Karibu Community Homes Limited (202427163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427163

Karibu Community Homes Limited

14 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 20 February 2023. The property is a 2-bed maisonette. The landlord is not the freeholder of the block. The freeholder has engaged a managing agent who is responsible for the exterior of the property.
The resident lives at the property with her 2 daughters who were approximately 6 and 8 years old at the time of her complaint in October 2024. The landlord has advised it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 16 October 2024, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about multiple outstanding repairs. The resident said she had chased these with the landlord but had been ‘stalled repeatedly’ and ‘given many excuses.’ The resident said:
1. The landlord had carried out inspections of her property and acknowledged that multiple repairs needed to be done. The resident said she was ‘shocked to find that not even the smallest of repairs had been completed.’ The resident referred to:
  1. Fixing of the toilet which did not flush properly.
  2. Replacement of the window in the back bedroom which was meant to be replaced ‘well over’ a year ago.
  3. Removal of excessive mould in her kitchen cupboard.
  4. Removal of the kitchen cupboards to block up rodent entry points.
  5. Multiple holes in the roof, guttering issues which the senior surveyor ‘picked up on’ during an inspection of her property the previous year.
  6. The bath panel being changed.
2. When she spoke to its senior surveyor on 7 October 2024, she was lead to believe she would be contacted by 11 October 2024.
3. She was now ‘extremely frustrated and devastated’ after ‘having put up with this pattern of behaviour for over a year now.’
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2024. It apologised for the delay in resolving these issues and for its service falling below the level it expected for which it offered her £100 compensation. The landlord went on to say:
1. Its senior surveyor had confirmed that a work order had been passed to its contractor in order to resolve her repair issues.
2. If she had not already done so, she should receive a call from the contractor ‘very shortly’ to confirm a time and date when they would attend.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 November 2024 saying:
1. She was not satisfied with the response and felt ‘insulted’ by the £100 compensation.
2. She had had ‘multiple visits’ from the landlord’s surveyors and managers, and yet she was ‘still going through the same rigmarole over a year later.’
3. Her mental health had suffered ‘a great deal’ due to the disrepair and she had lost over £1,000 worth of belongings due to the damp. The resident said in her previous complaint the landlord’s Assistant Director had promised a goodwill gesture towards the items she had lost, but she had still not received this.
4. She had spoken to the senior surveyor on 8 November 2024 and was told she would receive a call that week. The week was coming to an end and she had still not heard anything.
The landlord issued its final response on 14 March 2025. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond and find a suitable resolution to the issues the resident raised.
2. Noted the resolution the resident was seeking was for all outstanding repairs to be completed.
3. Said:
  1. Another surveyor visited the resident’s home on 4 March 2025 and completed a ‘detailed report’ on the outstanding repairs.
  2. Having reviewed the report, recommendations were made for both the landlord, to initiate reactive repairs as well as actions required by the managing agent.
4. Noted the resident had raised concerns about ‘older repairs,’ which its senior surveyor had confirmed had been authorised and completed. The exception to this was the bathroom works. The landlord said these were delayed ‘through no fault of (its senior surveyor) but rather the managing agent who failed to remove the poison ivy in time.’
5. Said while there were still some outstanding repairs, these could now be managed on an ‘as-needed basis.’
6. Offered the resident the £1,000 compensation offered by its Assistant Director.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope

Prior to the complaint considered in this report, the resident made a previous complaint regarding repairs for which the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. As the landlord had a 3 stage complaints process at that time, this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints process and so may not be considered by us. Nevertheless, reference has been made to this complaint in the following assessment as it provides a context to the matters we are investigating.
It is acknowledged the resident has raised concerns about the impact the condition of her property is having on her and her children’s health. Whilst we empathise with the resident, we do not have the expertise to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction.

The handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property.

