Karbon Homes Limited (202330910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330910

Karbon Homes Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated October 2022. The property is a new build 3-bedroom house constructed in 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
The tenancy agreement is signed by the landlord. A subsidiary company of the landlord carried out rent collections and arranged repairs on its behalf. The resident has corresponded with both organisations throughout the complaint. We will distinguish/clarify this in the report where required. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement remains with the landlord.
Between October 2022 and February 2023, the subsidiary company raised several repairs for defects in the resident’s property. These included issues with the garden drainage. The resident complained on 7 March 2023. She addressed this to the landlord and its subsidiary. She said:
1. she had reported defects, but the landlord had not acknowledged her issues or responded, and it was still to resolve some issues 5 months later.
2. maintenance had been slow or incorrectly completed as the bathroom flooring had to be replaced, and it took 2 to 3 weeks to repair the toilet leak.
3. the garden was sinking, becoming “boggier” and smelled but she had not received a full response to the issue. She could not plan anything and was worried she would not be able to enjoy the garden over the summer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 March 2023. Between 20 and 23 March 2023 it liaised with its developer to chase outstanding works, including the garden. It booked an appointment for 19 April 2023 to inspect the garden with the developer. It then arranged a further inspection by its landscaper for 24 May 2023.
The landlord did not send a stage 1 complaint response, and the resident sent several emails between April and August 2023 to chase this. The landlord’s subsidiary called the resident to discuss her complaint on 12 September 2023. She said it took 6 months for the landlord to resolve issues, the issues with the garden were still outstanding and she had been unable to use it. She also said that the landlord had not repaired her light fittings correctly. The subsidiary acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 12 September 2023.
The subsidiary sent a stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. It said:
1. it upheld the complaint including issues with garden drainage, issues with light fittings and length of time taken to resolve issues and poor communication.
2. it had liaised with the landlord who had confirmed it had not progressed the issues with the drainage in the garden.
3. it would meet with the landlord on 18 October 2023 to discuss all aspects of her complaint, compensation and clarify timescales and would update the resident following this.
4. it would ask someone to contact the resident to arrange to come out and repair her light fittings within the next 2 weeks.
5. it was sorry for the service the resident had received and offered a goodwill payment of £50 which was separate to any compensation the landlord may pay.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 2 December 2023. She said the garden was dangerous and she had not had full use of it since she moved in. She said the landlord had not taken any of the action stipulated in its stage 2 response. She wanted the landlord to complete the required work to permanently resolve the issues with her garden and all other outstanding repairs. Additionally, she wanted the landlord to pay compensation.
The landlord has continued to liaise with its developer regarding issues with the garden. It laid topsoil and grass seed in the garden during the week starting 28 April 2025. The resident has said this has not resolved the issue. The resident has since said that the landlord took different action in her neighbour’s garden which has resolved their issues. Additionally, she confirmed that the landlord had repaired her light fittings, all other issues were resolved, and she had received the £50 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident has expressed concerns about rent increases. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the increase of rent. Complaints about the reasonableness of rent increases are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek independent legal advice in relation to how to proceed with a case if they wish.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property

The landlord is the entity named on the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord would keep in repair drains, floors, doors, toilets and electrical fittings. Given the resident is an assured tenant, under the Landlord and Tenant Act (LATA) 1985 the landlord has an obligation to maintain the property in good repair. This includes outdoor areas.
As the property was a new build development it was subject to a 12-month period for which the developer is responsible for defects. This is known as the “defect liability period” (DLP). Residents are expected to report defects to the landlord who would pass these on to the developer.
Although, the landlord was not responsible for repairing the defects, it was responsible for:
1. reporting defects to the developer.
2. taking reasonable steps to compel the developer to take action.
3. updating the resident on the progress of repairs and what action it had taken.
