Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Karbon Homes Limited (202110697)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110697

Karbon Homes Limited

18 February 2022


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: –

 

  1. The resident’s reports of a leak to the roof of his property and its handling of the consequential repairs.

 

  1. The resident’s complaint.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background and scope of investigation

 

  1. The resident was the secure tenant of a two bedroomed property let to him by the landlord at the time the events which are the subject of this complaint took place. He has since left the property. Central to the complaint is the landlord’s delay in repairing a bedroom ceiling, damaged from a water leak from the roof of the property.

 

  1. The resident has reported that what transpired had an adverse impact on his mental health. This Service does not have the expertise to assess claims of personal injury, which is what would be required to take that aspect of his complaint into account. His representations are, however, referred to below to provide context only.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 14 December 2020 it noted it needed to investigate a leak to the roof of the resident’s property and an inspection was arranged for 5 January 2021. At that inspection, the conclusion was that the roof needed checking above the front bedroom, with the leak possibly being caused by a faulty roof tile. A repair was raised that day. The landlord also noted that the bedroom ceiling was “dipping” as a result of the leak; that it had a textured coating to it; and that an asbestos survey would be required before it decided what action to take to repair this. The records then note the roof repair itself was completed on 7 January 2021.

 

  1. In addition, at the inspection on 5 January 2021 it was noted that some plumbing maintenance was required in the bathroom, namely resealing the bath, checking the waste pipework, and fitting an ‘L’ shaped rail. Repairs were raised for these items the same day.

 

  1. On 5 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord complaining that nothing further had been done. He stated he was unable to have his child at the property to stay “in case the roof comes in” and expressed his frustration at the situation.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show the plumbing issues were completed on 5 March 2021. 

 

  1. On 29 March 2021, 7 April 2021 and 8 April 2021 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint.

 

  1. On 9 April 2020 the landlord contacted the resident. Its system showed all repairs had been completed. It offered to carry out an inspection, but the resident requested his complaint be escalated to a senior staff member.

 

  1. On 12 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, attaching its formal acknowledgment of his complaint and requesting him to make contact so the situation could be discussed. Subject to this, it anticipated providing a response within five working days.

 

  1. There then followed a series of emails between resident and landlord over the next two days. The resident explained that he had reported the problem with the roof in December 2020. He stated that the “roof was falling in” meaning cold air was coming through it into the property and he had accrued a “massive gas bill to keep warm” as a result. Further, he had not been able to have his child for staying contact as the bedroom could not be used. In addition, the electric was prone to ‘tripping’ when he used the shower and the bathroom light pull cord had detached. He reported that nothing had been done even though he had complained in January. By way of remedy, he wanted a refund of six months’ worth of rent.

 

  1. The landlord responded by suggesting three dates when it could attend to carry out an inspection of the outstanding items, but the resident replied that a visit had taken place on 5 January 2021 and questioned why another was required. The landlord replied, explaining that according to its records the work identified at the previous inspection on 5 January had been completed. It therefore needed to inspect those works to see why the problem had not been resolved.

 

  1. The resident replied, explaining he was working at the suggested times and could not accommodate the proposed visit. The landlord requested he nominate an alternative time when he would be available.

 

  1. On 20 April 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had no available time to accommodate an inspection due to work commitments. He reiterated that the roof needed fixing, an electric socket needed replacing, and the bathroom needed a new light switch, and he wanted these works completed by 30 April 2021, failing which he would take legal action. The landlord responded that it would arrange the repairs to the socket and the pull cord but ideally it did need to inspect the work already done to the roof. The resident responded, providing a photograph of his bedroom ceiling which he referred to as “the roof” and which he considered demonstrated that the ceiling had a crack in it; that it also had a hole in it; and that it was bowed. He also chased the outcome of his complaint on that day.

 

  1. The landlord emailed the resident again later that day, 20 April 2021 asking him to nominate a time when it could access his property to carry out the repairs. It restated that it needed to inspect the ceiling and to check the loft and/or roof to make sure it was weather tight/dry before doing any repairs to that ceiling. Attendances were then arranged for 26 and 27 April 2021.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 22 April 2021 it arranged the work with its electrical contractor relating to the electric socket and pull cord.

 

  1. On 23 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that he was in arrears with his rent. The resident contacted the landlord, requesting that this action be added to his complaint as he considered it was inappropriate under the circumstances and given he was expecting rent to be written off. The landlord replied on 26 April 2021 agreeing to add the resident’s representation to the complaint.