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s Property Repairs and Maintenance Policy and Procedures sets out expected timescales for various categories of complaints. This notes:
1. Emergency repairs should be ‘dealt with’ within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs should be ‘dealt with’ within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs: Should be ‘dealt with’ within 20 working days.
On 5 September 2024, the resident emailed her housing manager to ask if there was any update regarding her repairs. The resident referred to her bathroom ceiling, rodent access points underneath her kitchen units and a defective window in her ‘back bedroom’. The resident said these were all repairs that should have been actioned already.
The landlord failed to provide us with its repair records prior to 11 November 2024 and so we have been unable to assess when the repairs referred to were raised. We have also been unable to establish with any certainty whether these were new repairs, or repairs that remained outstanding from the resident’s previous complaint. However, it has been noted that in its response to that earlier complaint the landlord included damage to the resident’s kitchen cupboard and a potential leak which might be causing damage to her bottom kitchen units, rodent infestation, and a defective window.
The resident’s housing manager responded promptly to the resident’s concerns asking, on 6 September 2024, that her property be inspected.
On 9 September 2024, the resident emailed her housing manager again. The resident said she had raised the repairs, the property had been inspected and it had been acknowledged that work needed to be done. However, she was still waiting for an update. The resident said she did not feel her repairs and request for an update were being taken seriously.
The same day as the resident chased the landlord for a response, its senior surveyor emailed her confirming what works would be carried out at her property. These included:
1. Renewing the blown double-glazed window unit in her children’s bedroom.
2. Treating defective areas of ceiling in her bathroom including plaster boarding and skimming the new boarding, renewing the extractor fan and painting the ceiling.
3. Removing 2 kitchen cupboards and blocking up any potential rodent entry holes to the external walls. The kitchen cupboards would be reinstated after the blocking up work had been completed and the mould in the cupboards would be removed.
4. Seeking a quote from the managing agent for external roof repairs, pest control for the flat above and the removal of ivy and vegetation from the rear garden.
The senior surveyor told the resident he hoped to get a start date for the kitchen and bathroom in ‘the next couple of weeks’ and would instruct the contractor to add a bath panel and a toilet repair, which he said he ‘might get’ booked in for that week.
However, when the resident raised her formal complaint on 16 October 2024, over a month later, the promised repairs had not been carried out. From the limited repairs records provided by the landlord, we have also seen no evidence of any jobs being raised up to this point. The first repair we have seen being raised was on 1 November 2024. This was to investigate a ‘leak and rising damp behind (the resident’s) kitchen sink’. We have also seen no evidence of the managing agent being contacted, as promised in the senior surveyor’s email of 9 September 2024, up to this point.
On 14 November 2024 the landlord had raised a works order for the plaster boarding of the bathroom ceiling, skimming the new boarding, renewing the extractor fan and painting the ceiling.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 response, on 15 November 2024, over 2 months had passed since the senior surveyor’s email of 9 September 2024 and the repairs had still not been carried out. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving this issue, for which it offered the resident £100 compensation. It also said it had passed a works order to its contractor. However, it did not say what this was for, when the order had been raised nor when she should expect the repair to be done. Instead of taking ownership of the repairs, the landlord simply told the resident she should receive a call from its contractor to confirm a date and time. We have seen no evidence of the resident being contacted by the contractor during this time.
On 17 February 2025, the resident’s housing officer visited her property. The landlord’s records note the housing officer provided a report to another surveyor outlining the issues. We have not seen a copy of this report.
We have also not seen a copy of the report by the other surveyor. In an internal email on 20 February 2025 the landlord’s complaints officer said this was due to be carried out on 24 February 2025. However, in its final response the landlord said that the inspection did not take place until 4 March 2025. That would mean some 6 months had passed since the senior surveyor’s inspection of 6 September 2024, with no meaningful action having been taken by the landlord up to this point.
In its final response of 14 March 2025, the landlord confirmed that, following the new surveyor’s inspection of 4 March 2025:
1. It would seal the double-glazed window unit in the children’s bedroom.
2. ‘It had been reported’ the works to the bathroom were not carried out as recommended. The landlord said this was because the contractors were waiting for the managing agent to remove the poison ivy.
3. It would install plasterboard to the bathroom ceiling and replace the existing vent with an extractor fan to address the condensation in that room.
4. It had not recommended that the kitchen units be removed for proofing works to be done. Instead, it had instructed its pest control contractor to re-attend and start the process of identifying the point of entry of the rodents, with a view to proofing and sealing the holes.
5. It would install insulation plasterboard to the external concrete wall in the hallway cupboard, as this was experiencing cold bridging.
However:
1. Whilst the landlord apologised to the resident, its apology did not reflect the excessive amount of time the resident had been waiting for these repairs to be carried out.
2. The landlord also made no apology for its failure to reseal the double-glazed window unit in the children’s bedroom despite having told the resident in September 2024 this would be carried out. The first job we have seen being raised for this was on 5 March 2025, the landlord has provided no evidence of a job being raised in September 2024.
