Karibu Community Homes Limited (202333285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333285

Karibu Community Homes Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other repairs affecting the property.
3. The landlord’s decision to remove the conservatory.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in October 2022. The resident lives at the property with her son, who was 4 years old at the time of the complaint. The resident’s son has autism and a heart condition and the resident has informed this Service that she was moved to this property on medical grounds to support her son’s needs.
The resident has informed this Service that she has had ongoing repair issues at the property from the start of her tenancy. The repairs included damp and mould, a smashed window, and various other repair issues. She also explained that the start date of her tenancy was delayed due to repair issues with the conservatory roof.
The resident complained to the landlord on 23 October 2023 and said that the repairs had either been completed poorly or not completed at all. She explained the impact it was having on her and her vulnerable child and asked that qualified contractors complete the work. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 November 2023 and apologised for the service failure to date. It said it would organise for an alternative contractor to take on some of the repairs and would closely monitor the performance of the existing contractor. It said it had found that the leaking roof of the conservatory was contributing to the damp and mould within the property and proposed removing the conservatory entirely.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s proposal to remove the conservatory as she needed the space to store her son’s specialist equipment. She also felt the conservatory was only causing an issue due to the landlord’s poor workmanship. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 18 December 2023 and acknowledged there were multiple outstanding repairs. It repeated its proposal to remove the conservatory and said it would confirm dates for all the outstanding repairs separately. It offered £350 compensation for the failures.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service on 19 December 2023. In doing so, she said she wanted the landlord to commit to completing all outstanding repairs to a good standard. She also informed this Service that she felt the compensation offered was not sufficient.
It is relevant to note that, as of the date of this report, the resident has informed this Service that the landlord has since completed some of the repairs but that others remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has informed this Service that the situation has had an impact on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more suitable to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts and will not be assessed as part of this investigation and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice concerning this. Instead, general consideration will be given to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident.
In communication with this Service the resident has raised additional repair issues such as poor temperature control in the shower, the bath panel was removed and not replaced, the boiler and radiators need replacing and some roof tiles fell off but were not adequately repaired. This Service cannot investigate complaints that have not yet exhausted a landlord’s internal complaint process. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matter, she can make a complaint to the landlord which can be referred to this Service in due course if required.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord has failed to provide full repairs logs as requested by this Service. Its failure to do so has been assessed later in this report under the heading of complaint handling. Because of its failure to do so, it is unclear when the resident first reported the issues with damp and mould. However, the resident has informed this Service that she told the landlord about issues with damp and mould almost immediately upon moving into the property.
In her complaint of 23 October 2023, the resident reported the following issues:
1. There was damp and mould throughout the property.
2. The walls in the property needed replastering due to damage caused by damp and mould.
3. She had not been able to decorate the property or unpack her belongings as the property continued to be affected by mould.
4. The bathroom was particularly affected and not sealed appropriately, resulting in water under the flooring and slugs in the bathroom.
5. These issues were causing the resident stress and anxiety.
6. The resident said she struggled to properly bathe her son due to the concern of mould affecting him.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 20 November 2023 the landlord:
1. Apologised for the service failures to date.
2. Acknowledged there were a number of outstanding repairs.
3. Said there had been issues with the performance of the contractor but that it had to continue to working with them. It said it would be monitoring the contractor’s performance closely.
4. Confirmed a mould wash was booked for 23 November 2023.
5. Said it felt the leaking conservatory roof was contributing to the damp and mould and proposed removing the conservatory. The landlord’s handling of this matter has been assessed separately later in this report.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 21 November 2023. She said the landlord had not managed the situation well and she felt she was in a worse situation because of the landlord’s failure to resolve the issues at an earlier stage.
In its stage 2 response of 18 December 2023 the landlord:
1. Confirmed it had instructed a new contractor to handle the bathroom repairs, plastering and mould works. It said this was to find a permanent solution to the mould.