 

  1. On 27 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that its electrician had attended the previous day but had not been instructed to repair the shower – he was there for the socket and the pull cord. He wanted this omission to be added to his complaint. The landlord responded that it would get the work “programmed in”.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 28 April 2021 it raised jobs to remove the textured coating from the bedroom ceiling; to air test it; and to then reskim (plaster) that ceiling. These jobs were scheduled to take place on 5 May 2021. Its records for that day show that the work went ahead with the first two tasks being completed, and also that an electrician had attended to replace the shower and also to remove the bedroom light fitting whilst the ceiling was being dealt with.

 

  1. Late that evening, the resident reported to the landlord that when its contractor had worked on his bedroom ceiling, it had created a hole in the ceiling of the adjoining landing space and also that the upstairs lights were no longer working.

 

  1. Early the following morning, the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend to repair the lighting that day and for its contractor to finish the bedroom ceiling and repair the landing ceiling. The electrician reported that the bedroom light itself could not be reinstalled until the plastering was finished. This was completed on 10 May 2021.

 

  1. On 12 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that as at 10 May all repairs had been completed. The landlord responded, asking for the resident’s availability for it to attend to carry out the subsequent redecoration.

 

  1. On 13 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its response to his complaint pursuant to the first stage of its complaints procedure. It understood his complaint was made on 5 February 2021 and related to a leak to his roof which had caused his ceiling to “dip”. As a result of this he had been unable to accommodate staying contact with his daughter. Further it noted that, on 26 April 2021, the resident had expanded his complaint to include correspondence the landlord had sent about outstanding rent. The resident’s preferred solution was for the roof and ceiling to be repaired along with a light socket pullcord and shower and for £800 back dated rent. Its conclusions were as follows:

 

  1. The resident had reported an issue with the roof at his property and consequently with the ceiling on 14 December 2020.  An inspection was booked for 5 January 2021. The landlord’s surveyor had attended and determined that repairs were needed to the roof and that the bath needed resealing and a shower rail needed fitting. No repairs were raised in connection with the ceiling. The roof repair was concluded on 7 January 2021 and the bath/shower on 5 March 2021.

 

  1. In terms of the complaint itself, the landlord noted that the resident logged this on 5 February 2021, and it had related to both the rent and the outstanding works. However, whilst the rent query was dealt with, no complaint was raised in respect of the repairs.

 

  1. The resident had sent various emails during February, March and April 2021 raising concerns about the outstanding roof repairs. The landlord had tried to deal with the repairs’ complaint informally at the end of March but the resident was not agreeable to this and so it had progressed to the first stage of its complaints procedure.

 

d. The landlord understood the outstanding repairs, as far as the resident was concerned, consisted of the fact the roof was still leaking; a ceiling needed replacement; there was an electrical socket that needed repair along with a pull cord repair; and there was also a repair outstanding to the shower.

 

  1. The landlord confirmed it had carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. Initially, it had concluded the ceiling did not need replacement, but on this further visit, it had now changed its view. Accordingly, works were now being put in hand. The landlord apologised for the fact that “additional works” to the landing ceiling were caused at that visit.

 

  1. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in repairing the bedroom ceiling which had prevented the room from being used from 14 December 2020 to 16 May 2021, which it calculated at 22 weeks. It apologised for this and agreed the service it had offered had fallen below the standard it aimed to provide.

 

  1. By way of remedy the landlord offered compensation. It calculated that the resident’s property consisted of five living spaces, kitchen, bathroom, living room and two bedrooms.  The resident had been unable to use one of the bedrooms for the 22 weeks in question. This represented 20% of his living space and it therefore offered a 20% reduction in rent for the relevant period. It calculated this as 22 weeks @ £19.78, total £435.16.

 

  1. In addition, it offered further compensation of £210 made up of £50 for the resident’s time in pursuing his complaint, £80 for the delay in repairing the ceiling, and a goodwill gesture of £80 due to the additional works caused at the inspection.

 

  1. In total, the landlord offered compensation of £645.16. It also offered to decorate both bedroom and landing ceilings.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord in response the same day, advising he was dissatisfied with the rent reduction of 20% “due to the lack of services”. He elaborated in an email the next day that he had had a substantial heating bill due to the hole in the ceiling and it being winter. He stated the situation had adversely impacted his mental health. He confirmed he was seeking compensation of £2,000. In a further email on 19 May 2021, the resident confirmed he wanted his rent cancelled for the 22 weeks the ceiling repair was outstanding but did not state whether that was included in the figure he had provided earlier.