On 24 October 2022 the subsidiary raised a job for the garden drainage in the resident’s property. Following this between 26 October and 8 November 2022, the subsidiary raised several jobs including to repair flooring in the bathroom and light fittings. As this was within the DLP, the developer and its contractors were responsible for rectifying these defects in the first instance. The developer did not complete any of these repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the developers actions. However, what we can assess is the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.
The landlord had an obligation to keep the property in repair under the LATA 1985 and the tenancy agreement. Therefore, it should have raised these delays with the developer to ensure that the repairs were completed within a reasonable time. If the developer did not resolve the defect within the relevant period, it could instruct an alternative contractor to complete the repairs. The landlord should have communicated with the developer to ensure it had recorded the defects. There is no evidence it did this.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on landlords’ engagement with management agents from March 2022 recommends that landlords should try to ensure third parties provided copies of, or other clear information on, technical assessments, decisions and future plans. Had the landlord considered this, it may have prevented this failing.
The subsidiary raised a repair for an issue with a toilet on 13 December 2022. Its developer completed this on 16 December 2022. This was reasonable. However, the subsidiary raised a repair on 20 December 2022 as the same toilet was leaking. The repair was not completed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord had an obligation to keep the property in repair under the LATA 1985 and the tenancy agreement. Therefore, it should have raised these delays with the developer to ensure that the repairs were completed within a reasonable time.
The subsidiary emailed the landlord and its developer on 3 January 2023 for an update on the outstanding defects, particularly the bathroom floor and toilet leak. There is no evidence that the landlord chased the developer for an update following this. Given it had responsibility under the LATA 1985 and the tenancy agreement to keep the property in good repair, this was unreasonable. Additionally, the landlord did not advise the developer that it would instruct its own contractor if it did not attend within a rea. As the developer had not repaired the defects within a reasonable time it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this.
The subsidiary raised repairs on 5 January 2023 for light covers and thermostats in the property. The developer completed these on 16 January 2023. This was reasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord and its subsidiary on 23 January 2023. She reported that the floor contractor had not sealed the vinyl in the bathroom and had not repaired the floor from the toilet leak. Additionally, she said that the developer’s contractor had left a mess behind. The landlord apologised and said it had emailed its developer about this. On 3 February 2023 the resident confirmed that the developer had resolved the flooring issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the developer about the resident’s concerns.
The resident emailed the landlord and its subsidiary on 28 February 2023. She requested an update on the issues with her garden. The landlord emailed its developer for an update the same day. This was the first time the landlord had specifically requested an update on the garden. Considering its subsidiary raised a job for the garden drainage on 24 October 2022 the delay in doing this was unreasonable. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as she requested. This was unreasonable.
In her email of 7 March 2023, the resident raised concerns about delays in repairing defects and contractors not correctly completing repairs. She also said that her garden was becoming “boggier” and smelled. She said she could not make any plans and would be unable to enjoy her garden over the summer.
The landlord emailed its developer on 13 March 2023. It asked if it had confirmed dates to look at the garden drainage. It emailed the resident the same day and informed her it would do this. This was reasonable. However, it did not advise its developer that it would appoint its own contractor to resolve the garden issues. The landlord had an obligation under the LATA 1985 to keep the property in good repair including outside areas. As the developer had gone beyond the target response times it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether this was necessary in order to meet its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 March 2023. It said its developer had requested more information regarding the drainage issue. It asked her to provide images of the exact location, and it would relay them to its developer. Between 20 and 23 March 2023 the landlord chased its developer for an update. It confirmed an appointment for 19 April 2023 to inspect the garden with its developer. The landlord raised this job on 24 October 2022. The landlord was responsible for keeping the outside of the property in good repair under the LATA 1985. Therefore, the delay in arranging this appointment was unreasonable.
It is apparent the landlord and its developer inspected the garden on 19 April 2023 as the resident emailed its subsidiary about it the same day. The landlord has not provided any record of this inspection. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records, including when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
Additionally, in her email of 19 April 2023 the resident said no timeline or real plan to resolve the issues with her garden had been agreed. She reiterated that she could not use the garden and asked to be kept updated. The landlord did not do this. The landlord was responsible for keeping the outside of the property in good repair under the LATA 1985. Its subsidiary handling reports of repairs from the resident meant that it was unaware of the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable as the landlord unable to adhere to its repair obligations under the LATA 1985 and the tenancy agreement.
