Karibu Community Homes Limited (202307991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307991

Karibu Community Homes Limited

26 November 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for it to provide audited service charge accounts and associated documents, including information about the electricity production from solar panels.
2. Report of water ingress from a balcony leak.
3. Report of snagging repairs required to the metal lift plate and carpet.
4. Request for the Wi-Fi provider to be changed.
5. Request for the management agent to be replaced.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is described as a 2-bedroom flat located on the fifth floor. The landlord has told us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has told this Service that he is over pension age.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2020. The landlord said that it had experienced delays in receiving the audited accounts from its managing agent for the financial year ending 31 March 2020. The landlord sent similar letters on 10 September 2021 (for the financial year ending 31 March 2021) and 22 September 2022. The landlord said that once it received the audited accounts, it would make the necessary adjustments to the service charge accounts.
On 22 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident 2020/21 service charge accounts. In response, the resident requested that the landlord supply the invoices and receipts for the general repairs carried out and a copy of the premium for the building insurance.
The resident chased the landlord in April 2023 and May 2023 regarding the service charge accounts. In addition, the resident requested that the landlord supply information about the solar panels, completion of snagging works to the building and when it intended to complete balcony repairs.
On 23 May 2023, the resident outlined his dissatisfaction with the lack of response to his emails. He went on to say that the landlord had failed to provide the audited accounts for the previous 3 years and it had not provided access to the invoices or contracts as he requested. Finally, repairs reported remained unresolved. The resident did not specify the repairs that he was referring to.
On 8 June 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord requesting that it escalate the complaint to the final stage of its complaint procedure. The resident said that he had made a complaint on 25 May 2023 and a response he received from the director of communities did not provide him with any additional information. The resident said he had requested that the landlord provide the contracts, invoices, receipts and the insurance premiums related to the service charge account on numerous occasions but these had not been received. The resident confirmed that he had not received the final accounts and the section 20b (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1985) notice had not been served, adding that the landlord should replace the management company.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 October 2023, requesting that it provide its final complaint response.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 November 2023. It apologised for the delay experienced by the resident as it had to get information from the management agent. The landlord said:
1. Audited accounts
  1. The audited accounts were not available. 90% of services were provided by the management agent.
  2. The insurance cover was provided across its portfolio of properties and was not specific to individual blocks.
  3. Each leaseholder would receive the information in line with their lease by the following week.
  4. It signposted the resident to the First Tier Tribunal regarding his concerns with the level of service charge.
  5. It apologised for its delay in providing the consolidated accounts and the inconvenience the resident experienced.
2. Water ingress into the property from the balcony
  1. It had received a report about mould on the winter balcony on 17 November 2022. In response, a mould wash was carried out and the ceiling painted on 6 December 2022.
  2. Tests had been carried out to the balconies and 2 issues had been identified.

(1) Condensation had been found to the glass areas of the balcony. This was because the balcony is external and unheated and the heat from living areas condensates on the cooler areas.

(2) Washing and cleaning of the balconies with water possibly leaking through the concrete floor, causing water ingress to the balconies below.

It was considering a trial where sealant would be applied around the balconies to make them watertight. Decoration works would be undertaken to the seals to resolve the issue.
Work would start shortly and it would monitor the progress of works.
It had identified that the issue with the balcony resulted from the building design. Therefore, it was not a repair or replacement of building materials. It was hopeful this would resolve the issue.

Snagging repairs to lift and carpet
1. It acknowledged that it could not advise why the repairs had not been completed in a timely manner.
2. The lift repair was to be completed by its lift contractor. However, the lift plate had been removed by a resident of the building and it had arranged for the missing lift plates to be measured, manufactured and refitted.
3. The managing agent had refixed and replaced the upstands to the stairs. The carpet would be deep cleaned by the end of the following week.
Solar panels
1. The managing agent reviewed the operation of the solar panels and found that an inverter was required.
2. The inverter would be installed on 6 November 2023.
3. The managing agent would arrange for the information regarding the electricity production to be provided to the resident.
Wi-fi
1. It suggested a meeting with possible providers to understand their service offering, costs and ongoing costs. The information would be passed to its solicitors so that the installation took place in line with its obligations.
2. The decision would be communicated to all leaseholders.
Summary
1. The complaint was upheld and it accepted that there were delays with its service delivery.
2. The repairs to the balcony were not straightforward.
3. It understood the resident’s frustration as many of the issues were not easily resolved by the landlord or its managing agents.
4. Going forward, it would try to work better with its managing agent to improve its communication and provision of service charge information.
5. It was considering creating a focus group with residents to improve communication regarding service charges.
6. A compensation award of £1,050 was made. This was broken down as:

(1) £500 for the delays in providing the service charge information;

(2) £500 for delays in repairs to the balcony and communal areas;

(3) £50 for its communication delays in responding to service requests which also included the time taken to provide the stage 2 response as the resident did not agree to its request for an extension.

It recognised the frustration experienced by the resident as a result of its service failures and offered its apologies for this.

Events after the complaint process ended

On 6 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord advising he remained dissatisfied with its complaint response and gave detailed reasons for this.
The landlord received an accountant’s report on 11 January 2024 regarding the service charge for the financial year ending 2021/22. On 22 January 2024, the landlord sent the annual statement to the resident for the financial years ending 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22. The landlord advised that any surplus would be reimbursed to residents.
On 25 September 2024, the service charges were varied. A reduction was applied from 1 April 2024 with credits applied to the resident’s account.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. We served the landlord with a complaint handling failure order on 8 October 2024 as it did not comply with its obligations to provide this Service with the records required for the complaint investigation.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the aspect of the complaint regarding the resident’s request for the management agent to be removed is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident has requested that the landlord change its management agent as he is dissatisfied with their service delivery. Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The landlord has a contractual arrangement with the managing agent to provide services to the resident. The Ombudsman cannot interfere with the landlord’s commercial or contractual arrangement it has in place to deliver services. Therefore, we would not be able to order the landlord to replace the management agent so this issue falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Assessment

The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme obliges landlords to provide information requested by this Service within a reasonable timescale. We submitted an evidence request to the landlord on 12 June 2024, requesting information within 3 weeks. The landlord did not provide all of the requested information in the time requested which led to this Service serving it with a Complaint Handling Failure Order on 8 October 2024. We decided to progress the investigation on the basis of the information we did hold. This has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation.
Nevertheless, the investigation will consider below each of the concerns which were the subject of the resident’s complaint.

Request for the landlord to provide audited service charge accounts and associated documents, including information about the electricity production from solar panels