2. Repeated its proposal to remove the conservatory.
3. Said it would confirm dates for all the remaining works to the resident outside of the complaint response.
4. Offered £350 compensation for the overall failures in the complaint over an extended period of time.
Although the landlord should have resolved the damp and mould issues prior to the resident making a complaint, it is positive that the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failures to resolve the damp and mould in its responses. It is also positive that it reassigned the works to a new contractor when the original contractor failed to complete the works to a reasonable standard.
However, the resident has informed this Service that it took until May 2024 for the landlord to complete the bathroom repairs. This was 6 months after the original complaint was made and almost 2 years after she moved into the property and first reported the issue. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. It is inappropriate that it took the landlord until May 2024 to complete the bathroom repairs.
This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which contained a number of recommendations. These included:
1. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
2. Landlords should ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
3. Landlords should identify where a suitably qualified surveyor should be used and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The resident reported to this Service that the landlord carried out investigations into the external render which showed an issue with its breathability. She said it concluded this could be contributing to the damp and mould within the property and it needed replacing. However, the resident told this Service that the landlord had informed her it would only do this work if the mould returned again. She understood this was due to budget constraints. Instead, it painted over the areas affected by mould. The resident said this was at least the third time it had done this in the 2 year period and that in the meantime she had been left constantly washing mould off the walls. The landlord has not provided any evidence of these investigations so this assessment is unable to comment on the reasonableness of its decision not to complete the work to the external render. However, it is reasonable to conclude that painting over the mould, without taking any further action, would not likely provide the resident with the permanent solution to the mould she was promised in the stage 2 response. The landlord acted unreasonably in failing to take steps to find a permanent solution, as promised in its stage 2 response. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the property again and complete any required works to treat existing mould and prevent the return of damp and mould.
In failing to take swift action in handling the damp and mould and failing to tackle the mould in the long term, the landlord has failed to act in line with the recommendations from the spotlight report outlined above. It is also noted that the landlord’s damp and mould advice leaflet for residents focusses on steps the resident can take in managing the mould and only suggests the landlord will be involved in repairs where major structural defects are identified. This advice is not in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report which says landlords should be mindful of the tone of communication with residents to avoid apportioning blame and should take proactive steps to identify the source of damp or mould. The landlord is ordered to self-assess its handling of damp and mould against the spotlight report.
In her escalation request, the resident also told the landlord that her personal belongings had been damaged by the damp and mould. These items included clothing and new furniture purchased specifically for the property. The landlord did not acknowledge this part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not pay compensation for losses of this kind as they should be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance policy. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to confirm this to the resident in its stage 2 response. Neither did it explain under what circumstances it would make a claim on its own liability insurance. This was a failure and the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its process for making claims for damage to personal belongings.
The landlord offered £350 compensation for the failures in handling all the repairs over an extended period of time. In accordance with its compensation policy, discretionary payments can be offered up to £500 for failures which have had a high impact on residents. In this case, the resident told the landlord what a severe impact the damp and mould was having on her. She raised concerns about her son’s health and explained that it meant she had been unable to properly bathe her son due to the dampness and mould in the bathroom. She told the landlord it was having a detrimental impact on her mental health. Although the landlord took some steps to mitigate the risk to the resident in painting over the mould, it has not evidenced that it did this in a timely manner, nor has it provided a full and lasting solution to the issue. This understandably has caused the resident additional distress with the worry that the mould problem will return this winter. In this case, an offer of £500, the top of the range outlined in the landlord’s policy, would be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and an order has been made below for an additional £150 compensation to be paid in recognition of this.
In conclusion, although the landlord apologised and acknowledged its failures in not resolving the repairs in a timely manner, it failed to act in line with its own policy and has not demonstrated it applied any urgency to the resident’s situation. It also failed to offer proportionate redress for its failures and has not offered a solution, to date, to put things right permanently. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Orders have been made below, including an order for an increased offer of compensation which is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for severe failures which persistently occurred over an extended period of time.

The resident’s reports of other repairs affecting the property.

The resident’s initial complaint detailed the following repair issues:
1. The door lock was not suitable as her young child could reach and open it. She had been unable to fit an additional lock as the surround was hollow and could not be drilled into.
