Karbon Homes Limited (202329045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329045

Karbon Homes Limited

20 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its heating system impacted his energy bills.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling
2. Record Keeping

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house which he shares with his wife and daughter. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident.
In October 2021, the landlord replaced the resident’s heating system from a solid fuel system to an electric air sourced heating pump. On 27 January 2022, the resident raised concerns about the rising cost of his electricity since the system was installed. The contractor for the landlord attended the property and found issues with the system. It repaired the issues and reimbursed the resident £908.63 for his electricity for 4 months after it was installed.
On 7 February 2023, the resident called the landlord and reported that he was concerned about the inefficiency of the air source heating which had caused an increase in his electricity bills. He requested compensation for the increased bills and asked for a portable gas heater or a small generator as an alternative.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord received a complaint letter from the resident. He was unhappy with the heating system. He reported that:
1. the system did not work properly and was expensive to run.
2. many of the radiators, especially upstairs, did not produce heat.
3. it took several minutes for the hot water in the shower to come on.
4. his electricity bill had risen from £60 per month to £200 per month.
5. the household occupants all had disabilities and required adequate heat to maintain their health.
6. as a resolution, he wanted the heating system replaced.
On 24 March 2023, Citizens Advice emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident and requested a response to the resident’s complaint.
On 6 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to survey the heating system with the manufacturer. On 19 April 2023, the contractor reported that it found:
1. a faulty control panel, to be replaced under warranty.
2. a faulty sensor, to be replaced under warranty.
3. high cold-water pressure entering the property, it reduced the pressure at the attendance.
4. a replacement thermostat was required to improve the customer experience and control.

The contractor reported that “the manufacturer is re attending the property to complete the above works week commencing 1 May 2023, at this point the system will be at full health and a service certificate provided”.

On 20 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had carried out an inspection of the system with the manufacturer and found some faults, however the faults would not have impacted the efficiency of the system or the energy costs. It said that it would rectify the faults on 1 May 2023. It said that it had responded to the resident within its repair timescales and there was no service failure. It signposted the resident to support for assistance with his heating bills.
On 9 May 2023, Citizens Advice escalated the complaint on behalf of the resident. He did not believe the heating system was fit for purpose and said it was costly to run in comparison to other systems. On 12 May 2023, Citizens Advice wrote to the landlord advising that it noted the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of the property was E which indicated that it was classified as “fuel poor”. Citizens Advice said it would carry out an assessment with the resident and revert to the landlord on completion of the assessment.
On 11 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord advised that it carried out an assessment and the EPC for the property was rated D and adequate for the heating system. It said that based on the information that it received from the manufacturer, the contractor, and the updated EPC, it was satisfied that the heating system worked correctly. It told the resident that it intended to install solar panels to his roof in the future which would assist with his energy costs.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 14 September 2023, Citizens Advice emailed the landlord to report that it had not rectified the faults in the system as it said it would in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident reported that the heating installation had been unsatisfactory since it was installed 2 years previously and requested compensation to recognise the inconvenience and extra cost. He also reported that he did not know how to set and programme the heating system and requested a home visit to demonstrate it along with written instructions.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord repaired the resident’s thermostat.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord responded to Citizens Advice. It said that its contractor had not remedied the faults as agreed at stage 1. It had now arranged a visit to sort it out. It said that the contractor recently carried out an inspection of the wider system and found no faults that would have an effect on the heating costs. It said that the contractor would demonstrate to the resident how to use the system.
On 18 October 2023, Citizens Advice wrote to the landlord that the resident feels aggrieved as the issues with the property were raised 2 years previously and were ongoing. The resident wanted financial compensation for the delays.
On 23 October 2023, the landlord wrote to Citizens Advice. It said that the manufacturer had recently reported that it found no issues with the system. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 2 complaint investigation was lengthy but said that was because it mutually agreed the delay with the resident to investigate the issues.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord completed a service of the heating system.
On 20 November 2023, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy because the heating system was not working as it should since it was installed. He said it took over 2 years for the landlord to get the manufacturer to fix the issues with the heating system. He reported that he had to go months in a cold home because he could not afford to keep the system running. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the energy costs used since the installation of the system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord responded to a previous complaint by the resident about the heating system in 2022 and its contractor offered redress when it found a problem with the system. This investigation has only referred to the previous complaint for context. This investigation has focussed on the timeline between 7 February 2023, when the resident reported concerns about the efficiency of the heating system, until 2 November 2023, when the landlord completed a service of the heating system.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its heating system impacted his energy bills

