Karbon Homes Limited (202401354)

Background

1. The resident is a joint tenant of the landlord since 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom detached bungalow. It is a general needs property for residents aged 55 and over. She shares the property with her husband. Her husband has mobility issues and suffers with COPD.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reports of issues with her garden.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to report of issues with her garden.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord failed to assess the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. It did not carry out remedial actions in line with its repairs policy. It delayed in carrying out actions recommended in its surveys. It failed to evidence consideration for the household vulnerability.

Response to reports of issues with her garden 

8. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident about repair timeframes or explain reasons for repair delays.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord failed to provide complaint responses within the timescales of its policies and procedures and it failed to appropriately track agreed actions to resolve the complaint.

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.

Our investigation

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.

10. We have not looked at the onset of the resident’s husband’s COPD as part of this complaint. We are not able to consider any personal injury aspects of a complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. We can consider general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
11. The landlord does not have a damp and mould policy separate from its repairs policy. Its repairs policy sets out a range of measures it will take in response to reports of damp and mould. These include:
    1. A thorough clean of the surfaces within 3 working days, including applying anti-fungicidal treatment,
    2. An inspection to assess the type of damp, potential causes, and any repairs.
    3. Installation of extractor fans
    4. Alternative accommodation if necessary
    5. Guidance on controlling causes of damp
    6. Signpost support to manage income in heating home
12. Because the resident raised a complaint on behalf of herself and other tenants on the estate, it is not clear when the resident reported issues of damp and mould specific to her property. It is reasonable to conclude that she had issues with damp and mould before she raised a complaint. It is evident that the landlord was on notice about damp and mould in her property on 28 January 2024 when she raised a complaint.
13. In its stage 1 complaint response, on 13 March 2023, the landlord said that it would inspect her property if she confirmed that her individual property had damp. The landlord surveyed the resident’s property 2 months later on 10 June 2024. This was a significant delay. There was no evidence that the landlord carried out any remedial action in the interim period to lessen the impact of damp and mould on the resident. This delay caused distress to the resident who escalated the complaint in the interim period because of the landlord’s lack of response.
14. It is recognised that the landlord was responding to a complaint about multiple properties and multiple issues affecting a number of tenants on the estate. However, it should have recognised that reports of damp and mould through the complaint required urgent action and it should have prioritised those repairs. The landlord’s delay in assessing the damp and mould was inappropriate.
15. The landlord’s survey of the resident’s property found elevated moisture readings in walls in a bedroom and borderline moisture readings in the living room. It found moderate black mould growth in the bedroom. The survey recommended immediate remedial treatment.
16. On 29 July 2024, the resident provided images of mould in her husband’s bedroom and personal belongings. She said that her husband was recently diagnosed with COPD. Despite this report, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a mould treatment or applied antifungal paint in line with its repairs policy. The landlord should have considered the reported vulnerabilities and responded urgently to any potential adverse impacts. This failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who reported that she deep cleaned the bedroom every 5 weeks.
17. The landlord’s survey recommended an intrusive survey to investigate the workmanship of the installation of the cavity trays and to ensure that the Damp Proof Course (DPC) was at an appropriate level. These further investigations were carried out on 10 September 2024, and the surveyor found no external issues causing the damp. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to investigate the cause of the damp.
18. Both surveys recommended installing data loggers to understand the conditions within the property. With this information it could consider installation of extractor fans with built in humidistats if appropriate. The evidence shows that the landlord installed the data loggers 10 months later on 22 July 2025 after several chasers for an update from the resident. This was an unreasonable delay.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it would write further to the resident about the recommended actions in the recent building survey report. The landlord did not provide this follow-on correspondence until almost 9 months later, on 5 June 2025 after this Service made an information request to begin an investigation. In this correspondence it said that it had recently replaced a ventilation unit in the resident’s bathroom and would install data loggers. This was an unreasonable delay in following up on an agreed action as a resolution to the complaint. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have completed these actions but for our decision to investigate the complaint.
20. On 5 June 2025, the landlord offered £950 for property damage caused by mould. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
21. In the same correspondence the landlord offered further compensation of £350 for distress and inconvenience caused. Because the landlord made this offer after we decided to investigate the complaint, reasonable redress was not a finding that we could consider. However, we do consider the landlord’s revised offer to be reasonable. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact.
22. Although the compensation offer was appropriate, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learnings from the case to reduce the likelihood of the same failings reoccurring. While it offered the resident compensation for decoration, it failed to acknowledge that it did not carry out remedial work and it failed to demonstrate that it put processes in place to ensure that it would carry out remedial repairs in the future.

23. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord advised that it had inspected the grounds of the estate and acknowledged that it needed to find a cost-effective way to improve the drainage of the estate as a whole. It would only attend to major repairs if there was a risk to the property itself. It said that it would make safe all paving stones in the gardens of the estate.
24. The landlord’s records are not clear but the evidence indicates that the landlord attended to the residents paving stones shortly after the stage 2 complaint response. The resident was not happy with the work and on 18 November 2024 asked the landlord to inspect it.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord attended on 27 November 2024 and found some loose flagstones while the resident was not there. It arranged to meet her the following weeks to discuss the works, however it did not attend. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to meet the resident after it agreed to and it delayed in responding to her emails about the garden paths. This caused frustration to the resident because this was an agreed action that the landlord said it would do in its stage 2 complaint response.
26. Thereafter, the resident went to considerable time and trouble to get the landlord to reattend and repair the garden slabs. The evidence indicates that the landlord instructed a contractor to complete the works in July 2025. It is not clear if the work has been completed.
27. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
28. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident about the garden slab repair was poor. It failed to keep her informed of timescales and any delay in completing the work. This was unreasonable and caused frustration, time, and trouble to the resident.

29. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
30. The landlord initially received the complaint on 28 January 2024. This was presented as a group complaint detailing 25 issues affecting several tenants in the estate. Although there is no evidence of a stage 1 extension, the landlord’s decision to meet the tenants on 20 February 2024 was reasonable in the circumstances. After the meeting it requested an extension to provide a stage 1 complaint response on 4 March 2024, however, it failed to provide the stage 1 complaint response until 13 March 2024.
31. After the complaint escalation on 11 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2024. This was 88 days beyond the timeframe of 20 working days. This was a significant delay beyond its timescales.
32. The Code states that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates to the resident. On 25 July 2024, the landlord requested an extension for its stage 2 complaint response because it awaited a damp inspection report and an update from garden inspections. It said it would provide the resident with an update into its investigation every 2 weeks starting from 9 August 2024. This was inappropriate.
33. It is not realistic for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. In this case, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 complaint response confirming what investigation it intended to do, agreed actions with the resident after its investigation, and tracked those actions until completion. Its delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service for resolution.
34. The evidence strongly indicates that it did not track actions agreed in its stage 2 complaint response. It failed to follow up on the recommendations of the damp survey to install data loggers for 10 months and it replaced the ventilation system in the bathroom 10 months later.
35. An order of compensation of £200 has been made in line with our Remedies Guidance to reflect the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

Record keeping

36. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management explains the importance of good record keeping. When providing evidence to us, the landlord only held a record of mobility issues for the resident’s husband. The resident advised the landlord in July 2024 that her husband was recently diagnosed with COPD. That the landlord does not hold a record of this vulnerability is inappropriate, especially considering the potential impact of mould.

Communication

37. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
38. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.