that it was working to resolve the issues, and assisted with communication between the landlord, the resident, and its contractors.
  23. All repairs have now been completed and the landlord has agreed to pay the resident the £1,540 she requested. In this case, the landlord did complete some works and engage with the resident to resolve the issues but in our view it could have acted more quickly and communicated better. The final amount of compensation offered by the landlord is more than we would award for a finding of maladministration, in line with the requirements of our remedies guidance, and so we will not make an order for additional compensation. The landlord is ordered to pay this sum to the resident, if it has not already done so.
  24. The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping processes to make sure that clear, accurate and sufficiently detailed repairs records are logged on its systems. The landlord’s failure to keep adequate records has hindered our ability to fully investigate this complaint and contributed to the maladministration we have identified.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy says that when a resident reports damp and mould, it will carry out an inspection to diagnose the cause. It will keep residents fully informed of the outcome and any actions it proposes to take. The policy says that the landlord may choose to decant residents if it deems that the presence of damp and mould causes a serious risk to health, or if works are too disruptive to complete with a resident in situ.
  2. The inspection report from 1 March 2023 identified mould growth around the front window in one of the property’s bedrooms. There is no evidence that the landlord took action to investigate and treat this, as required under its Damp and Mould policy. We cannot be sure whether the landlord observed damp and mould at the inspection on 18 May 2023 because of the lack of detailed repairs records but again no action was taken at that time.
  3. The resident then reported “longstanding damp and mould” at the property in her email of 14 June 2023. The landlord completed a damp inspection on 23 June 2023, and it then inspected the rear gully and utility room floor on 30 June 2023. Although the landlord initially failed to act following the inspection on 1 March 2023, it took appropriate action after it received the resident’s email and the damp within a reasonable timeframe, in line with the requirements of its Damp and Mould Policy.
  4. The landlord’s notes from the first damp inspection record “minor condensation”. It did not record whether any advice was given to the resident about managing condensation, which would have been appropriate. The landlord resealed windows at the property on 19 July 2023, to help prevent mould growth. The landlord did take some action to address the issue, but we cannot conclude that the landlord completed all works recommended following the damp inspection, as there is no clear record of the outcome.
  5. On 9 August 2023, the resident told us that mould was still visible in most parts of the house. She wanted the landlord to complete mould proofing. It is unclear from the evidence whether the resident also reported this to the landlord. After the complaint was raised on 2 October 2023, we would have expected it to investigate the continued presence of damp and mould.
  6. The stage 1 response of 18 October 2023 did not directly address the issue of damp and mould, or identify whether any further investigations or works were required to treat mould growth. The landlord attended on 27 October 2023 and its operative was instructed to wash down the mould and apply a stain block and anti-fungicidal paint. Its records say that no painting was required, as the mould was completely removed. The resident escalated her complaint 2 days later, noting that the mould had not been treated and was still present.
  7. It will normally be reasonable for a landlord to rely on the advice of its skilled operatives to determine what works are necessary. However, in this case, additional mould prevention works were likely to have been necessary, even if the mould had been removed with a mould wash. The landlord’s failure to complete all ordered works meant that the resident had to escalate her complaint to seek a more permanent solution.
  8. In addition to mould growth resulting from condensation, areas of the property were found to be damp because repointing works were required to the exterior. This was also contributing to the overall issue. We have commented on the landlord’s handling of the repairs to prevent water penetration in the internal and external repairs section above. While we will not repeat our findings here, it is noted that delays in completing these works contributed to the delays in resolving the presence of damp and mould.
  9. The landlord did not proactively manage the damp and mould works, as required under its policy. After the first inspection on 23 June 2023, it was recommended that the landlord complete works and reinspect in 8 weeks’ time, to check that the affected areas were drying out. The landlord did not follow up with its contractor until 8 November 2023, when it asked if the works were finished so it could conduct a second inspection. The landlord should have been in regular contact with its contractor to make sure the works were progressing. Its communication with the resident was also poor. It is essential that a landlord maintain regular contact with residents where damp and mould is present, to get their feedback on whether the measures the landlord has taken are working effectively.
  10. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It does not appear that there was a clear action plan for dealing with damp and mould at the property. On more than one occasion, replastering works were completed before the issues were fully resolved. The final amount of compensation offered by the landlord is more than we would award for a finding of maladministration under our remedies guidance, and so we will not make an order for additional compensation. The landlord is ordered to pay the £1,540 to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Suggestions policy in use at the time of the complaint says that it recognises complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage formal complaint process. It acknowledged formal complaints within one working day of receipt and aimed to provide a response within 5 working days, or a maximum of 10 working days. At stage 2, it would aim to provide a response within 5 working days, or a maximum of 20 working days.
  2. In her email of 14 June 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs following an inspection on 1 March 2023. She referred to previous attempts to chase the repairs and complained about the length of the delay. The landlord should have logged this as a formal complaint. There is no evidence that it did so, or that it provided an informal response, which increased the resident’s frustration at the lack of action.
  3. The resident sent a further expression of dissatisfaction on 7 July 2023. She complained about the ongoing delays and requested a rent suspension, or to be moved to another property. Again, the landlord failed to reply, or to log a formal complaint. The landlord said that it told the resident on 1 August 2023 that it would not agree to a temporary move, or to a rent suspension, as the property was considered to be habitable. Although this is reflected in the landlord’s internal emails, there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident. Had the landlord logged a formal complaint, as its policy required, it could have made its position clear and considered alternative redress for the delays. Its failure to do so meant that we did not raise a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf until 2 October 2023. The landlord may have missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was provided 2 working days outside its published timescales. This short delay did not adversely affect the resident in the circumstances. The final complaint response was significantly more delayed, sent 50 working days after the resident’s escalation request and only after we intervened to ask it to respond. This was 30 working days more than the maximum timescale in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s final complaint response did not acknowledge or apologise for the unreasonable delay. We acknowledge that the landlord tried to contact the resident on several occasions to discuss her complaint and to obtain further information to inform its response. We do not accept this as a reason for the considerable delay in providing a written response, which could have been provided within the landlord’s published timescales, based on the information the landlord had at the time.
  5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay her £100 compensation to recognise the time and trouble she spent pursuing her complaint. This sum is in line with the amounts suggested in our remedies guidance, to recognise the adverse effect on the resident of the landlord’s service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of internal and external repairs to the property’s walls and floors, and the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £1,640 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to their rent account. This is made up of:
      1. £1,540 compensation already offered to her in respect of its handling of internal and external repairs and reports of damp and mould, if this has not already been paid to her.
      2. £100 to recognise the adverse effect of its poor complaint handling.
    3. Reviewed its record keeping processes to make sure that it maintains clear, accurate and sufficiently detailed repairs records.