Karbon Homes Limited — case 202528248

Decision Case ID 202528248 Decision type Investigation Landlord Karbon Homes Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident reported damp and mould in the property, rats and slugs in and around the property, and issues with the boiler and radiators. She lives with her family, including a grandchild with significant vulnerabilities affected by damp and mould. She told the landlord that other household members were allergic to black mould and had asthma.

What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp, mould and associated repairs. Reports of issues with the boiler and heating. Reports of pests. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs. Service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and heating. No maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of damp, mould and associated repairs The landlord completed damp inspections when it was notified of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It generally completed repairs it identified during these inspections in line with its repairs policy. However, it is unclear whether some of the repairs it raised were related to the damp and mould and whether they remain outstanding.

It did not always evidence that it assessed whether there was a temporary rehousing need. It did not confirm its position on the kitchen repairs until after its stage 2 response. Reports of issues with the boiler and heating The landlord generally inspected promptly and raised appropriate works. However, it did not clearly evidence its assessment of the adequacy of the heating. Reports of pests The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of rats promptly and in line with its pests policy.

Complaint handling The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 27 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and heating This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 27 February 2026 3 Specific action The landlord must write to the resident and set out its position on: her reports that there is still damp and mould in the property the cause of any damp and mould and what steps should be taken to reduce them, including what actions, if any, it will take its advice about reducing humidity and condensation the habitability of the property, referring to any relevant inspections or other evidence whether the window handle repair and works raised to check the loft insulation on 26 February 2025 were related to the reports of damp and mould, and whether they have been completed The landlord must provide us with a copy of the letter by the due date.

No later than 27 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 25 February 2025 The resident attended the landlord’s office and complained that: there was damp and mould in the property including the kitchen and the loft which the landlord had not resolved the boiler had low pressure, some radiators did not work and leaked there were rats in the loft and garden and slugs entering the property her grandchild who had a life-threatening condition could not return to the property from hospital until it completed works 4 March 2025 The landlord provided its stage 1 response.

It said: it had previously inspected the property for damp and mould, raised works, provided advice about humidity and did not uphold the complaint it had raised works to check window seals, repair a window handle lock, ensure the loft insulation was fitted correctly and provide a correctly fitting shower curtain and would ensure these were completed it found no leaks to the radiators but had ordered some new ones contractors found no rodents but had provided advice to the resident 21 May 2025 The resident contacted the landlord and said it had not resolved the mould and her grandchild was suffering as a result.

She said she was waiting for it to install a new kitchen. The landlord escalated her complaint. 23 June 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response and said: it had inspected on 9 June 2025 and found some small areas of mould in the living room, no damp and slightly high moisture readings the resident could deal with this by using the measures it had advised it had replaced the radiators and repaired a weeping boiler pipe the rodent issue was resolved it did not uphold the complaint as it said it had not found any defects causing damp and mould and had offered advice about humidity 26 June 2025 An independent inspection identified some areas of mould growth and some high moisture levels.

It recommended repairs and resident advice. 25 September 2025 The landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the kitchen did not need to be replaced or repaired. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said there was still damp and mould in the property and she was concerned about her grandchild’s safety. She wanted the landlord to address the damp and mould and replace the kitchen units. She also wanted it to repair a leaking pipe in the living room cupboard. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Reports of damp, mould and associated repairs Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident raised issues about the ceilings and floors, but these issues didn’t exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. After the landlord issued its stage 2 response, she continued to report damp and mould, leading the landlord to arrange further inspections.

She also told us a pipe leak remains unrepaired, and the landlord offered compensation for ceiling works completed after its stage 2 response. We have not investigated these matters as they have not completed the landlord’s complaints process and/or were not brought to us for investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, she may submit a new complaint. The resident said her grandchild’s health was impacted by the damp and mould. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we have investigated When the resident reported damp and mould on 6 March 2024, the landlord raised a damp inspection. On 3 April 2024 she asked it to bring the inspection forward as she said the damp and mould impacted the health of multiple household members.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy did not set timescales for inspections. However, there is no evidence that it considered this request, which was unreasonable in the circumstances. A follow‑up damp inspection report dated 23 April 2024 recorded that the resident had acted on some of the landlord’s earlier advice. It is unclear when the initial inspection took place. The April 2024 damp inspection noted that damp and mould were present in the kitchen, lounge and bathroom.

The landlord provided advice and a leaflet, which was in line with its damp and mould policy. However, we do not have evidence of the advice it provided. It completed mould‑washes on 25 April and 2 May 2024 and on 26 April 2024 replaced the fans and ventilation units in the kitchen, bathroom and loft. On 27 August 2024 the resident reported severe damp in the kitchen and damage to the units. The landlord inspected on 9 September 2024. During the inspection: The landlord reported no leaks, serious defects or visible mould.

It noted the resident had showed it pictures of previous mould in the kitchen units. The resident said previous repairs had reduced damp and mould except around the kitchen sink, where she suspected a leak. The landlord found no leak but raised a repair the same day, which was reasonable. The landlord noted high humidity caused by condensation and gave the resident advice. This was in line with its damp and mould policy, though it is unclear exactly what advice it provided. The resident reported outstanding repairs to the kitchen worktop and units.

The landlord did not confirm its position on this. The landlord repaired the kitchen sink on 19 September 2024, 8 working days later. This met its 20 working day repairs policy timescale for standard repairs. On 19 February 2025 the resident reported further damp and mould and requested an urgent inspection. The landlord booked an appointment for 20 March 2025 but brought it forward after noting the reported vulnerabilities in the household, which was reasonable. The landlord completed a damp inspection on 26 February 2025.

