Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202101844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101844

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

17 December 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 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak from the property above.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a block of similar properties. Her neighbour’s property above was the source of the leak.
The resident has explained that she first started reporting the leak to the landlord during March 2020. She says she initially reported the leak by telephone but started reporting the leak in writing when it became clear that the landlord was not recording all reports that she made.
The landlord’s repair records show that the first report about the leak was logged on 2 July 2020, and that a further report was logged on 10 August 2020. The landlord’s notes state that it attended the resident’s property after each report, but no evidence has been provided to show what the landlord’s findings were or if any repairs were completed.
On 3 September 2020 the neighbour complained to the landlord that it had not completed work in their property (specific details of this complaint are unknown). The landlord contacted the neighbour on two occasions in September to request access to inspect their property. It did not receive a response.
The resident reported on 28 September 2020 that the leak into her bathroom had been ongoing for three months and that there was mould growth in the property. She asked for an inspection. The resident reported the damp and mould issues again on 6 October 2020.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord began making enquiries with its solicitor about gaining access to the neighbour’s property. On 27 October the solicitor asked the landlord to confirm if their fees were acceptable. The landlord responded to the solicitor about this on 27 November, and on 8 December the solicitor wrote to the neighbour advising that access was required to their property. There is no evidence that the neighbour responded or that access was gained to their property.
The repair records confirm that on 8 January 2021 the resident reported the leak again. The landlord says it attended on 15 January to complete work, but the nature of the work is unknown.
The neighbour advised the landlord during January and February 2021 that they were unable to grant access to their property to allow the landlord to locate and fix the leak.
The landlord says that it received an email from the resident on 2 February 2021 asking why the repairs were not progressing. No evidence has been provided to confirm that the landlord responded to the resident.
The landlord contacted its solicitor on 16 March 2021 about gaining access to the neighbour’s property. The landlord wrote to the neighbour again on 30 March, and gained access on 15 April. It completed work to the “bath and toilet leaks”. The landlord’s timeline shows that further works were required, but it is not clear what these were.
The landlord’s timeline shows that it spoke to the resident on 20 April 2021 and arranged for a surveyor to inspect her property on 22 April. The landlord then raised an emergency order to inspect the neighbour’s heating system. It attended the following day, but the neighbour refused access. It called the resident on 27 April to update her on the repairs.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 April 2021. She said she raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 4 February, but had not received a response. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a written response.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 5 May 2021. It said it had experienced access issues with the neighbour’s property which had prevented it from locating the source of the leak. It said it had recently gained access to the property, and had resolved one issue, but needed to investigate other potential sources of a leak. It said that once it knew the extent of the problem, it would be able to update the resident on how it would proceed, and it needed to resolve the leak before putting her property back to the correct standard. It apologised and offered £50 for its delayed complaint response and a goodwill gesture of £200 for the inconvenience and delay experienced.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the neighbour’s property and did not identify any leaks from the heating pipework.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord’s contractor reported its findings to the landlord following an inspection of the resident’s property. The contractor said that the resident would be required to be decanted to allow the remedial works to take place. It noted that there was a leak in the bathroom and kitchen, extensive mould to the walls, and that the leak had caused extensive damage to the flooring and walls.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2021. She said she first reported the leak in March 2020. She said the compensation offer was inadequate given the number of times she had complained about the leak. She said the leak had damaged her belongings and had caused “swelling” which meant her living room, and children’s bedroom doors would not close. She said this had meant her energy bills had increased due to her needing to use an electric heater as a source of heat. She said the landlord had not advised her in its stage one response how to escalate her complaint.
A mould wash in the resident’s flat was booked for 28 May 2021. The resident has confirmed that these works have been carried out.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord signed a form confirming that it recommended the resident be decanted on a temporary basis to enable “Works following an ongoing damp issue from the property above” to be carried out. On the same day the landlord noted that it would be offering a temporary two-bedroom property to the resident as hotel accommodation would not be suitable, due to the uncertainly over how long it would take to complete the works in the property above.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 June 2021. It provided a detailed timeline from when the resident fist reported the leak (2 July 2020), explaining when it contacted her, and the neighbour. In summary it said that:
1. It had not met the required service standard in addressing the leak and should have taken legal action against the neighbour sooner. It increased its offer of compensation to £350 in recognition of it failing to inform the resident how to escalate her complaint, the repair delays, distress and inconvenience caused, and its poor communication.
2. It asked the resident to provide copies of her electricity bills to show the increase. It advised her to claim on her contents insurance for damaged belongings, or on its own if she was unsuccessful.
3. Due to the delays in resolving the leak and the damage caused to the resident’s flat, it would decant the resident while it continued to liaise with her neighbour and complete all the repairs in their property. It would repair and replace the doors and complete repairs in the resident’s property after the leak was repaired.
4. As a result of the complaint, it would review its no access policy in July 2021. It said it would ensure it informed residents of their right to escalate complaints and it would enhance its centralised complaint system to ensure a seamless management of complaints.
5. The resident could either escalate her complaint to stage three of its process or refer it to this Service.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. She has explained that the landlord has not contacted her about the decant since confirming that it had approved this, and therefore she has remained living in the property. She says the leak has stopped since the neighbour was decanted from their property and that her property is subject to extensive water damage and mould growth. She says that the water damage and mould growth are particularly bad in her children’s bedroom, bathroom and living room.
The landlord advised this Service during September 2021 that despite the neighbour being decanted from their property, it has continued to experience difficulties gaining access to this property. It said it was awaiting a date for a non-emergency injunction from the court which would grant it access to the neighbour’s property to carry out the necessary repairs.
The landlord subsequently updated this Service during December 2021. It said that it will be accessing the neighbour’s property on 15 December and will also be visiting the resident on this date, in order to reassess the situation and take photographs. It has also explained that it did not authorise a decant for the resident, but rather, it had authorised a decant for the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that: “If your belongings are damaged by a member of our staff, or where Hexagon has been negligent (for example, not carrying out a repair previously reported) compensation will be paid out of Hexagon funds or through its insurance, after the goods have been inspected by our staff and/or our insurance company”.
The landlord’s compensation policy also confirms that it will consider paying goodwill compensation if its level of service has fallen below its standards or if inconvenience has been caused.
The residents’ handbook confirms that urgent repairs, such as plumbing leaks, will be attended to within seven days.