The resident emailed the subsidiary for an update on 7 May 2023. The subsidiary responded on 11 May 2023. It said it was meeting with the landlord the following day and was hoping to get further information. The subsidiary said the issues in the garden required investigation, so it had arranged an inspection with its landscaper for 24 May 2023. The landlord has not provided any record of this inspection. Had it considered the information in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs. It could have prevented this failing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 June 2023 to provide an update about her garden. It said its developer would discuss options with its landscape team and once it had a further update it would be in touch. The developer had gone well beyond the target response times to resolve the issues in the resident’s garden. The landlord had not been proactive in chasing the developer for updates. As the landlord had an obligation to keep the property in good repair, this was unreasonable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 and 25 August 2023. It said it had requested an update from its developer, and it would hold a meeting on 31 August 2023. It said it would update the resident on 8 September 2023. Its developer did not provide this information. The landlord emailed the resident and informed her of this on 8 September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord advised its developer that it would appoint its own contractor to resolve the issues with the resident’s garden. Considering the length of time this issue had been outstanding, this was unreasonable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 October 2023. It said its developer had provided a programme of works, but it was possible it may not complete some of the works until the following Spring. The Ombudsman acknowledges it may have been difficult to complete some work in the garden over the winter. However, the landlord had missed an opportunity to resolve these issues over the summer period. This was unreasonable.
The subsidiary sent a stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it would meet with the landlord to discuss the resident’s complaint, her request for compensation and to clarify timescales. Additionally, it said it would ask someone to contact the resident to arrange to come out and repair her light fittings. There is no evidence that the landlord completed these actions.
It is unclear if the landlord was aware of this response at the time. However, the resident had previously reported these repairs and there had been significant delays in completing them. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs highlights that if a landlord uses a third party to handle repairs, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Had the landlord considered this, it may have prevented this failing.

Summary

In summary, the Ombudsman acknowledges that as the resident reported the defects in the liability period, the landlord’s developer was responsible for repairing these in the first instance. However, this did not remove the landlord’s obligations in accordance with the LATA 1985 or the tenancy agreement. The developer has repaired some of the defects within reasonable timescales. The landlord also emailed its developer regarding the resident’s concerns about its flooring contractor. Additionally, the landlord has liaised with its developer to try and resolve the issues in the resident’s garden and provided some updates to her.
However, the landlord:
1. failed to adhere to its obligations under the LATA 1985 and the tenancy agreement.
2. failed to keep adequate oversight of its subsidiary who was arranging repairs on its behalf.
3. failed to proactively chase the developer to ensure that it repaired the reported defects within reasonable timeframes.
4. did not advise its developer that it would appoint its own contractor to repair the defects if it did not complete the repairs within the prescribed time.
5. has not provided any evidence that it contacted its developer between 24 October 2022 and 28 February 2023 to specifically request an update about the resident’s garden.
6. did not provide the resident with an update regarding the garden when she requested this on 28 February and 19 April 2023.
7. delayed by over 6 months from when it raised a job for the garden drainage on 4 October 2022 to inspect the garden with its developer on 19 April 2023.
8. failed to provide any records of the inspection on 19 April 2023 or of the further inspection by its landscapers arranged for 24 May 2023.
The resident having to liaise with 2 organisations to try and resolve her issues led to confusion on her behalf and delays. This was a significant failing. The landlord’s subsidiary upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response and acknowledged some failings. However, it did not acknowledge all the above failings. It offered £50 compensation as a goodwill payment for poor communication and service.
The stage 2 response did not break the compensation offer down. Based on the evidence provided, it is reasonable to conclude that half of the £50 was attributed to failings when handling the resident’s reports of defects. This does not reflect the impact the failings had on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration, and the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation.
