Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202309596)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309596

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

21 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The payment of compensation for delayed shower repairs.
    2. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a joint assured tenant of the property, a 5–bedroom ground–floor flat, since 2010. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident’s son communicated with the landlord on his behalf in relation to the complaint but, in the interests of clarity, all such communications are referred to in this report as being from/to the resident.
  3. In October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was water leaking out of the shower, causing damage to the property. Surveyors attended in the following months, but no works were completed until late January 2022 and the leak reoccurred a week later.
  4. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 13 February 2022, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s delayed response, the quality of the works carried out, and the fact that the leak was ongoing. The landlord responded on 13 June 2022 when it acknowledged failures in service and advised that it would consider offering a compensation payment once its new repairs contractor was in place (after 1 July 2022). It also required authority to liaise with the resident’s son, who had submitted the complaint on his behalf.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 July 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 August 2022. It again acknowledged service failures, explained the planned steps to resolve the leak and repairs, and said that a compensation award would be made once the repairs had been completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
  6. Following further inspections and correspondence between the resident and landlord from October to December 2022 the works were ultimately completed to the resident’s satisfaction at the end of December 2022.
  7. In the landlord’s letter of 13 January 2023, it offered £500 compensation for the identified service failings and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, who had endured the problems for over 12 months. The resident accepted the compensation offer on 16 January 2023 and chased the outstanding payment in March and April 2023. The landlord ultimately advised that the compensation had been paid to the resident’s rent account on 20 March 2023 and that it would not now escalate the complaint to stage 3.
  8. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident requests an increased compensation payment considering the landlord’s failure to follow its complaints process and to pay the initial compensation directly to him.

Assessment and findings

Payment of compensation for shower repairs

  1. It is not disputed that there were service failings in relation to the shower repair. This was accepted by the landlord and an appropriate offer of redress was made through the operation of its complaints process. The resident accepted the awarded sum and no further challenge was made in relation to the substantive issue. The dispute arises from the delay in the compensation payment being made, and the way it was paid.
  2. Despite the landlord stating in its initial response that it would consider compensation when its new contractor was in place, and when it had authority to liaise with the resident’s son, there is no evidence it did so. The resident said he submitted the authorisation form and chased the landlord to no avail. Frustrated, this resulted in the resident escalating his complaint.
  3. In its final response the landlord acknowledged that compensation should have been awarded at stage 1 and said an offer would be made when the repairs were concluded to the resident’s satisfaction, which was 4 months later. While this was some time after the final response, the offer appears to have reflected ongoing service failures beyond this and up to the conclusion of the repairs, and the resident accepted this as sufficient recompense.
  4. As a result, no fault is found for this delay, but going forward the landlord should ensure that it offers compensation promptly and at the conclusion of the complaints process when failings have been found. A repairs process can be protracted and it is not reasonable to leave residents without redress for identified failings for an unspecified length of time.
  5. The resident notified the landlord that the repairs had been completed and asked that the compensation be assessed on 29 December 2022. It was not until 10 January 2023 that the landlord responded, but given the holiday period a short delay is considered reasonable and the landlord then followed up with a formal offer within 3 days.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy from the time states that compensation will be paid within 28 days of agreement by the resident, which meant it was due by 13 February 2023. On 6 March 2023, after 7 weeks, the resident contacted the landlord and said he had not received the payment. There is no evidence the landlord responded and it was only after he chased again on 14 March 2023 that the landlord apologised and the payment was made.
  7. This constituted a 5-week delay, which was unnecessary and unreasonable. Given the resident had experienced delays with the repairs and had been awaiting compensation for some time, that he had to undergo further delays only compounded his frustration.
  8. The resident was also aggrieved to discover that the compensation had been paid directly into his rent account and said he had not been notified of this. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will be paid into a resident’s bank account unless money is outstanding on their rent account. This was stated in the landlord’s correspondence to the resident on 13 January 2023 and it gave a further reminder that the compensation would be paid in line with its policy in its email of 16 January 2023. It also said this may be offset against arrears within its formal compensation decision letter. However, the Ombudsman agrees that it should have given specific notification that it was doing so in the resident’s case. It was not until he called the landlord in April 2023 that he learned it had been attributed to the rent account.
  9. Further, the resident contested that he was in arrears. The rent statements from this period show that the rent was paid on a weekly basis, with housing benefit paid every 4 weeks in arrears. When the compensation payment was made to the account it was showing as being £658.16 in arrears, but this was not a true reflection given retrospective benefit payments. When the housing benefit was next paid on 27 March 2023, this resulted in a credit on the account of £350.42. Had the compensation payment not been made to the account, the arrears would have stood at £149.58 on this date. Therefore, while there was debt on the rent account, it was not proportionate of the landlord to attribute the entire compensation award without first consulting the resident.
  10. In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s administration of the compensation payment, which caused the resident unnecessary frustration. Most notably the landlord delayed in processing the payment for 5 weeks, and did so only after prompts from the resident. It caused further distress to the resident by attributing the entire funds to his rent account despite debts below this amount. It should also have clearly communicated that it was doing so to prevent the resident further time and trouble in chasing funds that had already been paid. For this reason the Ombudsman finds maladministration. The landlord should apologise to the resident and pay further compensation of £150 for the distress caused.
  11. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its compensation policy which now states that compensation can be paid either directly to a resident or attributed to their rent account. It should check with the resident how he would like the compensation to be paid in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. If a resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage 2 they could refer the complaint to a third stage for consideration by a panel. The landlord has since updated its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints process, in line with new requirements under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1 and 2 which were acknowledged by the landlord in its final response. It made an offer of compensation that included, and was reflective of, this failing, which was accepted by the resident. The resident’s dispute with regards the landlord’s complaint handling relates to its alleged decision not to escalate the complaint to stage 3 of its process.
  3. The resident said he requested that the matter be escalated to stage 3 when he learned that the payment had been made to the rent account, but the landlord refused. There are no records evidencing that the request was made or the landlord’s refusal, but the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account given that he remained dissatisfied and referred his complaint to this Service, citing this reason.
  4. The landlord’s policy explains that the role of the panel was to review how the complaint was dealt with at stage 2. Given the resident’s concern related to its handling of the offer of compensation awarded as part of its final response it can be considered to have met the criteria.
  5. Within the compensation decision letter, the landlord advised the resident he could refer the matter to stage 3 within 30 days if he remained dissatisfied. However, it was not for another 9 weeks that the compensation was paid and it was the landlord’s handling of this that concerned the resident.
  6. We can consider it fair that the landlord should have considered the escalation request within 30 days from the date the resident was informed that the compensation had been paid, which was sometime in April 2023. The resident said he contacted the landlord on 10 May 2023 in response to its refusal to escalate, indicating it did so sometime before this date, but this Service has seen no records to this effect.
  7. It is difficult to attribute full blame to the landlord without an understanding of whether the request was made within 30 days. However, it is noted that this was very possible and, if not, the landlord could have exercised discretion to consider it. Had the landlord accepted the request, this might have presented an earlier opportunity to provide redress and demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  8. The landlord should also have kept records acknowledging the escalation request and formally outlining why it refused to consider it. For this reason the Ombudsman finds service failure and recommends that the landlord review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should also pay £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident in failing to demonstrate that it had properly considered the request and the basis of its refusal.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the payment of compensation for delayed shower repairs.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation (comprised of £150 for failings in its handling of the compensation payment and £50 for failings in its handling of the complaint). This sum should be paid in the resident’s preferred manner (directly or to his rent account).
    2. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should also:
    1. Ensure timely payments of compensation at the conclusion of an investigation into a complaint where service failings are found.
    2. Review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.