Hexagon Housing Association Limited (201914551)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914551

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

22 January 2021

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 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

Repairs required at the property; and
The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a 3-bedroom end of terrace Victorian house, under an assured tenancy.

Policies & Procedures

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to repair and maintain the drains, gutters, roof, internal and external walls and ceilings, and boundary walls and fences of the property. It is also required to keep all electrical wiring in good repair and working order, as well as to inform the resident as to expected completion time of any repairs. The resident is responsible for minor cracks in the plaster. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that its target time to complete ‘normal repairs’ is 28 days.
The tenancy agreement also sets out that the landlord will deal with complaints efficiently and effectively. Its two-stage complaints procedure provides for responses to both stage one and two complaints within 15 working days.
There may be circumstances in which discretionary compensation may be payable in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 27 September 2019 in relation to a number of repairs which she had previously reported to it:

Since June 2019, heating and hot water at her property had been intermittent, despite the landlord’s contractors having attended “on several occasions.” By the date of the complaint, the resident had been without either for three days and had not been advised as to when it would be resolved. She had young children (her grandchildren) in the house and was having to pay for mobile electrical heaters;
A surveyor had attended the property to review the cracks in the property caused by the neighbouring tree but did not record the structural damage which the resident stated was identified earlier in August 2019 (this Service has not seen a copy of the report referred to)
Numerous repair works at the property remained outstanding, including “heavy cracks throughout” the property, doors which were not closing properly, blocked drains and gutters, garden fencing damaged from the neighbouring tree, bedroom damp and mould, and rotten windows. In addition, the resident stated that the sewage drains had lowered and the pavement had risen in the garden after the contractor had replaced paving slabs damaged by the neighbouring tree. She stated that this was a hazard to her grandchildren who were tripping on the uneven slabs. The cracks in the property were, the resident stated, also allowing mice to enter the property; and
That this was “unacceptable, unfair and unhealthy” and requested an update as to when an inspection would be arranged and when the required works would be completed.