It found no damp or mould but recorded high humidity caused by condensation. It inspected the window seals and found them to be in good condition. It noted all window vents were closed, advised the resident about heating and ventilation and provided a leaflet, in line with its damp and mould policy. The landlord noted the household vulnerability level but decided temporary accommodation was not appropriate, as it said the humidity could be monitored, and offered humidity readers.

It was in line with its damp and mould policy for it to assess temporary rehousing need. On 26 February 2025 the landlord raised works to repair a bedroom window handle, to check the loft insulation and provide a correctly sized shower curtain. It referred to these works within its stage 2 response, although it is unclear whether they were raised in response to reports of damp and mould. It provided a shower curtain on 23 June 2025, but it is unclear whether the other works have since been completed.

After the resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2025, it noted that it attended the property around 22 May 2025 and saw no damp or mould. It said the resident had not followed advice to reduce humidity levels, but it has not provided further evidence of this visit. This has limited our assessment of its actions. It was reasonable for the landlord to check the kitchen units on 23 May 2025. It took photos showing marks on the units but did not confirm whether there was damp or mould or whether there were any defects.

It did not confirm its position on the kitchen unit repairs in its stage 2 response and delayed doing so until 25 September 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord not to replace or repair the kitchen units if no defects were identified. However, it did not provide evidence of its assessment of the kitchen units. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to its visit on 9 June 2025. It suggested damp and mould could be managed through measures within the resident’s control but did not confirm the cause of the damp and mould, and whether this was related to humidity levels, or assess temporary rehousing need in line with its repairs policy.

It has not provided evidence of the details of the inspection or the advice it provided, which has limited our ability to assess its actions. It was reasonable for it to carry out an independent damp inspection on 26 June 2025. Given the presence of mould and the reported vulnerabilities, it should have considered whether a habitability assessment was needed. During its inspection it identified and repaired part of the boiler pipe in line with its 24-hour repairs policy timescale for emergency repairs.

The resident remained concerned about ongoing damp and mould and its impact on her family’s health. The landlord completed damp and mould inspections when notified and raised related repairs. When it found damp and mould, it did not always confirm the cause or assess habitability. It did not acknowledge all of the failings identified in our investigation. We have therefore made orders for it to put things right, which includes an order of compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused.

This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure that adversely affected the resident which the landlord has not acknowledged. This also includes orders for it to clarify its position on the damp and mould. Complaint Reports of issues with the boiler and heating Finding Service failure The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing the heating installations it provides. On 19 February 2025 the resident reported that the radiators were not heating properly.

The landlord responded by inspecting on 25 February 2025. It found no radiator leaks but noted that several radiators were undersized and badly rusted. It ordered 4 new radiators the same day and installed them on 14 April 2025, 38 working days after the resident reported issues with the heating. A damp inspection on 26 February 2025 confirmed that all rooms had some form of heating. Given the high humidity levels, the resident’s reports of boiler pressure issues and the household vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether the heating was adequate and if not, whether this posed any health risks.

Its failure to carry out or evidence such an assessment has limited our ability to determine whether it replaced the radiators in a timely manner or whether it should have considered temporary measures. When the resident reported a total loss of heating on 22 April 2025, the landlord completed a temporary repair the same day, in line with its timescale for emergency repairs. It also raised follow‑up works to install a new thermostat. After the resident explained her grandchild’s medical need for specific room temperatures, the landlord installed the thermostat on 24 April 2025.

As mentioned above at paragraph 22, on 9 June 2025 the landlord identified and repaired a weeping boiler pipe in line with its repairs policy. The landlord did not clearly evidence its assessment of the adequacy of the heating. It did not recognise this in its complaint responses. While this may not have significantly impacted the outcome for the resident, it remains a minor service failure that it did not recognise. In line with our remedies guidance, we have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Complaint Reports of pests Finding No maladministration There is no evidence the resident raised the issues of slugs between February 2024 and 25 February 2025 and the landlord set out its understanding of the complaint at both stages. The resident did not raise this again within the complaint process. The resident has since raised the issue of slugs to us, and she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its response to her reports of slugs.

When the resident reported rats in the garden and loft on 25 February 2025, the landlord raised pest control works the same day, and contractors attended on 26 February 2025. They confirmed rat droppings in the loft, set traps in the loft and garden, and advised the resident about waste in the garden that could contribute to the problem. The landlord acted promptly and in line with its pests policy which sets out that it may investigate and treat reports of rat infestations.

Its response was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement which confirms she is responsible for keeping the garden in good condition. Contractors returned on 6 March 2025 and found no evidence of rats. They completed proofing to the guttering to prevent access and again advised the resident about removing garden waste. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s pests policy. The resident did not report issues with rats again during the complaint timescale. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy timescales were in line with our 2024 Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Although it did not acknowledge the complaint before issuing its stage 1 response, it issued its stage 1 response within 5 working days, meeting its 10-working day policy timescale. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within 3 working days, in line with its complaints policy. It issued a stage 2 response 19 working days later, in line with its complaints policy timescale of 20 working days. Learning In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would use feedback to learn from the complaint.

It did not set out any further learning. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord did not always evidence the reason for why it raised works, or details of the advice it provided to the resident. It did not evidence its inspections in May and June 2025. At times, this impacted our ability to assess its actions. Communication The landlord updated the resident about works but did not respond to all her concerns.