3. Despite the landlord seeking to blame the managing agent for the delay to the bathroom works, we have seen no evidence of the senior surveyor, or any other member of the landlord’s staff, contacting the managing agent until the resident’s housing manager emailed them on 5 March 2025.
4. The evidence does not support the landlord’s position that it had not recommended the removal of the kitchen units. This is because its own senior surveyor had told the resident in September 2024 that this would be carried out.
5. It failed to acknowledge that its senior surveyor had told the resident in September 2024, some 6 months earlier, that the plaster boarding to her bathroom ceiling and the renewal of the extractor fan would be carried out. It also failed to acknowledge that a job had been raised on 14 November 2024 to thermal board the bathroom ceiling, plaster and paint the ceiling, and to fit mechanical extractor fan. The landlord’s repair records state this job was completed on 25 February 2025. However, this was evidently not the case given the landlord said in its final response of 14 March 2025 that these works still needed to be completed.
The landlord has provided no evidence that the works promised in its final response have been completed.
It is understandable that the resident was caused substantial distress and inconvenience by the outstanding repairs to her property. It is also understandable that this was exacerbated by the excessive delay in the landlord completing the required repairs, its failure to effectively manage the process and its poor communication with her.
The complaint process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the outstanding repairs in the resident’s property, to put any failures right, to recognise the detriment any failures caused the resident and to learn from the outcomes. However, it failed to do so. Instead, its response failed to demonstrate an understanding of the extent of its failures and the impact these would have understandably had on the resident.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation. However, this was in relation to an earlier offer made by its Assistant Director in their stage 2 response to the resident’s previous complaint. In that response, of 3 November 2023, whilst the Assistant Director did not specify any amount, he clearly stated this was in relation to the resident’s damaged items. In its final response to the complaint considered in this report, the landlord confirmed this amount to be £1,000.
This would correspond with the resident’s reference to this matter in her escalation request. In this she said, ‘Over a year ago now I lost over £1,000 worth of my children’s and my own stuff due to damp and mould’. The resident said she was ‘promised a goodwill gesture towards the lost items’ which she had still not received.
On this basis we are satisfied the only compensation offered by the landlord for its significant failures with regards to the resident’s repairs was the £100 offered in its stage 1 response. This falls significantly below what we would expect to see in cases where there have been multiple service failures by the landlord, over an extended period of time, which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. In this case the landlord has also failed to evidence that it put things right or took any learning from the complaint.
Further, in its evidence submission the landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, we have seen evidence of it receiving a letter from the resident’s GP on 15 February 2024. In their letter the GP told the landlord the resident had been diagnosed with mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and a number of muscular/skeletal issues. It is evident from the landlord’s Acting Director of Housing’s response that the letter sent by the GP was in support of housing move. However, given that it had clearly been advised of the resident’s vulnerabilities in February 2024, for the landlord to advise us over a year later that it had none recorded represents a further failure on its part.
Given the significant failures identified, the landlord’s failure to recognise the extent of its failures during the complaints process, and that the compensation offered fell significantly below what we would expect to see in such cases, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
To put things right the landlord has been ordered to arrange for its chief executive to provide the resident with a written apology for its failures with regards to the repairs to her property. It has also been ordered to pay her a total of £2,000 compensation made up of:
1. The £1,000 offered in its final response concerning the conditional compensation previously offered by its Assistant Director.
2. £1,000 for the significant impact its failures had on the resident during the period covered by this report. This includes the £100 offered by the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints process if this has not already been paid.
Given that it has evidenced limited, if any, learning from the outcome of this complaint, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a senior management review of the failures identified. This review is not to be carried out by anyone who has had a previous involvement with the case.
An inspection of the resident’s property is also to be carried out by an appropriately qualified person. This is to ensure all the repairs promised in the landlord’s final response of 14 March 2025 have now been completed. If they have not, the landlord is to prepare an action plan, with dates, confirming when these will be resolved. The landlord is to share this action plan with both us and the resident.
The reason for this order is that when we spoke to the resident on 9 July 2025, she advised:
1. With regard to the window in her children’s bedroom, the bottom glass but not the top glass had been replaced. The resident told us, ‘If the landlord had chased this up it would have realised this was only half completed.’
2. Her bathroom ceiling ‘had not been touched, there was mould and it was falling apart.’
3. The rodent entry points had not been addressed.
4. The insulation plasterboard to the concrete external wall, to the cupboard in the hallway, had not been done.
Further, given the disparity between what the resident told us about the vulnerabilities in her household and what the landlord told us it had recorded on its systems, a further order has also been made for the landlord to liaise with her to confirm what those vulnerabilities are. The landlord is then to ensure that its records are accurately updated so that going forward it responds appropriately.

