Karbon Homes Limited (202411453)

Decision
Case ID	202411453
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Karbon Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 June 2026

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house with 2 toilets. The resident and his wife are elderlyand live with their adult children, one of whom acts as the resident’s representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.
Between March 2023 and January 2024 the resident reported repairs to the wash-hand basin, shower, extractor fan and toilet in the bathroom. The landlord attended multiple times to complete repairs, including on 5 February 2024, when it said the resident did not give access.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of bathroom repairs.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his reports of bathroom repairs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord acknowledged delays and communication failures in its handling of the bathroom repairs. It completed the works, apologised and offered proportionate compensation in line with its compensation guidance.
There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge these or take any action to put things right.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handing failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 03 July 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.	No later than 03 July 2026
	Learning order The landlord must share learning from this complaint about escalating complaints to stage 2 with complaint handling staff.	No later than 17 July 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £450 compensation already offered for its handling of his reports of bathroom repairs, if not done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 February 2024	The resident complained that the bathroom repairs were still outstanding. He said the landlord attended that day but this was earlier than the agreed appointment time. He asked it to complete all outstanding works as soon as possible.
17 February 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response did not uphold the complaint as there had been no service failure. It confirmed it had booked appointments for various dates in February and March 2024 to complete outstanding works.
April 2024	On 1 April 2024 the resident said he was disappointed with the stage 1 response as it did not consider the length of time the issues had been ongoing. He said the repairs were still outstanding and he wanted them resolved. The landlord repaired the toilet on 12 April 2024 and upgraded the extractor fan 8 days later.
July 2024	On 16 July 2024 the landlord’s stage 2 response upheld the complaint because of delays in it completing repairs. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. It confirmed it was attending on 25 July 2024 to complete outstanding works to the shower and wash-hand basin, which it subsequently did. Two days later, the landlord offered increased compensation of £450 for delays and communication failures in its handling of the repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has confirmed the repairs have been completed. He is dissatisfied with the compensation amount as he feels it is not enough considering the length of time the issues went on and the impact.

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.

Complaint	Bathroom repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident has said some of the repairs were outstanding when he moved to the property in 2022. Our investigation covers the period from 12 months before the resident made his formal complaint in February 2024. Anything that happened before February 2023 is considered for context but not assessed as part of the investigation.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will repair and keep in proper working order installations it has provided for sanitation. This includes the wash-hand basin, toilet and shower. It also says it will repair electrical installations, which includes the extractor fan.

Wash-hand basin

On 3 March 2023 the resident reported water from the wash-hand basin tap was very hot. He asked the landlord to install a mixer tap. He has said the landlord declined to do so and told him he could request permission to install one himself. The landlord is not obligated to do improvement works. Therefore, it was reasonable that it declined to install a mixer tap. However, the landlord was obligated to take action to resolve the report of very hot water as a potential health and safety concern.
There is no evidence the landlord took action until more than a year later, in July 2024, when it agreed to install a mixer tap. This is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware the resident and his wife are elderly. This means there was an increased risk to them from the very hot water for an extended period.
The resident reported a crack in the basin on 11 January 2024. The landlord made a number of appointments to attend for this. Of these, the resident rearranged one, meaning the landlord was not responsible for any delay as a result of this. The landlord booked to attend on 26 February 2024, but did not. There is no evidence it told the resident it was not attending. This meant he spent time waiting in for the appointment when it was not going ahead. He also spent time and effort chasing this up a few days later. This was frustrating for him.
The landlord rebooked to attend in March 2024 but had to reschedule due to staff sickness. While frustrating for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord as staff sickness is unavoidable and not something that can be foreseen. The landlord attended in April 2024, identified the materials needed and ordered them. There is no evidence it took any further action until nearly 3 months later, when it contacted the resident in early July 2024 to arrange an appointment to complete the job.
The landlord told the resident in April 2024 that there had been delays because of supply issues for materials from external partners. It said it had started working with new suppliers to resolve this. Considering this and that the materials needed were not large quantity or specialist, it is unclear why it took the landlord nearly 3 months to obtain them and progress the works. This was an unreasonable delay which contributed to the overall delay in the landlord completing this repair.
The landlord completed the repair on 25 July 2024, 136 working days after the resident first reported it. This was significantly over the 20 working day policy timescale for standard repairs. As the landlord needed to order replacement parts, it would be understandable if it took slightly longer than the committed timescale. In addition, there were some delays due to appointments not going ahead that were not attributable to the landlord. However, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of this repair which contributed to the delay. This was frustrating for the resident and made him feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.

Shower

The resident reported problems with the shower water temperature in April and June 2023. The landlord attended in 8 working days of the first report, in line with the 20 working day timescale for standard repairs. It attended in 23 working days following the second report, slightly over the policy timescale. As this was a short delay, this was not a failure.
In June 2023 the resident also reported that the water pressure on the shower was low. The landlord attended in July 2023 and October 2023 but on both occasions sent the incorrect tradesperson. Following the visit in October 2023 it noted an electrician needed to attend. It did not raise a job for this until 2 months later, on 16 January 2024. This contributed to the overall delay in the landlord resolving this issue.
The landlord attended on 5 February 2024 and noted the resident did not give access. The resident said the landlord agreed to attend after 11am but attended before this. He said this was why he was not home to give access. We have not seen any evidence of what was agreed regarding the appointment time.
The landlord should keep detailed records of all contacts to arrange repair visits so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The landlord has failed to do that in this case. Due to the lack of records we cannot comment further on this issue or assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The landlord attended again on 12 February 2024 and completed the repair to resolve the low water pressure. This was 169 working days after the resident reported it, significantly over the standard repair timescale.
The resident reported the shower water temperature was continuing to fluctuate on 19 February 2024. This was the third time he had reported the issue in a 10 month period. He said an operative had told him it might need to fit a different type of shower and do some plumbing work to resolve the issue. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not do this on previous visits, it was reasonable that it took an incremental approach and did not complete all works at the outset. This was to ensure it only completed the required works to resolve the issue.
Following the third report, the landlord raised a job to upgrade the plumbing and replace the shower. It completed this on 25 July 2024, 109 working days after the resident re-reported this issue. This was significantly over the 20 working day standard repair timescale.
As the landlord needed to order parts, it would be reasonable to take slightly longer than the 20 working days. However, there was a delay of nearly 3 months in it arranging the works after it ordered the parts in April 2024. This was unreasonable and meant the resident and his family were unable to use the shower for an extended period. While inconvenient for the family, the impact was not significant as there is also a bath in the property which the household could use.

