Karbon Homes Limited (201910780)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910780

Karbon Homes Limited

15 December 2020

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 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

The tenant has complained:
1. About the number of bins provided.
2. About how the landlord responded to their concerns about the management of satellite dishes on the building.
3. That the landlord has not replaced the patio doors.
4. About the handling of the bathroom upgrade.
5. About the landlord’s response to reports of damp under the floor.
6. About the conduct and qualification of the landlord’s staff.
7. About the handling of the resulting formal complaint, including general communication, timescales and correspondence with the tenant’s MP.
This list of complaints was taken from the tenant’s letters and the landlord’s responses, and it was then confirmed with the tenant in an email from the Housing Ombudsman Service in May 2020.

Assessment and findings

Bins

The tenant has complained that there are insufficient bins at the building. The landlord has concluded that there are enough bins and will not provide anymore. The landlord’s decision was based on:
1. Its own visits in August and September 2019 (by Housing Officers) and in October and November (by the Head of Operations)
2. An inspection by the local Environmental Health department, following the tenant’s complaints to it about the landlord
3. Conversations with other residents by the landlord (though specific details of these have not been provided)
Each of these visits has concluded that the bin provision is sufficient: that the bins are in good repair and they are not overflowing.
Importantly, given there is a dispute between the tenant and landlord about whether the bin provision is sufficient, the landlord has been able to base its decision on the assessment of an expert, independent third party (the Environmental Heath Department’s inspection). With that evidence in mind, the landlord’s response to the complaint about the bins was reasonable.

Satellite dish

The tenant has complained that there are ‘illegally’ sited satellite dishes on the building and that the landlord has refused to remove them. They have stated that there is an ongoing enforcement case against the landlord by the council as a result.
To help alleviate the tenant’s concerns the landlord has previously explained that the maximum number of dishes were in place, and so no new dishes would be permitted. However it also correctly explained that if old dishes were removed it would have to consider any requests for new ones.
This is a reasonable approach as it allows residents to apply for the services they would like, but requires them to do so with appropriate reassurances. Most importantly any request must be accompanied by support from the local planning authority. As above, the involvement of an expert, independent third party (the council) should help determine any future dispute.
In terms of the existing satellite dishes the landlord received confirmation from the council that it was not taking enforcement action against it. As a result of the stage 1 complaint (made in July 2019 and responded to in December 2019) the landlord had agreed to arrange a contractor to survey existing dishes and remove any not in use.
The landlord has confirmed that this issue was raised by the tenant in August 2018, April 2019 and June 2019. Each enquiry/complaint received a response the same month. They explained the process for how satellite dishes were approved.
The landlord has accepted that there was a delay in the August 2018 response and apologised. Given the nature of the issue and the length of the delay an apology was a reasonable response.
However the landlord’s stage 1 (December 2019) and stage 2 (April 2020) as well as the ongoing correspondence have all failed to address why the survey of satellite dishes conducted in December 2019 was not arranged following the earlier concerns in 2018 and 2019.
The landlord’s tenant handbook sets out how permission must be sought and how it can offer guidance. However it does not address whether there are any requirements around when moving out, or when a dish becomes obsolete. Given the local authority’s restriction of numbers, as highlighted by the landlord to the tenant, it would be reasonable to expect any end of tenancy or general survey to try and manage the use of satellite dishes.
Ultimately the landlord’s response to a complaint is as important as the events which led to it. This is because the complaint process is in place so that the landlord can take action to address any concerns. The landlord used its complaint process to do that in this case, by arranging the survey of the satellite dishes as part of its stage 1 response.
There does not appear to have been any specific adverse effect on the tenant by the presence of the satellite dishes. This complaint does not appear to have stemmed from the tenant having their own request refused due to the existing dishes. Therefore while the landlord’s response to the concerns could have been more timely, the fact that it ultimately used the complaint procedure to put the matter right (as expected in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles), and the fact that the delay did not cause a significant adverse effect, means that the delay is not sufficient in itself for a finding against the landlord.