The resident has confirmed that she has received the £25 compensation. She said that the garden was unsightly, the smell prevented her from opening her back door and she has not had the full use of it for almost 3 summers. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this issue during summer 2023. The resident has shown the upset and distress this caused in her contact with the landlord.
Upon careful consideration of our Remedies Guidance a fair level of compensation would be £675 in addition to the £25 already paid. This adequately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of defects in the property.
Additionally, as the resident has said that the landlord is still to resolve the issues with her garden, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the garden by a suitably qualified surveyor. The surveyor should provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. address the resident’s reports of “bogginess” and the smell in her garden and comment on the cause.
2. if required set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates, which it must adhere to, to complete any work to resolve this.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The tenancy agreement says the resident should complain to the landlord. The landlord agreed with the content of any complaint responses issued on its behalf by the subsidiary, therefore for the purpose of our assessment, we will refer to the subsidiary’s actions as the landlords.
The subsidiary’s complaints policy at the time stated that:
1. it would log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and provide a full response within 5 working days.
2. it would confirm receipt of an escalation to stage 2 within 2 working days of receipt and confirm if it would escalate the complaint within 5 working days.
3. if accepted it would convene a complaint review panel within 10 working days and provide a full written response within 10 working days of this.
This was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out that landlords should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a resident escalating a complaint. However, the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be compliant with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 7 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 20 March 2023. This was inappropriate when measured against the complaints policy and the Code. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response to the resident. The complaints policy stated it would do this. This was inappropriate.
Between 3 April and 14 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord 6 times to request an update on her complaint. The landlord did not respond to all her emails. This was unreasonable. Additionally, when the landlord did respond on 19 April and 14 June 2023 it did not provide an update to the resident or contact her as it said it would. The tenancy agreement states that the resident should complain to the landlord. Therefore, the lack of updates was unreasonable.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord chasing her complaint on 18 July and 17 August 2023. It responded on 18 August 2023 and apologised for the lack of response. However, it did not respond to the resident’s first email of 18 July 2023. The involvement of both the subsidiary and the landlord and the fact that both seemed unaware of the functions they were supposed to be performing led to delays and confusion for the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 21 August 2023. The Code sets out that landlords should only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it had completed stage 1. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 12 September 2023. This was inappropriate when measured against the complaints policy.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. This was in line with the complaints policy and the Code. This was appropriate. It upheld the resident’s complaint as the landlord did not follow its complaints process, and she had not received an outcome at stage 1. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that it had not responded to some of the resident’s emails requesting an update or provided an update when it said it would. This was unreasonable.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it considers the complaint to have exhausted its complaints process as its subsidiary sent a stage 2 response. It has also confirmed that it has not sent any further complaint responses.
The Ombudsman has found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Both organisations being involved in the resident’s complaint while being unaware of their roles was to the detriment of the resident and was a significant failure.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timescale stipulated in its complaints policy. It also failed to acknowledge the escalation within stipulated timescales at stage 2. Additionally, the landlord did not provide an outcome to the resident at stage1. It failed to respond to some of her emails chasing this or take the action it stated it would when it did respond.
The landlord acknowledged some of these failings in its stage 2 response and offered a goodwill payment of £50. However, it did not break this amount down, so it is unclear how much it attributed to each issue. We have attributed this equally with £25 considered to be for each complaint aspect. The resident has confirmed that she has received this payment. However, this does not fully reflect the impact the landlord’s complaint handling failures had on her.
Having carefully considered our Remedies Guidance a fair level of compensation would be £125 in addition to the £25 already paid. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date the report the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the additional failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £800 compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, consisting of:
  1. £675 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
  2. £125 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
3. arrange an inspection of the garden by a suitably qualified surveyor. The surveyor should provide a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
  1. address the resident’s reports of “bogginess” and the smell in her garden and comment on the cause.
  2. if required set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales, including dates, which it must adhere to, to complete any work to resolve this.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this report.