Karbon Homes Limited inc Byker Community Trust (202346160)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346160

Karbon Homes Limited inc Byker Community Trust

21 October 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house owned by the landlord. He lives with his son, aged 9 at the time of the complaint.
  2. On 2 November 2023, the resident made a report to the landlord about a leak coming through his loft into his bedroom. He entered the loft and found a beam soaking but could not see where the leak was coming from. It spoke to him on the same day and raised works.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the ongoing leak on 6 and 7 November 2023. He said his home constantly smelt of damp and he and his son had been suffering with bad chests and coughs. He explained that whenever there was heavy rainfall, water would come through his bedroom ceiling and the whole north-facing side of the house would get damp and mouldy. It had promised him a callback a week earlier which he had not received, despite exchanging emails with it.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 December 2023. It acknowledged that its communication with him had been poor, leading him to chase it for updates. It agreed that it had visited his home on multiple occasions, claiming there was no issue. It stated the delays had caused damage to the decoration in his lounge and bedroom. It gave a date of 11 December 2023 for completion of roof repairs, advised it would survey the external render on the property for repairs and complete these as soon as possible. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the identified failings, along with an apology.
  5. The evidence provided to this Service by the landlord demonstrates that the resident requested escalation of his complaint on an unknown date between 6 December and 21 December 2023, when it emailed him to arrange a home visit to discuss his concerns. It visited him on 10 January 2024 and found that there was still water entering the lounge and damage to internal decoration. The mould problems in the lounge and bedroom were persisting and he felt the compensation offered at stage 1 was not sufficient.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 25 January 2024, the landlord explained the issue it had identified with water ingress to the lounge and confirmed that the roof works were complete. It had made an appointment for Monday 29 January 2024 to survey works to the render, which it would arrange replacement of. It would also arrange for a surveyor to inspect the ongoing damp and mould issues and for installation of a kitchen extractor fan. It offered a total of £225 compensation and to redecorate his lounge and paint his bedroom ceiling.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the time the landlord had taken to complete repairs and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect that the issues have had on his and his child’s health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and the resident’s health concerns as under paragraph 42.f the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. However, the Ombudsman will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to their health is more appropriate for the courts and he may wish to seek appropriate advice if he wishes to consider that option.

Leak repairs, damp, and mould.

  1. The resident reported ongoing issues with a roof leak to the landlord on 2 November 2023. It spoke to him on the same day and then stated internally that it had visited the property previously, but it had been unable to find the source of the leak. It also noted that the issue had been ongoing since 2019. It logged the issue as a standard repair, as it did not believe it to be an emergency. In its repairs policy, it defines standard repairs as those of a routine nature that it cannot define as an emergency. While this Service appreciates that the matter was distressing for the resident, the landlord’s decision to categorise the repair this way was reasonable in the circumstances as the leak was weather dependent and not continuous.
  2. In his formal complaint to the landlord of 6 November 2023, the resident stated that the leak had been ongoing for over a year, but it had not found any issues when it had attended. He followed this with a further email on 7 November 2023, in which he described his house and belongings smelling of damp and becoming mouldy. He had not received a callback as promised on 2 November 2023. It acknowledged his complaint on 8 November 2023, within the 5 working day acknowledgement period defined by its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 7 November 2023 but could not complete repairs as it required scaffolding to do so. Its contractor installed scaffolding on 23 November 2023, and it attended to complete works on 30 November 2023. Unfortunately, it was unable to complete works on that date due to poor weather conditions. It rescheduled the works for 11 December 2023. The erection of scaffolding and attendance to attempt works on 30 November 2023 were both within its policy timescale of 20 working days for a standard repair.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response of 6 December 2023, the landlord wrote that the resident had advised it that the roof leak had been ongoing since July 2023. It acknowledged poor communication with him and that it had visited multiple times, with its staff claiming there were no issues. It advised him of the works booked for 11 December 2023, that it had arranged for a survey of the external property render and to complete follow-up works as soon as possible and offered a compensation payment of £150 for poor service, along with an apology for this. Its response was fair and focused on resolving the ongoing issues, while acknowledging its previous failings.
  5. The landlord completed works to the roof on 11 December 2023, as advised. This was 27 working days after the resident’s report of the leak and while it did exceed its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days, this was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It must account for the safety of its operatives and by attending on 30 November 2023 to attempt works, it demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issue.
  6. It is unclear when the resident requested escalation of his complaint, but the landlord emailed him on 21 December 2023 to arrange a home visit to discuss his concerns. By this point, it had requested a joint site visit with its contractor to assess the required investigative and follow-up works to the render before or after the Christmas holidays. In this email, it stated that it had identified potential issues from its inspection of the property such as the insulation holding moisture or a crack in the render. This indicates that it had completed another task offered as part of its stage 1 complaint response. It continued to show a willingness to complete actions in a timely manner and engage with the resident to understand his concerns.
  7. The landlord visited the resident at home on 10 January 2024 to discuss his complaint and it identified 3 issues of concern, the roof leak, water ingress above the lounge window and minor mould issues within the lounge and bedroom. It noted that there had been no further leaks since it completed the roof repairs but said that it would get its survey to inspect for damp and mould and that the external render was in a poor state of repair and required renewing. By completing the home visit and confirming actions going forward, the landlord demonstrated a customer and purposeful approach to the complaint.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 25 January 2024, it explained that following its survey of his property it believed the water ingress into his lounge was separate to the roof issue. It said that it would arrange to repair and replace the external render and that it would establish the start date for these works following its visit with the contractor on 29 January 2024. It would also arrange for a surveyor to visit his property so it could diagnose and monitor the damp and mould issues, along with arranging installation of a kitchen extractor fan to see if this would help. It made an increased compensation offer of £225, broken down as follows:
    1. £50 for delays to the roof repairs.
    2. £75 to allow the resident to purchase the paint for the lounge walls.
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience he had suffered.
  9. In addition to the remedies offered above, the landlord also offered to paint the resident’s bedroom ceiling and redecorate his lounge. Its stage 2 response was thorough, and the actions offered were appropriate to the ongoing issues. Its offer of compensation was in line with the remedies guidance published by the Ombudsman.
  10. The landlord’s contractor provided a quote for rendering works on 30 January 2024, and it approved this the same day. It visited again to complete a damp inspection on 2 February 2024 and identified further minor issues with the guttering of a neighbouring property which may have been contributing to the issues of water ingress to the lounge. It completed all identified external works by 15 March 2024, except for snagging works which it had completed by 22 April 2024. It also worked to install a kitchen window extractor fan, but found issues with building regulations and agreed with the resident to install a window that could open instead.
  11. The timescales in which the landlord completed works were reasonable, due to the number of different contractors required and works to be organised. Its repairs policy states that major repairs include works that require careful planning and consideration prior to commencement, and these have a 60-working day timescale. It completed all works other than the installation of the kitchen window extractor fan within this timescale. However, it had raised these works and ordered a bespoke window within this time ahead of finding out it was unable to install this, which further demonstrates the actions it was taking to assist the resident.
  12. Overall, while there had clearly been issues with the roof leak prior to the period of this complaint it is apparent that the landlord had been unable to discover the issue sooner. The landlord’s complaint responses were clear, and the redress offered shows that it considered matters prior to November 2023. Its approach to repairs was thorough, which it demonstrated by arranging of further works following its survey on 2 February 2024. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord completes a further damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property to assess whether the issue remains ongoing and if so, arrange to complete any further necessary or previously offered works.
  2. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident the compensation amount of £225 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already. The offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.