Karbon Homes Limited (202523563)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202523563

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Karbon Homes Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

18 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives at the property with her husband and 2 adult children. There is a history of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports and counter allegations involving the resident and her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. We have found that:
    1. The landlord failed to follow its ASB policy on multiple occasions. Although it took some steps to address the issues, its actions did not go far enough to fully put things right for the resident.
    2. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy – delaying responses, not communicating promptly, and providing confusing outcomes.

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 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

15 April 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows:

  • £750 for its handling of her reports of ASB. This includes the £450 offered at stage 1 and an additional £300 in recognition of the additional failures identified in this report.
  • £100 for its handling of her complaint.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made in relation to the specific matters in this case.

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

15 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend that the landlord provides refresher ASB and complaint handling training to its staff if this has not been delivered recently.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

29 January 2025

The resident complained that the landlord had repeatedly mishandled her reports of ASB, harassment, and tenancy-related issues. She also felt the landlord had failed to provide her family with the appropriate support.

8 April 2025

The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:

  • It upheld the resident’s complaint as it had identified “multiple” service failures in how it had handled her reports of ASB, including poor communication, lack of updates and not following its ASB policy.
  • It offered the resident £450 compensation. Of this, £250 was in recognition of the “stress and inconvenience” caused, and £200 was for “service failure”.
  • It would conduct a review the resident’s reports of ASB from May 2024 onwards, to ensure all information was correctly logged and that appropriate actions were taken for each incident. It committed to providing her with the outcome of the review within 1 month.

11 June 2025

The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had not evidenced that it had learnt from her complaint, and it had yet to complete the actions it had committed to within its stage 1 response.

6 August 2025

The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It acknowledged its poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and apologised for failing to provide the outcome of its case review – attributing the delays to correspondence being “lost in translation”.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. In March 2026, she informed us that she continued to experience ASB after the stage 2 complaint, but the neighbour had recently moved and that she was no longer a tenant of the landlord, as she had since purchased her home. As an outcome, the resident wants the landlord to implement meaningful improvements to its ASB service and take “careful consideration” when reallocating the neighbour’s former property.

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

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Finding

Maladministration

What we will not investigate

  1. In January 2025, we made a determination (202337281) in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between November 2022 and June 2024. Therefore, this investigation will focus solely on the landlord’s actions after June 2024.
  2. It is not our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened. Instead, our role is to determine if the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if its response was fair in all the circumstances.
  3. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB had negatively impacted on her family’s mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  4. As explained earlier, the resident wants the landlord to take particular care when reallocating the neighbour’s former property to a new tenant. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about any future ASB and her wish to live a peaceful life. However, we cannot direct a landlord on how it allocates its housing stock.

