Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Karbon Homes Limited (202315542)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315542

Karbon Homes Limited

18 June 2025


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:
    1. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. Reports of delays with installing safeguarding measures at the property.
    4. Concerns about a ‘visit in pairs’ marker.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the housing association. The landlord was aware that the resident was registered as disabled. The resident lived at the property from 2012 until February 2025.
  2. In October 2022, the resident’s MP raised concerns with the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the resident’s neighbours. The landlord responded by confirming that it had closed an earlier ASB case in August 2022 about a neighbour making derogatory remarks, as it had not received any new reports. It said that it had investigated all incidents in line with its ASB Policy and confirmed that the resident had a high priority for relocation.
  3. Around the same time, neighbours raised concerns about the resident lighting fires in his garden. The landlord confirmed that he used a safe container and burned only paper and untreated wood.
  4. On 21 October 2022, the landlord responded to a report of verbal abuse from the resident by contacting the neighbour on the same day. Subsequently, on 4 November 2022, the landlord issued a formal tenancy warning to the neighbour regarding the verbal abuse report.
  5. In November 2022, the Local Authority received a separate complaint about fires and visited the resident, informing him that he could not have fires in his garden. On 10 November 2022, the Fire and Rescue Service, Police, and the Safer Communities Officer (SCO) conducted a joint visit. They advised the resident against having fires, and the SCO apologised for earlier misinformation. During this visit, police seized weapons from the property.
  6. From January 2023 to March 2023, more ASB concerns were raised by the resident, including harassment, drug-related activities, and dog barking. The landlord recommended that the resident report any criminal matters to the police and said it would act where there was evidence of tenancy breaches.
  7. On 18 July 2023, the resident complained that the landlord had not taken his ASB reports seriously and said the SCO had acted unprofessionally. In its stage 1 response on 28 July 2022, the landlord said it found no evidence of poor conduct but apologised if the resident felt the SCO’s behaviour was unacceptable. It was recorded that the resident wanted an apology to resolve the complaint.
  8. On 31 July 2023, the resident disputed this. He said the SCO had ignored his ASB concerns, and he said that the SCO had not installed safeguarding measures to his property (alarms and door chains), which had been agreed upon in November 2022. In a second-stage response on 8 August 2022, the landlord explained that it had not installed the equipment earlier because it could not gain access but had booked a new appointment for 8 August 2023. It also said it had received counter reports about the resident’s behaviour and had asked him to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA).
  9. After the resident contacted our Service in October 2023, we asked that the landlord issue a stage 2 response. On 3 November 2023, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised for not escalating the complaint sooner and acknowledged that the resident had not asked for an apology as a resolution. It confirmed the safety measures were in place and found no evidence that the SCO had acted unprofessionally. The landlord confirmed the resident had raised concerns in a call in October 2022 about a ‘visit in pairs’ marker on his address. The landlord explained that it had added this due to safety concerns after police had found weapons at the property. It said it had a duty of care to protect staff and contractors.
  10. On 17 November 2023, the resident contacted our Service, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He requested an investigation into his complaint and asked to be moved from his property as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. In our assessment, we have focused on the aspects within our jurisdiction. We did not evaluate the legality of any police searches, as that falls under police procedures, which are outside our jurisdiction. However, we have assessed how the landlord managed the situation with its staff member, following relevant policies and procedures.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about ASB from neighbours dating back to 2019. We expect residents to raise formal complaints to the landlord within a reasonable time. Although the resident may have reported issues previously, it is unclear whether a formal complaint was raised before the one in July 2023. Therefore, we have focused our assessment on events from August 2022 onwards. This is when the resident both applied for a transfer and began reporting new ASB concerns, which he later referred to in his formal complaint of July 2023.