The landlord is responsible for ensuring that its residents receive service charge information in a timely manner. Service charges are payable in advance of the landlord incurring costs through an estimated bill. Under section 21 of the Landlord & Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to provide a summary of the relevant service charge costs for the previous year either within 1 month of a resident’s request or within 6 months of the end of the 12-month accounting period, whichever is later.
It is not disputed that the resident was not provided with the service charge information for the financial years 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 within a reasonable period. The resident chased the landlord for this and it advised that it was having difficulty obtaining the relevant information from its managing agent. This was unreasonable as the landlord is responsible for ensuring that it obtains accurate and timely service charge information and it has not evidenced that it took ownership when it was evident that the information was delayed. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it attempted effective engagement with the managing agent to obtain the information or to understand the reasons for the information not being provided.
The resident was provided with service charge account information in January 2024. This was unreasonable as there was an unacceptable delay which likely caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The resident made requests on multiple occasions during the period covered by this investigation, particularly from March 2023 onwards, and had done so prior to this. The delay likely caused uncertainty to the resident regarding the level of charges that he was liable for and whether future estimated service charges would be accurate.
The landlord has not met its obligations as the resident was not provided with the opportunity to inspect the accounts, receipts and other relevant documents despite making several requests. It is clear that the resident disputed the service charge levels and wanted to check the invoices and contracts that made up the service charge information. The landlord’s delay affected his ability to scrutinise the accounts and the relevant calculations in a reasonable timescale. An order is made about this below.
As part of the service charge enquiries, the resident requested that the landlord provide him with information on the electricity produced from the solar panels. He did so in May 2023, July 2023 and November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord provided this information to the resident. The landlord in its final complaint response advised that the managing agent had reviewed the solar panels and a repair was required to the inverter.
However, the landlord did not respond to the queries raised by the resident about the energy production of the solar panels. This is unreasonable. The solar panels are to assist with the sustainability, carbon reduction and the reduction of energy bills. Therefore, the landlord should have been able to evidence whether the solar panels were achieving these aims and its failure to do so meant the resident’s concerns about value for money went unanswered.
The landlord has not evidenced that it acted or communicated effectively with the resident. The available information does not show that the landlord progressed the resident’s concerns with the management agent which likely caused additional time and trouble and uncertainty to him. The landlord has accepted that its communication fell below its customer care standards.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its final review of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay in obtaining the requested information. The landlord apologised to the resident and made a compensation award of £500 for its failure to meet its obligations.
This compensation award is within a range that the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance would recommend where there has been service failure which has had an adverse impact on the resident. While the landlord said in its final complaint response that it had learnt from the complaint by improving its relationship with its management agent and was setting up a resident focus group to improve its services, this is not sufficient for the Ombudsman to make a finding of reasonable redress.
The resident experienced a significant delay in receiving the account information and it is still unclear that the landlord has accommodated the resident’s request to review invoices and any documentation supporting the expenditure for each year. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the First Tier Tribunal regarding his concerns about the level of services charges. Nevertheless, despite the assurances made in the final complaint response, the landlord has not evidenced that it provided the resident with the detailed information he requested and it has not adequately responded to his concerns regarding the performance and value for money of the solar panels. For those reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Report of water ingress into the property from a leak from the balcony

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including the resident’s balcony
The landlord acted in accordance with its obligations when it repaired the resident’s balcony in November 2022. In its final complaint response, the landlord said that a mould wash was undertaken and the ceiling was repainted in December 2022. The resident has not disputed those works being carried out by the landlord but has recently queried the quality. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident raised concerns about the quality of those works at that time. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to reach the view that the works had resolved the mould problem.
There was a further report in May 2023 that the balcony required works but limited evidence as to why this was or what specific works were needed. The landlord has said that the balcony has a design fault which is causing water ingress and that this is affecting multiple balconies in the block. The lack of records provided by the landlord means that it is not possible to establish the exact impact on the resident and his property and whether the landlord took efforts to assess this.
The landlord diagnosed that the balconies were affected by condensation and leaks through a concrete floor. The landlord said that it proposed to apply a sealant and monitor to check whether this resolved the issue. It said that it would do so as a trial for 2 properties affected by the problem. This was a reasonable approach in order to establish whether such works should be rolled out across the affected properties. However, it is unclear why it took so long for the landlord to formulate this plan.
It is not clear whether these actions were successful. By June 2024, the resident informed this Service that the balcony had been inspected and the landlord had promised to remove the existing mould and re–paint the ceiling. However, he has more recently advised that there is still water ingress during rainfall. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident and checked whether any works it completed to his balcony, or others in the below, were successful.
Although the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation (for the balcony repairs and communal snagging works) was appropriate, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it fully put things right or learned from the outcomes of the complaint investigation. A finding of maladministration is therefore made.

Report of snagging repairs required to the metal lift plate and carpet

Although he mentioned snagging issues, the resident’s original May 2023 complaint to the landlord did not raise specific concerns about the missing metal lift plate or carpet. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that these concerns were raised at an in-person resident meeting. Consequently, there is no evidence of the specific dates that the lift plate or carpet issues were reported.
The resident has said that he supplied photo evidence to the landlord in November 2022 of both the missing stair treads and lift plates. There is no reason to dispute the resident’s assertion as the landlord has also accepted that the replacement of the lift plate and carpet tread were not completed within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord apologised for its failures in its final complaint response. It also said that part of the £500 compensation for the balcony delay was also for repairs to communal areas (presumably these snagging issues). It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation albeit it would have offered clarity had it given a breakdown of the £500 compensation figure.
The landlord had apparently resolved the carpet fault by November 2023 and it said in the final complaint response that a deep clean would be done by the managing agent. These steps were reasonable.
However, the landlord did not give a reason for the delays it had identified which indicates that it did not seek to learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint. Further, there is no evidence that the lift plate issue which was outstanding at the time of the final complaint response was follow up on nor that the landlord offered updates to the resident on this. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made.