Toilet

On 10 January 2024 the resident reported a leak from the toilet into a cupboard below. The landlord raised a routine repair, which was reasonable as this was a containable leak. Two days later the resident reported the water leaking into the cupboard was discoloured and smelt like human waste. The landlord raised an emergency job. This was reasonable to manage the potential health and safety issue of human waste leaking in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It attended this repair the same day, in line with the committed timescale. It completed a temporary repair and identified that parts were needed to complete the full repair. As there was a second toilet in the property, it was reasonable that the landlord treated the full repair as a standard repair.
The landlord raised this job on 15 January 2024 and completed this 63 working days later, on 12 April 2024. This was significantly over the 20 working day timescale. This means there was an extended period the resident and his family could not use the bathroom toilet. While inconvenient, the impact was not significant as there is a second toilet in the property.

Extractor fan

The resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom on 12 January 2024 and asked for a more powerful extractor fan. The landlord inspected on 6 February 2024 and raised a job the same day to replace it. It was reasonable that the landlord inspected before arranging this, so it could confirm there were no other potential issues causing the damp and mould.
It was also reasonable that the landlord treated this job as a standard repair. It completed this on 20 April 2024, 52 working days after the job was raised. Again, this was significantly over standard repair timescale. This is particularly concerning as the landlord is aware there are vulnerable people in the household and should have ensured this was done within the committed timescale. Its failure to do so meant the family lived with worsening damp and mould in the bathroom for longer than necessary.

Conclusion

The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of these repairs, apologised and offered compensation. By the time of the stage 2 response, it had completed the toilet and extractor fan repairs. The response confirmed a future date it would attend to complete the shower and wash-hand basin repairs, which it subsequently did. This means it ultimately took appropriate steps to resolve the substantive issues.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £100 and £600 for maladministration findings where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. In this case, the delays caused inconvenience to the resident and his family and impacted their use and enjoyment of the property. While they were unable to use the toilet and shower for extended periods, this did not have a significant impact as there is a second toilet and a bath.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, the £450 compensation offered was reasonable for the period of our investigation. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his reports of bathroom repairs. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £450 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the stage 1 complaint said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within one working day. It aimed to send the response within 5 working days. If it was unable to do so it would tell the resident and send the response within 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 6 February 2024, 1 working day after it was made, in line with the policy timescale. It sent the response in 9 working days, in line with the extended 10 working day timescale. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident it was unable to respond within 5 working days, as committed in its policy.
On 1 April 2024 the resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and its ongoing handling of the repairs. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said if all or part of the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint at that time. It only did so after further contact from the resident in June 2024, when he told the landlord he had contacted us about his complaint.
The Code said a resident did not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Similarly, the resident did not have to specifically ask to escalate the complaint for this to happen. Therefore, the landlord should have escalated the complaint in April 2024, following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. Its failure to do so was not in line with the Code. As the landlord should have escalated the complaint in April 2024, we have assessed the timescale of the acknowledgement from this date.
At the time of the stage 2 complaint the landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It would respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 June 2024, 62 working days after the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. This was significantly over the 5 working day committed timescale. This equates to a delay of more than 8 weeks. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 13 working days, in line with the policy committed timescale.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had investigated the repairs over the previous 6 month period. This was reasonable and in line with the Code at the time that said complaint exclusions included issues that occurred over 6 months ago. In the stage 2 response the landlord changed its approach and said it had investigated the issues over the previous 12 month period. During the period between the stage 1 and 2 responses our Code and the landlord’s complaints policy were updated to say complaints should consider issues that had occurred within 12 months, rather than 6 months. Therefore, the landlord’s change in approach was reasonable.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response and provided additional information about the impact of the landlord’s failures on him and his family. In response, the landlord promptly reviewed this information and sent a revised response with an increased offer of compensation. This was appropriate and showed it was taking the matter seriously and wanted to put things right for the resident.
The landlord did not acknowledge failure in its handling of the complaint or offer any redress. Our compensation guidance says, where the complaints process is delayed by more than a few days and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this and made no attempt to put things right, the redress should be up to £100 compensation, an apology and learning. Considering the failures, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £75 compensation. We also order it to share learning from this complaint about escalating complaints to stage 2 with complaint handling staff.

Learning

If a resident asks for an improvement to resolve a repair, the landlord is not obligated to agree this. However, it should take action to address and resolve the repair issue.
The landlord should escalate complaints to stage 2 when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response or the landlord’s ongoing handling of the substantive issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There are missing records of contacts with the resident to arrange repair visits. This has impacted our ability to investigate all of the issues. It is essential that the landlord keeps detailed records of all contacts with residents. The landlord can access learning about record keeping via our centre for learning, including our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

The landlord should proactively update residents about the progress of repairs. It should not rely on resident’s chasing to progress repairs or give updates. Where the landlord cannot attend an appointment, it should tell the resident as soon as it becomes aware of this to minimise inconvenience.