Concerns regarding staff conduct

  1. On 10 November 2022, the resident raised concerns about the SCO’s conduct following a visit to his home by the SCO and police. He said he felt that the visit invaded his privacy, as he thought the visit would focus on discussing fire safety and offering support for ASB. Instead, the police officers seized weapons from his property. The resident said that he felt misled and intimidated, asserting that the search was unlawful and carried out under false pretences and that the SCO had taken advantage of him.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Suggestions Policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the service standard provided, including the actions of staff. The policy confirms that the landlord will respond to complaints fairly and impartially while investigating all relevant concerns. Although it does not specify the procedure for addressing complaints about staff conduct, we expect the landlord to take proportionate steps to investigate the facts. This may involve taking a statement from the SCO, checking for any witnesses present, reviewing records made at the time, and explaining the basis for any findings reached.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the visit occurred but did not provide evidence of any investigation into the specific allegations made about the SCO. The landlord also did not give evidence to our Service to show it had interviewed the officer or reviewed their case notes from the visit. It concluded there was no staff misconduct but did not explain how it arrived at that conclusion. Without evidence, we cannot conclude that the landlord reached a reasonable conclusion.
  4. Before his complaint in November 2022, the resident expressed a desire to stop working with the SCO and asked that another officer manage his case. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses but assigned the same officer, citing insufficient evidence of unprofessional behaviour. Although the landlord’s decision to keep the SCO on the case was one it was entitled to make, it did not show that it had considered reallocating another SCO to promote a positive relationship, given the concerns raised.
  5. We have considered the landlord’s Behaviour Framework, which expects staff to act professionally and sensitively, particularly in interactions with vulnerable residents. Although the landlord apologised for any upset caused by the SCO, it did not acknowledge the broader impact on the resident’s trust in the SCO or show that it looked to rebuild confidence in a meaningful way, which was a missed opportunity.
  6. In summary, although the landlord responded to the complaint and offered an apology, it did not fully consider the resident’s concerns. The investigation lacked transparency, as there was no evidence that the SCO had been interviewed or that any investigation had taken place. Without evidence of how the landlord reached its conclusion, we cannot be satisfied with the thoroughness of its response. We have found a service failure because the landlord did not adequately investigate concerns in line with its Complaints Policy expectations. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation, which is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will take all reports of ASB seriously and act proportionately, basing its response on the available evidence. The policy commits to working closely with partner agencies, including the police and other statutory bodies, to resolve ASB where possible. It also outlines a range of tools and interventions available to address ASB, such as ABA’s and tenancy warnings. The policy recognises the importance of managing residents’ expectations by providing clear information about what action it can and cannot take.
  2. Between August 2022 and March 2023, the resident reported various incidents involving his neighbours, including verbal abuse, harassment, and noise nuisance (such as dog barking). He also reported criminal activities, including cannabis cultivation and drug dealing. The landlord responded by contacting the relevant parties, liaising with the police, conducting risk assessments, issuing tenancy warnings, arranging joint visits, and encouraging the resident to report any criminal matters to the police.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to each report made by the resident, considering the specific circumstances and balancing the need for proportionate actions against the availability of evidence. Where reports could not be substantiated, the landlord communicated the reasons why further action was not possible.
  4. We recognise the challenges that residents encounter in consistently reporting ASB, particularly when earlier reports have not resulted in the outcomes they expect. Such frustration is understandable and highlights the importance of landlords adopting an approach that acknowledges these difficulties. The landlord’s policy reflects this commitment by engaging with residents and partner agencies on an ongoing basis to provide reassurance and support.
  5. Neighbour disputes often involve complex dynamics that can limit a landlord’s ability to resolve all issues to the satisfaction of all parties. This case illustrates that the landlord made reasonable and proportionate efforts, in line with its policy, taking all appropriate steps to address the situation. It offered support referrals to the resident, which were declined.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord took reasonable measures to manage risks and safeguard all parties involved, such as conducting regular assessments of the situation and documenting all communications thoroughly. These actions show the landlord’s commitment to resolving disputes while keeping a balanced approach that considered the needs of all affected parties.
  7. Overall, although the landlord experienced challenges in obtaining a resolution that met the resident’s satisfaction, there was no evidence that the landlord did not investigate or respond to the resident’s reports appropriately. Its actions aligned with the policy’s framework, and therefore, we have found no maladministration.
  8. We are pleased that the resident achieved his desired outcome and moved from his property in February 2025.