What we did investigate

  1. The tenancy agreement says that a tenant must not block access points and parking spaces must be clear of unroadworthy vehicles. It further states that tenants must not carry out significant repairs to vehicles.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy says it will conduct regular visits and will be proactive in dealing with any estate management or tenancy issues particularly where there is a potential or alleged breach of tenancy conditions. It lists areas that it will inspect which include car parking areas.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it is committed to investigating all reports of ASB and neighbour nuisance and will implement appropriate and proportionate action. It will carry out an assessment of all ASB reports at the earliest opportunity, which will include an assessment of the individual needs of the victim and the risk of harm using a risk assessment.
  4. Between 25 June 2024 and 29 January 2025 (when the resident raised her formal complaint), the resident reported approximately 28 separate incidents of ASB against the neighbour. This mainly included allegations of intimidation, noise disturbance, parking, and vehicle maintenance issues. She told the landlord that she felt the neighbour’s actions were evidence of targeted harassment and it was impacting her daily life, including causing fear, distress, sleep disruption and worsening mental health for the household.
  5. We found that during this period, the landlord failed to consistently follow the requirements of its ASB policy, and consequently, its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was inadequate. In particular:
    1. It did not carry out any risk assessments, despite repeated reports suggesting potential harm and vulnerability.
    2. Its responses to the reports of ASB were frequently limited to acknowledgements and forwarded directly to its solicitor, without providing clear updates on any intended action.
    3. Its evidence‑gathering was insufficient, relying largely on information provided by the resident and not conducting proactive investigations such as targeted visits or independent verification.
    4. Its approach to identifying tenancy breaches was inconsistent, leading to contradictory assessments of similar behaviours.
    5. It failed to log several of the reported incidents on its internal systems, indicating poor record keeping.
  6. Given the above, it was positive that the landlord apologised within both of its complaint responses for its handling of the case. However, it did not give specific examples of when, how, or why the service failures had occurred. It also did not explain what steps it would take to prevent them from happening again. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord committed to carrying out a review of the resident’s ASB reports and to updating her on any enforcement action arising from it. This was an appropriate step and demonstrated an intention to put things right by ensuring all reports were fully considered. While we recognise that the landlord had to review a substantial amount of evidence, it was unreasonable that it did not provide the outcome of this review until 8 August 2025—4 months after its original commitment to do so within 1 month.
  8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it aims to provide tailored support to victims of ASB. It was appropriate that within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged that due to the alleged ASB, the resident was receiving support from external agencies for her mental health and offered further assistance if needed. However, given that the resident had repeatedly reported feeling “distressed” from as early as August 2024, its recognition of her wellbeing needs was unduly delayed.
  9. As the landlord did not provide its compensation calculation matrix, we have assessed its compensation offer using our own remedies guidance. This recommends awards of £600 to £1,000 where failures have significantly impacted the resident. Although the landlord’s offer of £450 demonstrates an attempt to put matters right, it is not proportionate to the extent of the failings identified or the impact on the resident. This is further aggravated by the fact the resident had previously experienced similar service issues (as noted in case 202337281), indicating that the landlord had not learned from earlier failures.
  10. Taking the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill payments policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint on 29 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged it 2 working days later, on 31 January 2025, which was within the target timescales set out in its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord arranged a telephone appointment with the resident for 5 February 2025 to discuss the complaint. However, the evidence suggests that the call did not go ahead due to staff absence. If the staff member was unavailable, the landlord should have ensured alternative arrangements were made—such as reallocating the call to another suitable officer or proactively informing the resident and rescheduling the appointment. This would have helped maintain good communication and avoid unnecessary delays in progressing the complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 April 2025, which was 47 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This exceeded the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, in mitigation, it is noted that some of the delays during this period were outside the landlord’s control, and the landlord accommodated the resident’s request for the outcome of the investigation to be discussed during a home visit.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 June 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this on 17 June 2025, which was within its required timescale.
  6. The landlord did not make further contact with the resident until 9 July—just 6 days before the response deadline of 15 July 2025. It also asked the resident if she was available on either 17 or 18 July 2025 to discuss the complaint in person. This late engagement restricted the time available to arrange a meeting, gather further information if required, and finalise the stage 2 investigation. Although the landlord’s policy and the Code allow extensions where there is “good reason”, the landlord did not explain why it had not contacted the resident sooner to progress the complaint. Earlier contact would have supported a more timely and efficient complaints process.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 1 August 2025, but the evidence shows that it did not provide the resident with a copy until 6 August 2025. Correspondence should always reflect the correct issue date to demonstrate compliance with complaint‑handling timescales. The overall response time was 36 working days, which fell within the extended timescales permitted under the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy states that its responses should be clearly categorised as upheld, partly upheld, or not upheld. However, the communication provided to the resident about this was inconsistent and confusing. At stage 1 the landlord said it had upheld the complaint, at stage 2 it described the complaint as partly upheld, but in the final paragraphs it stated that “despite not upholding your complaint”. The conflicting statements in the landlord’s responses created ambiguity about the final complaint outcome and the rationale in its decision making.
  9. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping during the handling of the ASB case was poor. Also, several pieces of key information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of this case was poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective housing management and complaints system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.