Handling of the associated complaint

At the time of the complaint considered in this report, the landlord had a 2 stage complaints policy.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 16 October 2024. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 October 2024. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it would have been expected to provide its response within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint. In this case, by 30 October 2024. However, it did not provide its response until 15 November 2024, 12 working days outside of the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 November 2024. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it would have been expected to provide its response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. In this case by 19 December 2024. However, again it failed to do so not providing its final response until 14 March 2025, almost 3 months outside of the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
It is noted that on 20 February 2025, the landlord had spoken to the resident who said she was happy for the stage 2 letter to be sent once the planned works had been agreed. However, by this time, its response was already over 2 months late.
At both stages the landlord’s complaints policy states that if there is a good reason, it may take longer than the timescales given. It goes on to state that, if this was the case, it would provide an explanation and a date by when its response should be received.
However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to explain why its responses would take longer than expected or providing her with a date to confirm when she could expect its response.
Whilst the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in its stage 2 response, it offered no such apology in its stage 1 letter. The apology in its stage 1 response being for the delay in resolving the repair issues, not the delay in its complaint response. Further, given the excessive delay in its stage 2 response we would expect the landlord to have gone beyond just an apology when seeking to put things right, which it did not do.
As a result of these failings, and the unnecessary upset and inconvenience to the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made with regard to this element of the resident’s complaint. To put this right, the landlord is to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of multiple repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a written apology to be given to the resident by its chief executive.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,200 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. The £1,000 offered in its final response in respect of the conditional compensation offered by its Assistant Director for damage to the resident’s belongings, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £1,000 for the significant impact its failures had on the resident during the period covered by this report. This includes the £100 offered by the landlord at stage 1 of its complaints process, if this has not already been paid.
  3. £200 for the unnecessary upset and inconvenience to the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.
  4. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
3. To liaise with the resident to confirm what vulnerabilities there are within her household. The landlord is then to ensure its records are accurately updated.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in this report. This review is not to be carried out by anyone who has had a previous involvement with the case.
2. Arrange for an inspection of the resident’s property to ensure all the repairs promised in its final response of 14 March 2025 have been completed. This inspection is to be carried out by an appropriately qualified person who again has had no previous involvement with the case.
3. If the repairs promised in its final response have not been completed, the landlord is to prepare an action plan, with dates, confirming when these will be resolved. The landlord is to share this action plan with both us and the resident.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders in accordance with the timescales set out above.