The landlord’s records show that heating and hot water were restored to the property on 1 October 2019.
On 28 October 2019, the resident chased the landlord in relation to her complaint, which had not been acknowledged. The surveyor who inspected the property later that day acknowledged the complaint, as did the landlord subsequently by email.
The same day, an order for repairs to the guttering was raised and pest control contractors were contacted to arrange a visit to the property on the basis of an order to attend which had been outstanding since August of that year; replacement windows were installed on 31 October and 1 November 2019.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 14 January 2020 entitled ‘stage 3 complaint,’ in which the following complaints were made/ re-iterated:
1. The landlord had, over the past 16 years, failed to execute management procedures, breached its duty of care, demonstrated neglect and failed to ensure a safe and healthy living environment for her and her family;
2. Guttering – the gutters were continually blocked with leaves from a neighbouring tree, despite having been cleared twice a month;
3. Water ingress – rainwater had penetrated through the roof of bedroom three, as the resident claimed it had done every year, causing extensive damage. She stated that she was sleeping downstairs due to fear of the effect of the water damage to the lighting and electrics;
4. External drains – the garden drains were “continually blocked” with leaves from the top gutters;
5. Overgrown tree – the resident had “continually contacted” the landlord over the past 16 years about the overgrown tree in the communal garden. Tree roots had spread under the resident’s property, “causing extensive movement and damage” to the property. A surveyor had reported “structural damage” to the resident’s property which required rectification work. A specialist from Southwark Council had also reported that the tree was “due to be reduced in height by 30-40%” but this did not appear to have been done. Despite raising two complaints about this, the landlord had neither responded nor acknowledged either;
6. A number of contractors had attended but the issues had not been rectified. As a result of the above the resident requested a full inspection of her property, rectification of the problems, and a remedy for the “sixteen years of continuous stress from prolonged housing issues, lack of (sic)repair to my property, with endless irretrievable psychological pain and damage”. She confirmed that she had forwarded her complaint to this Service, her local MP and her local Council’s Environmental Health department.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day, confirming that it was still at stage one of its internal complaints procedure and that a response could be expected within 15 working days. It confirmed that, as it was seeking still to resolve the issues, it was appropriate that the complaint be dealt with at stage one as opposed to stage three, where the landlord’s general handling of the complaint would be investigated. It also confirmed that it would investigate “why the procedure wasn’t followed back in September” when the complaint was first raised.
On 16 January 2020 the landlord requested its contractor cut the branches of the tree right back to the boundary line. It stated that it had requested the Council cut back the tree, but that it had not done so. The contractor responded on 24 January 2020 stating that the Council had since attended to cut the branches.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2020 stating “it appears that my detailed report which outlines sixteen years of neglect and lack of housing services has been put to one side” and that it had failed to seek to resolve the outstanding repairs.
The landlord replied the next day stating that it wished to address all of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. It stated it was concerned about the water ingress reported and that she could expect to hear from contractors within the next five working days.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 4 February 2020. It confirmed as follows:
1. Guttering – the landlord agreed to undertake regular clearing of the resident’s gutters in 2011 but this stopped after the end of the year. It stated it was not clear why this stopped but that it assumed that “it might have been because further work was carried out to the tree and that no further clearances were required”;
2. Water damage – it had instructed contractors to complete re-decoration works in the resident’s bedroom by 28 February 2020. It stated it was sorry to hear that damage had occurred to the resident’s belongings as a result of water ingress and that it would provide any required supporting information if the resident decided to make a claim on her home contents insurance for the damage;
3. It apologised for the service it had provided in respect of the repairs and confirmed that it had assigned a different surveyor for the outstanding works. It had spoken with the contractor involved who explained that there had been some confusion as to his role in the repairs but that, nevertheless, he accepted that he should have provided a better service;
4. It also apologised for the fact that the resident did not receive formal responses to her complaints. It should have responded in September 2019 and again in December 2019 following its visit to the resident. It was not appropriate to escalate the complaint straight to stage three as the purpose of that was to review how the complaint had been handled and would not itself provide a resolution to her complaint. To this end the landlord was seeking to resolve it with her at stage one. It assured her it would improve its monitoring process as a result of her case;
5. It accepted it had not fully addressed the resident’s concerns regarding cracking to her property. It had however interviewed a contractor who confirmed that the cracks referred to were non-structural and not of sufficient severity to warrant monitoring. The landlord was satisfied with the advice provided by the contractor, who was a chartered building surveyor and member of RICS, but would ensure that an inspection would also be carried out after the current repair works were completed to address any remaining concerns she might have;
6. Despite the fact that the window defects claimed by the resident had not been identified, it had appointed a senior inspector to carry out a thorough inspection;
7. Its records confirmed that pest control contractors had been called to the property twice, once in June 2014 and once in August 2019. It stated that whilst this did not suggest a significant or long-standing infestation problem, it would arrange a re-assessment by a technician if the resident remained concerned; and
8. It had not been able to establish that it had breached its repairing obligations as it had carried out repairs within its policy timeframes, however it accepted that its communication throughout had been “poor and sub-standard”. Consequently, it offered £150 in compensation to the resident – £100 in compensation for time and trouble in chasing the landlord and £50 for its failure to respond to her complaints within its policy timeframes.
The resident responded on 6 February 2020 stating that the report was “neither conclusive, satisfactory, nor does it meet the requirements” of what was requested, referring to only two follow-up appointments which had been made. It did not, she said, address the windows, neighbouring tree, vermin, rainwater ingress, blocked drains, brickwork or a full property inspection. She stated it was “incorrect, insulting and lacks evidential findings”. She sought escalation of her complaint and requested full disclosure of the repairs history and a full and thorough investigation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation request on 7 February 2020, responding in full on 26 February 2020. It stated that:
1. Windows – works had commenced to repair the windows on 17 February 2020 and a further appointment would be made;
2. It would employ a suitably qualified independent building surveying consultant, a pest control contractor and structural engineers to carry out comprehensive surveys of the resident’s property. It stated that its contractors would also be able to assess whether the neighbouring tree had been adequately cut back;
3. It would implement “all the necessary recommendations put forward” by the contractors;
4. It had sent the requested information to the resident by recorded delivery on 19 February 2020; and
5. It would monitor the work until completion.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage three on 5 March 2020. She stated that the stage two response addressed her complaints “in one paragraph, again, without conclusive evidence, facts or inspection.” The landlord’s responses to date, she said, were “all about ‘should haves’, without concrete findings.” The landlord acknowledged the request on 30 March 2020.
On 7 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that she had still not been provided with a timeline of work with completion dates, nor the information (including investigations and written reports) which she had requested.
The stage three panel meeting was held via telephone on 29 April 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 May 2020 to confirm the outcome of the meeting, as follows:
1. It agreed with the approach suggested in the stage two response, which was that a comprehensive survey of the property be carried out as soon as possible;
2. It accepted that stage two of the complaint could have been handled better, including by acknowledging the time involved in the resident’s complaint and her health concerns, as well as by providing more accurate communication and timescales for further works;
3. It expressed “concern” over the landlord’s response to the roof issues, which appeared to be that it would wait for a leak to occur before arranging a repair; Since the panel meeting, the landlord had arranged for a roof inspection and repair of any necessary patch repairs ahead of the comprehensive survey; and
4. It confirmed that it would be providing a report to the management board highlighting planned improvements to its response to residents in similar situations.
On 12 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident with a suggested timetable for completion of surveys of the outstanding issues. The landlord confirmed that it would “then action any relevant recommendation(s) from the above-mentioned surveys.”
A survey was carried out on 22 May 2020. The inspection report contained a number of recommendations, including that:

The property did not appear to be suffering from any significant structural movement, but there was evidence of some structural movement within the ground floor back addition and above bedroom, possibly as a result of continuous leaking to the water main in the adjacent property. The survey concluded that this was likely to stabilise once the scheduled repairs were completed. A crack in the wall at the abutment of the rear wall was found to be structural and tie bars were suggested to arrest this movement;
Rainwater had been leaking into the bedrooms from the guttering and therefore replacement guttering was recommended, as well as re-diversion of the rainwater pipe from the roof and cleaning of the downpipe;
High levels of damp in the property were likely being caused by plumbing leaks within concealed pipework. The report recommended an investigation be carried out in order to rectify this;
There was some missing roof insulation which required replacing;
Pest control – there was evidence of historic mouse activity but no evidence of present pest activity within the property. According to the report, “attention needs to be paid to the loft spaces of this property” and “continuous baiting of the mice” in order to carry out a successful riddance treatment; and
There were holes in the perimeter of the building which required filling.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2020 stating that further visits would be required in order to conclude a comprehensive survey of the property. It confirmed that a contractor would be in contact with her to arrange a follow up survey but that there may be delays due to the Coronavirus pandemic. It also apologised for the impact which the “longstanding problems” in the property had had on the resident and her family.
Further investigations were required and the landlord updated the resident of this on 25 June 2020.
On 26 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord chasing the documents she had requested in January 2020 that she had still not received.
The resident again emailed the landlord on 20 July 2020 stating that, further to its suggested timetabling email of 12 May, she had not been updated as to the status of works as promised.
The landlord responded on 23 July 2020 stating that the timescales for completion of the repair works were draft timescales only. It stated that its project surveyor had been keeping the resident updated on progress and would continue to do so.
A comprehensive report, complete with recommendations for rectification works, was sent to the resident for approval on 23 November 2020. The resident has not yet responded.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She states that it has not “acknowledged a remedy for the disrepair she has had to rectify over 16 years.”

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord does not dispute its repairing obligations under the tenancy.
Its repairs policy sets out that its target time for ‘normal repairs’ is 28 days. The majority of the repairs remain outstanding over 18 months later. The time period over which any of the repairs have remained outstanding far exceeds this target, which is inappropriate and unreasonable according to the landlord’s own timescales.
The landlord did, however, carry out the comprehensive survey and has sent this to the resident for her approval. It confirmed that it would act on the recommendations for repair once approved. This is in line with its repairing obligations as well as its complaint response.
However, the landlord has failed to make adequate redress for the service failures in completing the repairs. It has offered compensation in relation to its complaints handling failures only. Compensation will therefore be ordered to reflect the service failures in its repairs. An order will also be made for the landlord to complete the recommended repairs, once approved by the resident, within a reasonable timeframe.

Complaints handling

The resident first submitted her complaint on 27 September 2019. She did not receive a formal stage one response until 90 working days later on 4 February 2020. The resident in fact sent another complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2020 seeking to escalate to stage three as the landlord had not responded. This is an excessive delay considering the landlord’s policy timescale of 15 working days in which to provide a response. It is also inappropriate that the resident was required to send in a second complaint as her original complaint had not been addressed.
When it did respond, the landlord’s stage one response did not comprehensively address the resident’s complaints; some of the repairs complained of were not addressed, including the broken doors and damaged fencing. It stated it had not been able to establish that it had breached its repairing obligations as it had carried out repairs within its policy timeframes, yet this was not an appropriate conclusion to have reached as many of the repairs remained outstanding and indeed some were not addressed at all. It did, however, accept that its communication throughout had been “poor and sub-standard”. It assured her that it would improve its monitoring process as a result of her case and offered £150 in compensation for the failures in its complaints handling.
The landlord’s stage two response was more appropriate in that offered a comprehensive survey of the property to identify the outstanding issues. It confirmed that it would act on recommendations made. It has thus far acted in accordance with this response.
The landlord did not appear to consider the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident both in the delay to repairs and the delay in responding, in its calculation of compensation, as it is required to consider by its own policy. The Ombudsman considers that additional compensation is therefore appropriate in line with this.
It is unclear whether the documents requested as part of the resident’s complaint have been provided to the resident, but if they have not, the Ombudsman will recommend that they be provided.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s management of repairs amounts to service failure because the majority of the repairs remain outstanding over 18 months after the resident submitted her first formal complaint. This is in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales and outside of any reasonable time period which could be expected.

The landlord demonstrated service failure in its complaints handling by failing to respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe, failing to adequately address her complaints, failing to offer adequate redress for its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to arrange for completion of the recommended repairs, on approval of the resident, as soon as is reasonably practicable, as provided for in its complaint’s response. The landlord is to keep the resident updated as to works’ progress and confirm to the Ombudsman, within four weeks, that it has done so.

The landlord is to pay, within three weeks of the date of this report, a total of £550 in compensation to the resident, comprised of:

£300 as compensation to reflect the delays in the repair works;
£150 already offered as compensation for its complaints handling failures, if it has not already done so; and
An additional £100 to reflect the time, trouble, inconvenience, and distress caused.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide the requested documents to the resident if it has not done so already.

The landlord to complete a report to the management board highlighting planned improvements to its response to residents in similar situations, if it has not already done so.

The landlord to assist the resident in making a claim on her home contents insurance for damaged goods, if necessary.