Karbon Homes Limited (202524862)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202524862 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Karbon Homes Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
23 February 2026 |
Background
1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs and a damaged garden fence. She said it missed appointments, did not resolve the issues, and did not keep her updated on the progress of the repairs.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Repairs to the kitchen.
- Reports of a damaged fence.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a damaged fence.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
6. The landlord did not complete the kitchen repairs within its policy timescales, did not provide clear timeframes, and its offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment on the resident.
7. The landlord did not complete the garden fence repair within its policy timescales and did not keep the resident updated.
8. The landlord did not address all the issues the resident raised in her 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.
|
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:
|
No later than 23 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £850 made up as follows:
The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 23 March 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
29 May 2024 |
The resident raised a complaint. She said she had damp, slugs, and outstanding repairs in her kitchen. The landlord had not resolved these issues and had missed several appointments. She also said the back fence was unsafe. |
|
1 July 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it needed to complete kitchen repairs. It had previously ordered incorrect materials, but it had now ordered the correct materials. It would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. It also said it had inspected the garden fence and was checking ownership. It apologised for the delays and offered £150 compensation for the time taken to complete the kitchen repairs. |
|
22 November 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the kitchen work was still outstanding, and she had not received any updates on its progress. She also said the landlord had not provided an update about the fence. |
|
17 January 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been delays to the kitchen repairs and offered a further £50 compensation, which brought the total amount to £200. It also confirmed it was due to collect the replacement kitchen parts on 20 January 2025, and it would be in touch to arrange installation. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. To resolve the complaint, she asked for the landlord to complete the repairs. |
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 |
Repairs to the kitchen |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says major repairs are large internal jobs that need multiple visits. It aims to complete these repairs within 60 working days.
10. The resident reported flood damage to her kitchen on 15 December 2023. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 23 January 2024, which was 24 working days later and within its timescale for major repairs. During the inspection, it found that several kitchen units, panels, plinths, and skirting boards needed replacing.
11. The landlord ordered the replacement items on 26 April 2024. This was 91 working days after the resident first reported the issue and outside the 60 working day target to complete major repairs. It attended on 28 May 2024 to install the items, but the units did not match the colour of the existing kitchen.
12. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 July 2024. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge its delays. It apologised and confirmed it had now ordered the correct colour kitchen units and would be in touch to arrange installation. It also offered £150 compensation. Although its compensation policy does not specify set amounts, this offer was in line with our remedies guidance for failures that had an adverse impact on the resident.
13. However, by the date of the stage 2 response on 17 January 2025 the issue was still unresolved. The landlord accepted there had been a delay, but it did not explain what caused it. It also did not explain why it had not kept the resident updated or acknowledge the impact this would have had on her.
14. Its offer of a further £50 compensation at this stage did not reflect the significant delays and the impact on the resident. By this point, the repair had been unresolved for over a year, which was significantly outside of its 60 working day timescale for major repairs. The resident had said the damaged kitchen put her children at risk, and she had problems with slugs due to its condition. It also did not provide a clear timeframe for it to complete the repairs. This likely left the resident uncertain about the next steps and if it had taken her concern seriously.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord made a commitment to contact the resident to complete the repairs. This gave a reasonable expectation that it would complete the repairs within 60 working days of the stage 2 response, in line with its repairs policy. It attended an appointment it had made for 3 March 2025 but could not gain access. On the same day, it also found that it still did not have the correct colour doors and that one door was missing. There is no evidence that it took any action to order the correct doors or replace the missing one until May 2025.
16. The landlord rescheduled the installation appointment for 29 May 2025, but it recorded no access. It returned on 18 June 2025, but it still did not complete the work. By 7 July 2025, it said it needed to replace the full kitchen units because it could not colour match the existing units. By this point, 5 months had passed since it committed in its stage 2 response to installing the new units. This delay was significantly outside the 60 working day timescale set out in its repairs policy.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to change the scope of the work to a full kitchen unit replacement. Its repairs policy, which it updated in April 2025, says that it should renew the kitchen when it cannot match replacement units. However, once it made this decision, it again created a reasonable expectation that it would complete the replacement within 60 working days, in line with its repairs policy.