Request for the Wi-Fi provider to be changed

The earliest report that the Wi-Fi speed in the property was slow was made on 5 July 2023. The landlord took until 24 October 2023 before it contacted the resident by phone to obtain further information when it discussed his escalated complaint. During that conversation, the resident said that as he was working from home, he was affected by the broadband speed. He requested that the broadband was upgraded to “fibre.”
In its final complaint response, the landlord suggested that a meeting take place with broadband providers and one of its surveyors to understand the technical requirements. This was a reasonable approach as the landlord is obliged to provide a basic broadband service to its residents as part of the service charge. It is required to consult with all residents when considering making changes to its provision.
There is no evidence that the broadband provided by the landlord is not functional. It is reasonable that the landlord fairly considered the improvement proposed by the resident and the offer made in its final complaint response was appropriate. On that basis, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and at its final stage within 20 working days. The landlord can request an extension of an additional 10 working days at both stages to provide a complaint response.
The landlord has not supplied a copy of the online complaint the resident made on 25 May 2023. This is unreasonable as landlords should keep records of complaints received.
The landlord has not followed its complaint procedure as there is no evidence that it formally responded to the resident’s initial complaint as it was obliged to do under its complaint procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
The resident took the email sent on 5 June 2023 by the Director of Communities as the landlord’s initial complaint response. He responded 3 days later, advising that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On receiving the resident’s email, the landlord did not take the opportunity to review the action it had taken and provide the resident with a formal complaint response. This was not reasonable.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 October 2023, advising it to provide its final complaint response. In response, the landlord contacted the resident to request the stage 1 complaint response. After a review of its records and the resident being unable to provide a complaint response, the landlord should have realised that it had not provided a stage 1 complaint response as required under its complaint procedure and the Code.
The landlord eventually provided a final complaint response on 3 November 2023. Given the resident originally raised a complaint in May 2023 and asked to escalate the complaint in June 2023, this represented an inappropriate delay.
It was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for its complaint handling failings. It awarded £50 compensation alongside its apologies. However, given the complaints process was extended unnecessarily by several months, this level of compensation was insufficient.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the management agent to be replaced is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to provide audited service charge accounts and associated documents, including information about the electricity production from the solar panels.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of water ingress from a balcony leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of snagging repairs required to the metal lift plate and carpet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the Wi-Fi provider to be changed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Provide a written apology for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. Invite him to submit any outstanding questions that he has regarding the service charge statements for 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 and confirm when it will be able respond to these.
  3. Provide a response to his request for a cost-benefit analysis of the solar panels.
  4. Offer a single point of contact who will be able to give regular updates to him should it not be able to promptly answer any of the above service charge questions.
  5. If it has not already done so, provide him with the date that the lift plates will be fitted and explain the reason for its delay(s).
2. Review the success of the trial it outlined in its November 2023 final complaint response and, if it has not already done so, write to the resident to confirm the outcome. It should explain its diagnosis of any ongoing leak to his property and provide an action plan to resolve this with planned timescales for completion.
3. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation, including the £1,050 that it awarded during the complaint process. The additional £150 ordered by the Ombudsman is in recognition of the time and trouble caused to him by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is write to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact all residents in the block affected by ongoing balcony leaks to confirm what its plans are to resolve the leaks. It should advise whether it is willing to offer any redress to them for periods where they have been unable to make full use of the balconies.
The landlord should write to the resident to confirm what charges have been passed on to leaseholders relating to water ingress and lift plate repairs. It should advise him if it is willing to waive, or reimburse him for, any such charges already paid and confirm how he can dispute any of those charges.
The landlord should contact the resident to confirm if it is still willing to explore a change to the Wi-Fi provider and advise him when it is able to meet to discuss this further.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.