Patio doors

The tenant has complained that the patio doors were too stiff to open.
There was a series of appointments offered by the landlord and cancelled by the tenant in 2018 and 2019. Ultimately the tenant’s complaint came to focus on the fact that the Environmental Health Department’s report referred to the patio doors as a ‘category 2 hazard.’ As such they felt the landlord should have completed more significant repairs.
The Environmental Health Department’s report stated:

“Ergonomics

The sliding patio door is in good working order. Officers did not find the patio door to be stiff or otherwise and there were no defects to the door. The door handle was at a reasonable height and again in good working order, lockable from the inside. Very minor Category 2 hazard, no formal action required.”

The landlord’s stage 2 response correctly acknowledged that the wording in this report was confusing.
It is clear however from the report that the Environmental Health Department did not require any work to the patio doors from a safety point of view. Therefore the tenant’s focus on the need for repairs due to the category 2 hazard is not supported by the Environmental Health Department’s report which gave it that label.
It is not clear why the category 2 hazard was noted from the report. The landlord was trying to arrange a repair to replace the lock with the patio door before and after the report. Therefore it is not unreasonable to confirm that it may have referred to this. However this has not been confirmed by either party.
However the tenant cancelled 8 appointments concerning the patio doors before the landlord could access the property and determine that they were in working order. At this visit the landlord identified that lock had been replaced by a previous resident and so offered to replace it with the standard lock. The visit for this work was then declined or cancelled 4 times, before it was completed in January 2020.
Therefore the landlord has responded to this issue by basing its decision on the available evidence (including expert independent third party opinion), and it has done so across a long period of time despite the tenant’s repeated cancellations.

Bathroom

The tenant asked about when their bathroom would be upgrade in October 2018, following information that had been sent to all residents in 2017. At that time no specific date could be given. It was later stated to be due in 2021 with no further details.
The landlord stated that the tenant did not allow access for a surveyor to check the condition of the bathroom after the October 2018 enquiry. The tenant has disputed this saying the visit was no re-arranged. It is not possible to determine the reason for the incomplete survey based on the information provided by both parties.
The tenant did not however raise specific responsive repair requests with the landlord about the bathroom during this time. The landlord has an obligation to complete any repairs under the tenancy agreement. It does not have an obligation however to complete improvement works, though it may choose to do so as part of its management of its stock.
Given the lack of a survey, and given the lack of ongoing repair requests, it was reasonable that the property would simply enter the appropriate planned upgrade programme when available.
The tenant completed their own improvement works to the bathroom during this time. The landlord inspected the works (November 2019) during its joint visit with the Environmental Health Department. Both the landlord and the Environmental Health Department’s found that the works had not been completed to the required standard. Therefore the landlord wrote to the tenant with the list of required works.
This was a reasonable action to take as the landlord must manage the condition of its properties. Incomplete bathroom works could lead to leaks or other water damage. The landlord’s letter did not impose any enforcement action (beyond a deadline) and it did not remove the prior permission for the tenant to complete the improvement works. Therefore it was an appropriate response based on the evidence available to the landlord

Damp

The tenant has complained that the landlord has not resolved the cause of damp in the flooring, identified by a stain.
The landlord has explained
The landlord has carried at a series of its own inspections that would in themselves be sufficient to support the decision for no further work. However the Environmental Health Department has also produced a report that also confirms there is no ongoing damp issue in the flooring.
Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would not complete any works to the floor as there was no evidence of any work that was needed.
The tenant has also complained that this water staining is caused by a fault with the guttering leading to a leak. Some of these concerns date back to 2017 and so are outside the jurisdiction of this case. The Housing Ombudsman Service asks tenants to raise formal complaints within 6 months of an issue occurring.
More recently, the landlord has responded to concerns about the guttering in January, February, July and November 2019 to inspect and clear any blockages from the guttering. The landlord has explained that as the property is close to trees the guttering will become blocked. It has also explained that it is not possible for it to anticipate the blockages, and so its responses will often rely on receiving reports from tenants. The landlord has demonstrated that it will attend the property regularly (as seen from the visits above) to inspect the guttering.
Importantly, the Environmental Health Department’s report stated there was no evidence of damp or mould related to the guttering at the property.