18. The landlord has informed us that it completed the repairs in the kitchen on 23 January 2026. This was 2 years after the resident first reported it. This was significantly outside of its 60 working day timescale for major repairs.
19. The landlord offered £200 compensation across both complaint responses for the delays in handling the kitchen repair. However, it did not acknowledge all its failings, and the amount did not reflect the prolonged impact on the resident. It did not meet its policy timescales, or set clear timeframes, and delayed ordering parts. These failures caused distress and inconvenience for the resident, who had raised concerns about the effect on her family life and her children’s safety. For these reasons, we find maladministration.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set fixed amounts, but it says repeated failures in service standards are a severe failure. Our remedies guidance recommends awards of up to £600 where the landlord’s actions have had an adverse effect on the resident. In this case, its delays and repeated failures continued over 2 years, which had a prolonged impact on the resident and her family. For this reason, we increase the total compensation to £600.
|
Complaint |
Garden fence |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
21. The landlord’s repairs policy says that standard repairs are routine, non‑emergency issues, and it aims to complete these within 20 working days.
22. The landlord found a leaning rear fence on 23 January 2024 and said it had ordered posts. However, by the stage 1 response on 1 July 2024, almost 6 months later, it had taken no further action. This delay was significantly outside the 20-working day timescale set out in its repairs policy.
23. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had inspected the fence on 1 July 2024 and was checking who owned it. It also said it would update the resident as soon as possible. However, it did not acknowledge that it had taken no action since finding the issue in January 2024, and it did not offer any redress for this delay.
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2024 and said she had still not received any updates about the fence. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025. This did not meet the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which says landlords must respond to all issues raised in a complaint. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and uncertainty about how it was handling her concerns.
25. The landlord told us it could not find who was responsible for the fence and therefore replaced it on 27 January 2026. This was 2 years after it first found the issue. This was significantly outside of the 20 working day timescales set out in its repairs policy for standard repairs. It did not keep the resident updated during this time, despite committing to do so in its stage 1 response. This resulted in the resident experiencing avoidable time, trouble, and inconvenience in repeatedly chasing progress. For these reasons, we have found maladministration.
26. We order the landlord to pay £200 compensation for the failings that resulted in inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse effect on the resident.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
27. The landlord uses a 2‑stage complaints process that follows the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. If it needs more time, it will explain the delay and request an extension up to 10 further working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If needed, it may request a further 20‑day extension.
28. The resident raised a complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 3 June 2024, 4 working days later. On 17 June 2024, it asked for more time to respond. It then sent its response on 1 July 2024, 23 working days after the resident raised her complaint. Although just outside the 10-working-day extension timeframe in its policy, there is no evidence this slight delay had any material impact on the resident. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for it to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response, which it did not do.
29. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about an infestation of slugs in her kitchen. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to respond to every issue raised and to give clear reasons for their decisions. By not addressing this matter, it showed that it had not fully understood the resident’s complaint or the outcome she sought. It also missed an opportunity to fully investigate and put things right, which was a service failure.
30. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2024. The landlord asked for more time to respond on 6 January 2025 because it had not been able to speak to the resident. It sent its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025, 38 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was in line with the timeframe set in its extension request and it also met its complaints policy, which allows an extension of up to 20 working days.
31. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to address all the issues raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not acknowledge this failure or put it right.
Learning
General learning
32. The landlord missed repairs timescales, and it did not rebook incomplete visits promptly. It could strengthen appointment and repair tracking, promptly rebook missed or incomplete visits, and monitor cases to ensure completion within policy timescales.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
33. The landlord kept good records of its actions to complete the repairs.
Communication
34. The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during repairs. The landlord did not consistently provide timeframes, explain delays, or follow up after key appointments. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.
Complaint handling
35. The landlord did not address all the issues the resident raised in her complaint. It could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.