 

  1. On 24 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident confirming it was escalating his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure on the basis he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. It confirmed he would be contacted by a senior staff member but asked if the resident wanted this deferred as it was aware of a personal issue taking priority for the resident. The resident responded that he wanted to continue but by email only.

 

  1. Also, on 24 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to advise 15 June 2021 would be convenient for the redecoration works.

 

  1. On 26 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his request to escalate his complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure on the basis that he remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered. It noted his preference to only be contacted in writing.

 

  1. On 1 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its stage two complaint review. It again accepted that there had been service failures in dealing with the roof leak and associated damage and also in causing further damage whilst repairing the bedroom ceiling. It apologised and reviewed the amount of compensation offered. It concluded that the amount offered had been calculated correctly and in accordance with its compensation policy. It considered the offer was therefore appropriate and represented a fair and reasonable resolution to the complaint. In conclusion it reoffered the sum of £645.16 for the resident’s possible agreement.

 

  1. On 15 June 2021 the resident chased payment of the £645.16 compensation and the landlord’s internal records show that it was only at this stage that the landlord was aware the offer was being “accepted”. It then arranged to credit it against rent arrears which had accrued against the property, although the resident represented that this was unfair, and the money should be paid to him direct.

Agreements, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Payments Procedure contains the following provisions: –

 

  1. It has two methods of calculating compensation which are for loss of use of part of property, and for failure to meet published standards of service.

 

  1. The first category is calculated on the basis of a 20% rent reduction, up to a maximum of one week’s rent.

 

  1. The second category is calculated at a flat rate of £10.

 

  1. Where damage is caused by a contractor, it should be made good, or the resident compensated for the cost of putting it right.

 

  1. It confirms that where compensation is offered to a resident, it can be paid by way of a credit to a rent account where there are outstanding arrears. 

 

  1. The landlord then operates a Compensation and Goodwill Payments Policy “to clarify the circumstances under which compensation will be considered” and which sets out guidance for calculating levels of compensation which may be appropriate.

 

  1. It sets out when compensation will be considered, and includes the following instances, namely, where there have been failures in the standard of service offered; where a resident has suffered the loss of use of all or part of their home as a result of the landlord’s actions/inaction; where a customer’s utility bills have increased due to use of electric heaters as a temporary solution; and where an unreasonable amount of time has been spent by the resident pursuing their complaint. 

 

  1. Finally, it states that the level of compensation where a complaint has been delayed is £25. 

 

Assessment and Findings

 

The leak to the roof and consequent repairs

 

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord was responsible for the repairs in question, and it has conceded that the time taken to conclude them exceeded its service standards. This was an appropriate response given the sequence of events in this case and as outlined above.

 

  1. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that there was a delay in the initial inspection taking place – the resident had to wait over three weeks for an attendance; and the repair to the resident’s bedroom ceiling in particular was delayed from December 2020 to May 2021. The work to the ceiling was not identified in January 2021 – the landlord considered its condition was acceptable. However, it later agreed this had been incorrect. It had not, therefore, actioned any repairs to the ceiling from its January visit and it had taken numerous reminders and a formal complaint from the resident to prompt any movement forward.

 

  1. According to the evidence some confusion was caused by the resident referring to the ceiling as “the roof” as the landlord took this to mean exactly that and wanted to investigate whether the initial external repair had been carried out effectively. However, in the Ombudsman’s view this did not add to the delay in a significant way.

 

  1. At the outset and along the way, the resident reported various other repairs relating to plumbing and electrics which were dealt with, but the primary focus of this complaint has been about the ceiling repair and the impact of that delay on the resident.

 

  1. Photographic evidence of the damage to the ceiling has been provided. However, this Service cannot verify the authenticity of that evidence in terms of when and where it was taken. Even if it was possible to make that confirmation, what can be noted from that photograph, however, is that it does not support the resident’s descriptions, as contained in his communications, of the roof falling in or of very extensive cracking and/or a ‘large’ hole.

 

  1. Notwithstanding this, the landlord has agreed with the resident’s view that the bedroom could not be used whilst the repair was outstanding. This meant the resident could not have staying contact with his child. The Ombudsman takes note of the fact this was not a one-bedroomed property but nevertheless notes this would have been inconvenient for the resident and he reasonably reports finding the situation frustrating and distressing.