Reports of delays with installing safeguarding measures at the property

  1. In November 2022, the landlord agreed to install security measures as part of safeguarding support for the resident. This included the installation of window and door alarms, as well as a door chain. The security measures were installed on 8 August 2023 and 7 September 2023, 9-10 months after the landlord agreed to the installations in November 2022.
  2. Although we have not been able to find the timescales within the landlord’s policies for installing safeguarding measures, we would expect them to be delivered promptly, particularly when a resident is vulnerable and safety is a concern.
  3. The landlord noted the resident’s lack of engagement as a factor contributing to the delays but also acknowledged that communication had broken down and that the resident had grounds for complaint. When delays arise, landlords are expected to communicate effectively, keep contact, and explain the reasons for any access issues or delays. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the landlord made any efforts to engage with the resident to ensure the security measures were completed between November 2022 and when his complaint was escalated in July 2023.
  4. In this case, the apology alone was insufficient as a form of redress, as the delay caused unnecessary distress and undermined the intended safeguard meant to protect the resident. The delay is service failure. Effective redress would have shown lessons learned and a commitment to improving future performance. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in installing the agreed safeguarding measures.

Concerns about a ‘visit in pairs’ marker

  1. Between stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023 and the landlord issuing a stage 2 response on 3 November 2023, the resident raised further concerns about a ‘visit in pairs’ (VIP) marker being placed on his property record.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it applied the marker as a safety precaution because the resident stored weapons, including swords, meat cleavers, and a hammer, which the resident said were for self-defence. This action followed a joint visit by the landlord and the police in November 2022, during which the police removed some weapons. The landlord confirmed that it made this safety-based decision to protect its staff and contractors.
  3. We recognise that the landlord has the right to take reasonable steps to manage and mitigate risks, especially when staff safety concerns arise. Although the landlord does not seem to have a standalone policy for using risk markers, applying a VIP marker in response to a recorded concern is reasonable.
  4. The landlord was unsure whether it provided the resident with formal written confirmation of the marker. However, records show that someone verbally explained the reason for the marker to the resident, although it is unclear when this was. A written explanation from the landlord would have been reasonable. However, the landlord engaged with the resident to clarify the rationale for the marker, and evidence shows that this engagement did not hinder his access to services or the treatment he received from staff. Furthermore, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord applied the marker arbitrarily or without adequate justification.
  5. The landlord linked the rationale to staff safety and explained it to the resident. Given the circumstances, its action was proportionate and aligned with the landlord’s responsibilities as an employer. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained on 18 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 July 2023, within its 10-working-day target.
  3. On 31 July 2023, the resident was dissatisfied with the response and raised new concerns. He said his concerns had not been addressed and raised the issue of uninstalled safeguarding equipment. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and should have triggered an escalation under both the landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  4. Instead, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. This was not in line with the policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The complaint was not responded to at stage 2 until 3 November 2023, and only after our involvement requested this. This was more than 60 working days after the resident’s 31 July 2023 email, which significantly exceeded the 20-working day target set in the landlord’s policy.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for not having escalated the complaint. While an apology was reasonable, it did not fully explain why the issue was not escalated or show that steps had been taken to learn from the mistake. This limited the reassurance it could provide to the resident and missed an opportunity to improve future complaint handling.
  6. The delay and lack of clarity caused unnecessary frustration for the resident. As such, we have found service failure in its handling of the complaint and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience this caused, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns with staff conduct
    2. Reports of delays with installing safeguarding measures at the property
    3. Complaint
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB
    2. Concerns about a ‘visit in pairs’ marker.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. apologised in writing for the failures we have found
    2. paid the resident £200 compensation, made up of:
      1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out a reasonable investigation into staff conduct
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in installing the agreed safeguarding measures
      3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its complaint handling
    3. the money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any former arrears or money owed.
    4. reviewed the identified failures in this case, focusing on staff conduct, delays in installing safeguarding measures, and complaint handling and outlined the actions taken or planned to prevent similar issues in the future.