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the structure and installations for the supply of heating and water. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out its repair response timescales. It will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, standard repairs within 20 working days and major repairs within 60 working days.
Excess cold is a potential health hazard to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The HHSRS offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
On 7 February 2023, the resident reported that he was concerned about the inefficiency of the heating system. The landlord’s records note that it raised a maintenance job to check the system, however, there is no evidence that this was carried out until the resident made further contact with the landlord. This was a service failing.
When the resident raised a complaint, he said all members of the household had disabilities and it was important that they had adequate heat to maintain their health. With this information, the landlord should have treated the complaint with urgency and completed a risk assessment and survey of the property to ensure it was meeting its responsibilities under HHSRS guidance. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this risk or carried out any risk assessment or considered the household vulnerabilities. This was inappropriate.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The resident told the landlord that the household required adequate heating to maintain their health due to their disabilities. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, the household’s disabilities, and the potential impact on their health.
The landlord attended to survey the heating system on 6 April 2023, this was 42 working days after the resident first raised concerns with the landlord. This was an unreasonable timeframe to survey the issue, especially considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In its complaint responses, the landlord failed to advise the resident that its contractor reported “a replacement thermostat was required to improve the customer experience and control.” It is unclear why the landlord omitted this finding. This was an indication that the resident required assistance with using the system. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have made this omission in both complaint responses and the landlord failed to demonstrate consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
After it surveyed the system on 6 April 2023, the contractor reported that when the follow-on works were complete “the system will be at full health and a service certificate provided”. It said the manufacturer would complete follow–on works on 1 May 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said “there is zero evidence that the heat pump is not working as expected. This has been confirmed by the manufacturers of the heat pump.” It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion on the basis of the contractor’s email.
On 30 June 2023, the landlord called the resident and confirmed there were minor faults found on the wider heating system that would not impact on the system operation or make the system cost more to run. At this point, the manufacturer had not returned to complete the follow-on works. The only evidence provided to the Ombudsman from the survey of the system was the contractors email which said “the system will be at full health and a service certificate provided” after the follow-on works were completed.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said, “Based on the information I have received from the manufacturer, contractor and the updated Energy Performance Certificate I am satisfied that the heating system is working correctly, and the system installed is adequate for your property.” Again, it is unclear how the landlord arrived at this conclusion. The Ombudsman specifically requested a copy of the information the landlord had received from the manufacturer but this was not provided.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the manufacturer had not completed the follow-on repairs that it said it would on 1 May 2023. This indicates that the landlord had not corresponded with its own contractors or the manufacturer before it provided its final complaint response. If it had done so, it would have identified that the follow-on repairs remained outstanding. This was inappropriate and caused further delay in repairing the issue for the resident.
On 14 September 2023, Citizens Advice reported, on behalf of the resident, that the repairs identified on 6 April 2023 remained outstanding. The resident further reported that the household did not know how to set and programme the system and asked for the landlord to explain the system and provide written instructions. On 22 September 2023, the landlord asked its contractor to show the resident how to operate the system. The landlord’s records are not clear if this demonstration took place.
While the landlord concluded that the faults in the system did not contribute to an increase in the resident’s electricity costs, it is not clear how it arrived at this conclusion with absolute certainty. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that there were issues with the heating system that may have contributed to an increase in the electric usage. The contractors found that there was a faulty control panel, a faulty sensor, and recommended a replacement thermostat to improve the user experience and control. While the system itself may have been functioning correctly, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident did not have proper control of the system.
On 3 October 2023, the landlord repaired the resident’s thermostat. The landlord’s repair notes state, “General Comments: rewired room stat to central heating pump to stop heating coming on all the time and to work off room stat. set buffer temp to 50max and 40 min to use as low loss header, for heating”. This indicates that there was an issue with the system and the thermostat which affected the resident’s control of the system.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord emailed Citizens Advice to advise that it had “been let down by our contractor” but it had now arranged to visit the property. An internal email indicates that it attended on 13 October 2023, however, there is no records to confirm what works were completed. It is reasonable to conclude that the replacement control panel and replacement sensor took place on this visit. This was 174 working days after the resident’s initial report. This was inappropriate and significantly beyond the landlord’s own timescales for repairs.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its heating system impacted his energy bills. This investigation identified a number of service failures by the landlord which led to this finding, compromising:
1. failure to survey the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
2. failure to carry out a risk assessment in line with its responsibilities under HHSRS.
3. failure to demonstrate due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
4. failed to carry out repairs within its timescales.
An order of £300 compensation has been made below in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, to reflect the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. When assessing compensation, consideration has been given to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the delay in assessing and repairing the issues.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 35 working days after it received the complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay when it sent its stage 1 complaint response. It is also of note that the landlord only responded to the resident after the involvement of Citizens Advice. This was a service failing and the landlord should have acknowledged this failing and offered an apology and redress in line with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it was awaiting a response from Citizens Advice about their findings and it would assess the energy performance of the property. It confirmed it would provide a stage 2 response by 30 June 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 30 June 2023, the landlord called the resident and said it was exploring grant funding for solar panels on his roof which could take a while. It agreed to hold the complaint open until it explores options. This was inappropriate. The Code sets out that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to a complaint is known. That it was exploring funding options should have formed a part of the complaint response. Furthermore, the landlord did not agree a date for providing its stage 2 response.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2023, after a chaser from Citizens Advice. The Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain through its complaint’s procedure. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and only provided its complaint responses when Citizens Advice became involved. This was a particular failing, especially considering the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.
Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Code sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
The landlord failed to effectively use its complaints process to identify failings and put things right for the resident. It failed to recognise that it had delayed in surveying the issue and completing follow on works. It also failed to identify its delay in providing complaint responses.
After its stage 2 complaint response, on 13 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged a service failure when it found that it had failed to carry out the repairs identified in the survey. At this point, it should have apologised to the resident and considered an offer of redress for the delay and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and there were delays in providing responses. The landlord failed to identify failings in its complaint handling and in the handling of the substantive issue and therefore failed to offer redress for those failings. These failings caused distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident. An order of £200 compensation has been made below in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its properties and residents. This may include repair reports, complaints, responses, property inspections, reasonable adjustments, and/or any health vulnerabilities within a household. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
When the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman it said that it held no records of vulnerabilities for the resident. Based on the evidence, an occupational therapist was in contact with the landlord on behalf of the resident before the heating system was installed. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s complaint handling was hampered by its record keeping. The landlord received a complaint on 1 March 2023, but did not log it or acknowledge it until Citizens Advice chased a reply on behalf of the resident.
The landlord’s repair’s function was hampered by its record keeping. The evidence indicates an over reliance on its contractors with little oversight. This was evident when the landlord was not aware that its contractor failed to carry out follow-on works as agreed. It asked its contractors to demonstrate the heating system to the resident but there is no record to confirm this was complete.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its heating system impacted his energy bills.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that a senor manager of the landlord at director level or above apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £500, compromising:
1. £300 for failures identified in its response to reports that its heating system affected the resident’s energy bills.
2. £200 for failures identified in its complaint handling.
It is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if he has any outstanding issues with the heating system including its operation. If so, the landlord should attend to the issues within its repair timescales.
It is ordered for the landlord to establish a reasonable method for calculating the resident’s energy costs for the period between 7 February 2023, when the resident raised the issue, and 2 November 2023, when it serviced the heating system. The landlord must ensure that it is reasonably confident in its calculations and use evidence based or comparative costs in its assessment. On completion it must write to the resident with its calculations and an offer of re-imbursement if appropriate.
It is ordered for the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case to identify and implement improvements to its complaint handling process.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended for the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) if it has not already done so.