Landlord staff

The tenant has repeatedly made requests that staff receive warnings or are disciplined. Personnel management is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service however. Our focus is on the service provided by the landlord as a whole.
The tenant’s complaint about the landlord staff focus on either that they have lied when investigating the various issues and complaint; or that they are not suitably qualified to complete inspections of the property.
In terms of the complaint, the landlord has provided the records supporting the timing of the visits referenced in the formal responses.
More importantly, the landlord’s response to the bins, satellite dishes, patio door and bathroom are all based as much on the opinion of the local council, as on its own. Therefore any concerns about the validity of the landlord’s staff’s conclusions, or their qualifications, are mitigated by the involvement of an independent, expert third party.

Complaint handling

Over the course of the complaint the tenant has complained:
1. About delayed responses to emails
2. That an MP’s enquiry was not responded to
3. That the complaint was not registered or then escalated correctly
4. That the landlord issue an unacceptable behaviour warning as retaliation for the formal complaint (NB – no restrictions were placed on the tenant’s contact, and the letter was a warning advising of how to improve contact based on the requirements of the unacceptable behaviour policy)
The landlord has upheld the complaint that not all of the tenant’s emails were responded to within the time it expects. Ultimately the impact of any delayed responses will be seen in how they affect the service delivery for any of the substantive issues above. The landlord has identified that one of the gutter clearances was overdue (from May to July). Other than this specific issues however there does not appear to have been any other service delay. This is largely because most of the substantive issues related to repairs or works that the landlord had previously explained were not required, or were affected by the tenant’s ongoing cancellations. Therefore the landlord’s apology and explanation of how it would review its service (as well as advice on how to contact the landlord in the future) were a reasonable response.
The landlord upheld the complaint that the MP’s enquiry was not responded to. It explained due to the involvement of multiple teams, no one took responsibility to respond. As a result it explained how the process for handling MP enquiries had been changed to avoid this in the future, and confirmed it had responded to the MP. Given the other ongoing correspondence, the apology and change to process was a reasonable response to this failure.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 6 months after it received the formal complaint. This is a failure of the complaint process as it is an unreasonable delay. The landlord did warn the tenant there would be a delay as it wanted to include the results of the Environmental Health Department’s inspection. However the inspection was not until September, already 2 months after the formal complaint.
During this time there was extensive email correspondence between the parties, as well as the visits and cancelled appointments listed above. Therefore each of the substantive issues had received responses prior to and following the formal complaint. Therefore the impact of the delayed stage 1 response was mitigated by the landlord’s other contact.
The tenant then escalated the complaint on 20 December 2019 but did not receive a response until April. Again this is an unreasonable delay in the process.
However, as above, there were also mitigating circumstances. The tenant’s escalation request was sent via an MP and it was not clear what the exact areas of concern / dispute were. The request was also 31 pages.
Therefore it appears that the complaint process has broken down with both parties. The tenant’s volume of correspondence, lack of focused, specific issues, and refusal to engage with appointments or specific questions limited how the landlord could investigate the complaint. Equally, the landlord took too long to respond, and has already upheld that its communication was not always as timely as it expects.
To avoid a similar breakdown in the future, I would recommend that the tenant only submits timely and focused complaints about specific issues or requests for action. This will allow the landlord to respond directly to these, and in a way that adheres to its complaint policy. The landlord’s advice to the tenant about the unacceptable behaviour policy should be seen as a part of this effort to improve communication on both sides.

Determination (decision)

Therefore I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme:
1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the bin provision
2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the satellite dishes
3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the patio doors
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the bathroom upgrade
5. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the reports of damp
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the landlord’s staff
7. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the formal complaint