2. A smashed window.
3. The kitchen was old.
4. The stairs were damaged.
5. The ceiling in the utility room was damaged.
6. The garden fence was broken.
7. The toilet bowl was broken.
The resident said a lot of the issues had been attended to by the landlord. However they had either been repaired to a poor standard or not repaired at all. She stressed the impact these outstanding repairs had on her and that she had wasted hours waiting for appointments that were never attended. As above the landlord has not provided its repair logs detailing the outcome of any previous attendances and this has been assessed later under complaint handling.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. The resident informed this Service that she sent at least 9 emails to the landlord between April 2023 and August 2023 chasing repairs that remained outstanding.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said the smashed window had been repaired within the last 7 days and that it would contact the resident separately to confirm dates for the outstanding repairs. The landlord’s complaint policy notes it will only close complaints when an action plan has been agreed with the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident throughout the complaint process to confirm any actions and it is unclear why the landlord failed to use the complaint response to confirm dates for the remaining work. Furthermore, there is no evidence of it doing so separately outside of the complaint. It was inappropriate of the landlord to issue the stage 2 response without at least committing to a timescale by which the repairs would be completed and this was a failure.
It was inappropriate that it took the landlord more than 20 working days to complete all the repairs. The evidence confirms that the smashed window and front door lock were repaired. However it is unclear from the evidence if the other repairs remain outstanding and this is inappropriate. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident and confirm the status of all outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord must then confirm in writing a plan of action and timescale by which each repair will be completed.
The resident explained to this Service that her son’s vulnerabilities caused her concern with the door lock as he sometimes wakes in the night and she was worried he could let himself out of the house without her knowing. The resident said that she initially requested a disability grant from the local authority to install a porch as a security measure. This was rejected by the local authority who said it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the door was safe and secure. The resident has told this Service that when she approached the landlord with this information she was told it had done all it could and that it was down to her parenting now.
We have not seen any evidence of the landlord saying this, therefore this investigation has not been able to make any findings regarding these specific comments. However, the landlord’s overall approach to resolving the issue for the resident lacked urgency and empathy. Eventually the landlord did install an additional lock to the top of the door, but the resident had to chase this multiple times. It was not an unreasonable request from the resident to request an additional lock or an improvement to the existing lock to ensure her young child could not open the door by themselves. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy notes it may agree to do work outside of its usual repair responsibilities to assist residents with vulnerabilities and it was inappropriate that it failed to do so with any urgency on this occasion.
The resident has made this Service aware that she remains dissatisfied with the additional lock installed by the landlord. It is recommended that the landlord review this with the resident and discuss any further options available to her.
The resident reported multiple missed appointments and hours spent waiting for the landlord’s contractor to arrive from the start of her tenancy to date. She told this Service that the wrong tradesperson was often sent, for example a painter was sent to look at the conservatory roof, or they would not arrive at all. The landlord did not specifically address this concern in its complaint response and instead acknowledged there had been overall issues with the performance of one of its contractors. It was not until the stage 2 complaint that the landlord reallocated the repairs to a new contractor. The landlord assured the resident it would be closely monitoring the repairs through to completion in both its complaint responses, however there is no evidence of it doing so. This was a failure.
Although the landlord apologised for the delays in resolving the repairs in its complaint responses, it failed to appropriately offer a solution to put things right. It failed to offer proportionate redress to the issues, especially given the cumulative impact and stress the resident said she was experiencing due to the number of outstanding issues. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it may make a discretionary payment where it has failed to provide a service (for example completing a repair), failed to meet a target response time or taken an unreasonable length of time to resolve a situation.
In this case, specifically the issue with the door lock and the smashed window were posing a safety issue to the resident and can reasonably be described as having had a high impact on the resident. The other items also certainly caused an inconvenience due to the length of time the resident was left waiting. An offer of £500 would be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the maximum amount available in the landlord’s compensation policy.
