Karbon Homes Limited (202425043)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about her heating system and loft extractor fan. She complained to the landlord because she felt that the issues caused increased gas usage and negatively affected her health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs relating to the heating and extractor fan.
   2. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs relating to the heating and extractor fan.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of repairs relating to the heating and extractor fan

4. The landlord attended to the repairs within its repairs policy timescales and offered some support. However,given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, repeated reports of high gas usage, and frequently cancelled appointments, it failed to fully respond to her concerns about her health or high energy bills.

Complaints

5. There were some minor delays in the landlord’s complaint handling which did not align with its policy at the time. However, these did not affect the overall outcome, and the responses were in line with timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code.

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

Landlord’s 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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said that the situation affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. The resident said she had experienced boiler issues since moving into the property. The landlord’s repairs records show that between February 2022 and March 2023 she raised 11 repairs for the boiler and radiators. The landlord attended and completed 5 repairs, on 3 visits it they found no issues and the resident cancelled 3 other appointments. It also completed its annual gas safety checks in line with its obligations. Given this, it was reasonable it had not identified a need to replace the boiler during this period.
8. On 17 March 2023 the resident reported that she felt she was spending “a fortune on gas” so the landlord raised an inspection. She cancelled the appointment, saying the boiler was not the issue but it was a draft coming from the loft hatch. It cancelled the boiler inspection and arranged to inspect the insulation and the roof. This showed it listened to her concerns. However, the landlord could have reviewed its repair records and considered arranging a boiler inspection as a precaution. Given the history of cancelled appointments and the resident’s vulnerabilities, this may have provided reassurance that all systems were working as intended.
9. Eight months later the resident again reported that her gas bills were too high and said she believed this was due to a faulty heating system. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had contacted her, and that during the call she reported the heating system was working correctly. While it was good practice to speak with her to understand her complaint, there is no evidence that it recorded the details of the call. It must ensure that it keeps accurate records to show a clear audit trail of events and communication.
10. When the resident raised further concerns about her gas usage,the landlord recommended that she bleed the radiators and read the boiler manual. It said she could contact it again once she had taken those steps. This aligned with the tenant handbook, which says residents are responsible for bleeding radiators. It also offered support through its financial support service. This was alsoin line with its tenant’s handbook which outlines its support offerfor residents who are struggling to pay bills. While these actions were positive steps, it again missed an opportunity to inspect the heating system to ensure it was functioning correctly. It could also have signposted her to her gas supplier to investigate her claim of high energy bills.
11. In its stage 1 response about the extractor fan, the landlord said it raised a job on 14 February 2024 and inspected on 6 March 2024. This was in line with its standard repair timescale of 20 working days. It ordered the parts quickly and completed the replacement on 22 March 2024. It acknowledged that the resident had chased this repair multiple times and apologised, despite it being within its repair timescale.
12. The resident reported having no heating or hot water on 26 March 2024 and 16 April 2024. Both times the landlord attended within 24 hours, in line with its repairs policy timescale for an emergency repair. It completed a temporary repair on both occasions, reinstating the services, before fitting a new boiler on 20 April 2024. It took 17 working days from the first report, to installing the new boiler. This was in line with its repair timescale of 20 working days.
13. During the time the resident was waiting for the new boiler, she raised a complaint. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it gave a timeline of events in relation to the boiler concerns, fan repair, and boiler replacement. While it apologised for failings, it did not identify what these were. It should have explained this clearly in its response and demonstrated learning for any identified failings.
14. The landlord had recorded that the resident has vulnerabilities including mobility issues and mental health vulnerabilities. This is positive, showing good record keeping and that it was aware of her personal circumstances. When she expressed her concerns about the property condition, it explored what support she was receiving to ensure she had relevant support in place. This demonstrates that it considered her vulnerabilities but it could have gone further as stated previously, in investigating the reason for her high energy bills and responding to her health concerns.
15. The landlord responded to all the repair issues in its stage 2 response, repeating the timeline given in its earlier responses. However, it failed to address the resident’s concern about her gas usage. She has told us that since the installation of the new boiler her gas bills have significantly decreased. Its compensation policy says it may reimburse for increased heating and utility costs. While we recognise this would require an identified service failure, it did not specify its identified failings and has not shown it considered this in its response. It should have responded to all complaint points in line with the Code and set out its position in relation to the gas usage. This resulted in the resident raising the issue multiple times after the complaint process ended.
16. The resident also mentioned suffering from health issues which she believed were caused by the fan not working in the loft space and property condition. The landlord’s compensation policy says that if a customer suffers loss or personal injury, it will refer them to its insurance provider. There is no record to show that it directed her to its insurance provider, and it did not respond to her health concerns in its response. As the resident mentioned the effect on her health multiple times, it should have given her the option of making an insurance claim for personal injury.
17. In summary, while the landlord attended to all repairs within its repairs policy timescales, it failed to respond to all the issues raised as set out above. For these reasons we have made finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay £75 for the identified failings. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when there has been a minor failure by a landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this. We have also made a recommendation for it to consider the resident’s gas usage for the period, if she is able to provide sufficient evidence.

18. At the time of this complaint, the landlord was operating a complaint policy which was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It had an acknowledgement timescale of 1 working day and a response time of 5 working days at both stages. However, it has since amended its policy which is now compliant with the Code.
19. The resident raised 3 complaints, and the landlord issued 3 stage 1 responses. The third response addressed a new issue and repeated the information given in its earlier complaint responses. It is not clear if this was intentional, or if the landlord failed to identify the earlier complaints.This approach benefitted the resident because it brought all the related concerns together. However, it would have been good practice for it to have explained that it was combining the complaints, to avoid any confusion.
20. When the resident asked to escalate the matter, the landlord progressed the combined issues to stage 2. While this was positive and ensured she received a response to all of the repairs, this was not in line with the Code. The Code states that when a new issue is raised, and a stage 1 response has been sent, a separate complaint should be raised and responded to.
21. The landlord acknowledged 2 of the complaints the next working day and responded within 5 working days in line with its policy at the time. It took 5 working days to acknowledge the third complaint, and 7 working days to respond. While this was outside the timescale set in its policy, it was compliant with the Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days in line with the Code. It took 39 working days to respond at stage 2. Whilst this is outside the timescale of 20 working days, it told the resident that it required an extension, explained why, and said when she would receive a response. This was in line with the Code which allows for a 20 working day extension timescale. We have, therefore, found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

23. While the landlord provided a stage 2 response which covered 3 individual complaints, it may wish to review the Complaint Handling Code to ensure that when new issues arise it is appropriately responding to complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. It was positive that the landlord had a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities which enabled it to ensure she had appropriate support. However, it is important for landlords to keep clear and accurate call records. It may wish to refer to our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

25. We found no communication issues and it was positive that the landlord spoke with the resident multiple times throughout the complaint process, showing commitment to resolving the issues.