Assessment

Due to a lack of evidence, it has not been possible to establish that the resident initially reported the leak into her property in March 2020. However, it is clear that the landlord knew about the leak by the beginning of July 2020, and that the resident reported that the leak was ongoing on various occasions following this. While the available evidence indicates that the landlord initially attended the resident’s property within its target of seven days, it failed to take adequate steps to gain access to the neighbour’s property to trace and remedy the leak in a timely manner.
Of particular concern is that the landlord did not seek legal advice until mid-October 2020 and that it subsequently delayed in instructing its solicitor to contact the neighbour. It then delayed again in seeking assistance from its solicitor in early 2021 when it became clear that the neighbour would not allow access to their property. The landlord has since had to take legal action against the neighbour in order to gain access into their property to complete the outstanding repairs to remedy the leak. While it is acknowledged that the length of the court process is outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord contributed to the delay in resolving the leak as it failed to take legal action at the earliest opportunity.
It is also of serious concern that the water leak into the resident’s flat has been so extensive, presumably due to the length of time it has been ongoing, and that the landlord decided that the resident would need to be decanted from the property to enable the remedial works to go ahead. While it is noted the landlord completed a mould wash in May 2021, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident and her family have been living in unsatisfactory living conditions for a considerable amount of time given the extent and nature of the damage caused by the leak.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord has recently informed this Service that it did not approve a decant for the resident, it is unclear why it has advised this when the evidence shows otherwise. Both the landlord’s internal records and its final complaint response confirm that it would be decanting the resident while it continued to try and resolve the leak into her property. Given that the resident had been advised that she would be decanted, the landlord’s apparent lack of communication about the matter since is likely to have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
In total, the landlord offered the resident £350 compensation. This was in consideration of various factors including distress, inconvenience, delays and for its poor communication. However, the offer was inadequate given the length of time the leak has been ongoing into the resident’s property, the impact this has had on the living conditions in the property, and the time and effort the resident has gone to in pursuing the matter with the landlord. This Service’s remedies guidance confirms that awards of £700 and above are used in recognition of maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident. It is clear that the resident has had to live in unsatisfactory living conditions for a considerable amount of time and that this has had a significant impact on the household, therefore warranting an award of over £700.
The landlord also failed to respond adequately to the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings. As its compensation policy outlines, claims relating to damage caused by its failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner should be dealt with by the landlord or via its insurer. It was not appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to her own insurer in the first instance given that it needed to assess if its service failures contributed to any damage caused to the resident’s belongings. The landlord’s advice that the resident submit copies of her electricity bills in relation to her claim for increased electricity costs, was however reasonable given that it would need evidence of the increase in costs in order to assess the claim.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak from the property above.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take adequate steps to gain access to the neighbour’s property to trace and remedy the leak in a timely manner. As a result, the resident has had to live in unsatisfactory living conditions for a considerable amount of time. The landlord also failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings, as in accordance with its policy, it should have either assessed the claim itself or referred the claim to its insurer. While the landlord has offered compensation to the resident, this was inadequate and therefore failed to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within six weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the service failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1000 compensation, to include the amount of £350 already offered, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak and the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings.
3. If it has not already done so, arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property and the neighbour’s property, and prepare a schedule of works addressing the leak in the neighbour’s property and internal damage in the resident’s property.
4. Consider whether the resident needs to be decanted, taking into account advice from the surveyor inspecting the property, and confirm its position on this in writing to the resident.
5. Consider the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings in line with its compensation policy ie it should assess the claim itself or refer it to its insurer.