In conclusion, although the landlord apologised for the delays and did eventually reallocate the repairs to a new contractor, the landlord failed to commit to a timescale by which it would complete the outstanding repairs. It also failed to follow through on its assurance that it would be closely monitoring the repairs through to completion. The landlord did not make a proportionate offer of redress and this investigation has found maladministration in its handling of the matter. Orders have been made below in this regard.

The landlord’s decision to remove the conservatory.

As part of her complaint the resident raised concerns that the conservatory roof was leaking. She said she had reported this almost immediately upon moving into the property in October 2022 and that the landlord had sent its contractors out on at least 7 occasions but they had been unable to repair it. She said the landlord had failed to repair the conservatory roof prior to her moving in and so she had so far been unable to make proper use of the room.
Prior to the resident moving in, on 26 January 2022, the landlord instructed a surveyor to complete a void inspection and confirm what works were required prior to re-letting. The landlord’s surveyor identified a number of issues with the conservatory and outlined 2 options available to the landlord, depending on the landlord’s preference:
1. Option 1:
  1. Install permanent ventilation to the canopy structure to address condensation issues.
  2. Clean and clear the eaves and gutters of the abutting extension and canopy roof.
  3. Repair and redecorate the timber canopy roof structure/members.
2. Option 2:
  1. Take down and remove the canopy structure.
  2. Provide a weathertight flashing to the ridge of the canopy structure to the adjacent property.
  3. Provide a drainage channel to the rear elevation and kitchen door threshold to prevent water ingress.
The surveyor suggested that if the landlord took option 1 then it would retain maintenance liabilities for the area, whereas option 2 would avoid future maintenance liabilities.
There is no evidence of the landlord completing any of the above works prior to the resident moving in. However the resident acknowledges the landlord did complete some works as she had to delay her tenancy start date to allow it to complete them.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the conservatory had been gifted to the resident as part of the tenancy. This meant it held no responsibility for ongoing repairs. There is no evidence of any written confirmation of the terms of this gift. For this reason, it may be helpful to explain that it is not for this Service to determine if the landlord should remove the conservatory. Rather, we will assess if the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the reported issues with the conservatory, including its subsequent proposal to remove it. The resident can seek legal advice regarding the interpretation of contractual terms if she wishes.
In her escalation request, the resident agreed the conservatory had been gifted to her, however pointed out that the landlord had failed to repair it properly prior to her moving in. She said the landlord had attended on multiple occasions since October 2022 to repair it and felt the landlord’s poor workmanship had in fact worsened the problems. She felt this therefore meant the landlord was responsible for ensuring the conservatory was in a good state of repair.
The resident also reminded the landlord that she had been moved to the property under medical grounds as she needed more space for her son. She explained to this Service that she needed storage space for her son’s specialist equipment and she had accepted the property on the basis that it had the conservatory space. She felt it was unfair for the landlord to decide to remove the conservatory when it had failed to repair it prior to gifting it to her.
There is no evidence of the landlord completing any of the works identified by the surveyor, however it is accepted that some works were completed as they caused a delay to the tenancy start date. Because of this delay, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident accepted the property in good faith that the conservatory had been repaired to a reasonable state of repair at the time she moved into the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes it may gift items in a “good condition” to an incoming resident. The conservatory cannot be described as in “good condition” given the landlord was aware of the issues with the conservatory and failed to complete the repairs prior to the resident moving in. The landlord acted inappropriately in gifting the conservatory to the resident without disclosing its condition.
The landlord’s repairs policy also notes that any gifted items will require the resident to sign an agreement that explains the future maintenance of the item is the responsibility of the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord asking the resident to sign any such agreement and it was therefore inappropriate of the landlord to try and distance its repair responsibilities at a later date.
The landlord’s approach to this matter was confusing and unreasonable. On the one hand it told the resident that she was responsible for maintaining the gifted item and on the other hand it attempted repairs on several occasions and then said it would remove the conservatory when it was unsuccessful. Since the landlord was on notice of the issues with the conservatory since January 2022, it would have been reasonable for it to complete the works required to put things right prior to the resident moving in. If it had decided it was not appropriate for it to do so, it could have shared the survey results with the resident and made her aware of the potential works she might need to undertake or the risk that the conservatory might need to be removed entirely. The resident could have then made an informed decision about the conservatory prior to moving in.