 

  1. The resident considers he should not have been expected to pay rent during this period at all. However, the Ombudsman does not agree with that view. This is because, whilst the resident’s use of his property was restricted, the property was not rendered uninhabitable and the resident accepted the tenancy on the basis that he would be liable for rent for his use and occupation of the property. The landlord has assessed the impact as there being five living spaces and the loss of one equates to a 20% loss – it has therefore offered a 20% rent reduction. This was a reasonable approach to take as it offered proportionate redress for the actual loss of use.  Further, its Compensation and Goodwill Payments Procedure states such a reduction should be limited to a maximum equivalent of one week’s rent – but the offer made significantly exceeded that calculation. 

 

  1. The landlord’s procedure also states that any failures to meet service standards should be compensated at a flat rate of £10. Notwithstanding that, it offered compensation of £160 in total for its failure to get the ceiling repaired and because it was necessary to repair a further hole in the landing ceiling, caused by its contractor. The Ombudsman considers this to have been an appropriate offer in the circumstances, reflecting the additional inconvenience the resident experienced. 

 

  1. Finally, the landlord offered to carry out the redecoration works required following the ceiling repairs. Whilst the landlord has not been able to produce the tenancy agreement confirming this would have been the resident’s responsibility, it is reasonable to conclude that that agreement would have placed that onus of that task on the resident’s shoulders. Accordingly, this has been taken into account as part of the overall offer of redress made by the landlord.

 

  1. The resident has stated he incurred additional fuel costs in heating the house with the crack and/or hole in the ceiling. However, no evidence has been offered by him from which it is possible to confirm that cost to him. He might reasonably have provided his fuel bill together with previous bills for the same period to evidence the difference but has not done so despite being given reasonable opportunities to provide that evidence to this service. Accordingly, this loss to him cannot be accounted for in this investigation.

 

  1. All properties need maintenance and repair from time to time, irrespective of whether the resident is a tenant or an owner/occupier. The fact repairs were necessary does not, in itself, prove service failings on the landlord’s part. A landlord’s repair responsibility commences from the point at which it is made aware of an issue – usually following a report from a tenant. It is necessary, therefore, to consider the landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of what additional impact there was from its delay following the report it received. Had there not been one, the resident would still have experienced some disruption to his living conditions in any event.

 

  1. Taking all the circumstances of this complaint into consideration, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord has already offered reasonable redress with the offer of compensation made and to carry out redecoration at its own expense.

 

  1. Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted reasonably in writing to the resident about rent arrears. It had not been established, at that point, that no rent was payable, and indeed, this was not the outcome in any event. Further the landlord acted reasonably in seeking to offset any compensation awarded against the arrears as this was appropriate according to its Compensation and Goodwill Payments Procedure. The Ombudsman accepts a landlord paying compensation in this way as long as this is clearly explained to the resident.

 

The Complaint

 

  1. The landlord has accepted there was a delay in its handling of the resident’s complaint and indeed, the evidence, as set out above, confirms this was the case. The complaint was made in early February 2021 but was not properly acknowledged until 12 April. The landlord stated it would supply its response in five working days but then did not do so until 13 May 2021, some 6 weeks later. Its stage two complaint response was handled more efficiently once the landlord had identified the reasoning behind the request for its escalation.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Payments Policy provides for compensation of £25 in this situation but in fact it offered £50. This is considered to offer reasonable redress to this aspect of the complaint; the offer accords with the landlord’s own policy, and is also in line with the Ombudsman’s experience of compensation paid out in similar circumstances.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the leak to the resident’s roof and the consequential repairs.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. 

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident reported a leak to his roof which had caused damage to his bedroom ceiling. He also reported other maintenance/repair issues. There were delays by the landlord in handling these matters, particularly the ceiling repair which is the primary focus of this complaint. The landlord accepted its failings, which was appropriate and offered compensation/redecoration. That compensation has been calculated in accordance with its policies and procedures and its offer was therefore appropriate.

 

  1. The landlord has also accepted delay on its behalf in dealing with the resident’s complaint about the situation and has offered compensation which, again, was appropriate to its policies/procedures.

 

 

Orders and Recommendations

 

Recommendation

 

  1. The landlord to pay the compensation of £645.16 to the resident, if it has not already done so, or offset against arrears (if applicable), as it recognised genuine elements of service failure and the above finding is made based on that sum being paid.