The landlord missed the opportunity to clarify its stance on repairing obligations when the resident first raised the issue. Instead, the landlord repeatedly sent contractors to inspect the issue and attempt repairs to the conservatory roof. This raised the resident’s expectations that the issue would be repaired by the landlord. The landlord failed to explicitly confirm what its obligations were in relation to resolving the issues with the conservatory at an earlier stage and this was a failure. As the landlord has commenced repairs to the conservatory, it is reasonable that it should complete the work until the area is in a good state of repair. The landlord is ordered to complete the work outlined in the inspection dated 26 January 2022 or to complete a new survey of the area and complete the recommended work outlined within the new survey. The landlord is also ordered to confirm in writing its stance on its ongoing repairing responsibilities for the conservatory.
In conclusion, the landlord acted inappropriately in gifting the conservatory to the resident when it was aware it was not in “good condition”. It also acted unreasonably in failing to either fully repair the conservatory prior to gifting it to the resident or to remove the conservatory prior to the resident moving in. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter and orders have been made below in this regard. The landlord is also ordered to pay £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in handling this matter. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for serious failures which have persistently occurred over an extended period of time.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

An additional service failure concerning the landlord’s complaint handling has been found because, as set out above, the landlord has not provided evidence of any previous or planned attendances to resolve the multiple outstanding repairs. As a result of the lack of records in relation to its contractors’ attendances or lack of, it was not in a position to provide a full complaint response to the resident addressing her concerns around the length of time the issues had been outstanding nor the multiple missed appointments. Without assessing the evidence, it is unclear how it could have calculated the impact the situation had on the resident. This is in conflict with the landlord’s complaints policy which notes any remedy offered will reflect the extent of any failures and the level of detriment caused as a result.
The landlord also failed to provide some relevant documents, including the repair records, to this Service when requested. The landlord was given ample opportunity to provide this and failed to do so even with additional reminders being sent. Under paragraph 10 of the Scheme, the landlord was obligated to provide these within a reasonable timescale and its failure to do so hindered this investigation. This placed additional onus on the resident to provide additional supporting information. The landlord is reminded that that failure to comply with the terms of the Scheme or the Complaint Handling Code can result in a Complaint Handling Failure Order. This Service may also publish its findings and/or report the landlord to any appropriate regulatory agency.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any acknowledgment of why the failures occurred and what it was doing to improve things going forwards. The landlord has missed the opportunity to identify improvements and put these into practice, as demonstrated by the fact the resident is still waiting for some of the repairs to be completed.
In conclusion, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within its published timescales however it failed to demonstrate that it used its records to make evidence based findings. It also failed to provide these records to this Service in breach of its obligation under the Scheme. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and an order for £100 compensation has been made below. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for distress and inconvenience caused by a failure in complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decision to remove the conservatory.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Provide a sincere written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Complete a specialist damp and mould inspection at the property. Following this inspection, the landlord must confirm, in writing, an action plan with timescales for treating any existing mould and completing works to prevent the return of any damp and mould.
3. Contact the resident regarding the other outstanding repairs and confirm, in writing, an action plan with timescales for completing these repairs.
4. Confirm a date to complete the work required to the conservatory as outlined in the survey dated 26 January 2022 or complete an up to date survey and complete all recommended works.
5. Confirm its stance on its ongoing repair responsibilities for the conservatory, including any conditions under which it may remove the conservatory in future.
6. Complete a self-assessment against the recommendations made in this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. A copy of this self-assessment must be provided to this Service.
7. Contact the resident regarding the damage caused to her personal belongings and confirm, in writing, its stance on claims for losses of this kind.
8. Pay the resident the £350 already offered in the stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
9. Pay the resident an additional £1,000 comprising:
  1. An additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the damp and mould.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the other repairs.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the proposal to remove the conservatory.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
  5. This money should be paid direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident regarding any other options available to her for a replacement lock to increase the security of the front door.