Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202218130)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218130

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

9 September 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the rehousing process.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor. The resident told the landlord that she had multiple health conditions, including asthma and poor mental health.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. She said:
1. The toilet had leaked for over a year, and the landlord had failed to repair this despite her reporting this multiple times.
2. The toilet leak had damaged her bathroom flooring.
3. She struggled to open and close the kitchen window, and she had previously reported this to the landlord in November 2021, when she injured herself trying to close the window.
4. The radiators were very old, and 2 radiators leaked into the property below her flat. The landlord left her without heating and hot water for around a week. This was because it removed 1 radiator and turned off the other.
5. She remained on the landlord’s rehousing list in the highest band, but she was still waiting to move to another property.
6. The ongoing repairs within the property caused her stress and impacted her mental health.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for its delayed response. It said that it should have resolved the issues with her boiler much sooner. It acknowledged that it should have left her with temporary heaters during this time. It said that it had raised the works to repair the radiators, and it would prioritise completing any outstanding repairs. It offered her £600 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the necessary repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation as this would not cover the costs to replace the bathroom flooring. She repeated that the outstanding repairs impacted her health. She said that she was vulnerable and on the rehousing list to move following domestic abuse. She said that she lived in fear and needed to move.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 December 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for its delayed response.
2. It would complete repairs to the kitchen window, radiator in the lounge and the front door lock by 31 January 2023.
3. It was sorry to hear of the situation regarding her rehousing need and the impact on her health. It said it would contact her by 13 January 2023 to see how it could support her further. This included options of support available from other agencies.
4. It offered £1,500 compensation. This was for the distress and inconvenience caused to her and the delays in responding to the complaint. It also reflected the costs for repairing the damaged flooring caused by the toilet leak.
5. It would refund her any extra electricity charges which she may have paid when using a portable fan heater. It asked her to provide bills or other evidence to show the difference between the period using the heater and the period without the heater.
6. It said it had learnt lessons from this complaint which included the need to respond urgently to heating and hot water repairs. Additionally, it would adhere to promises made within agreed timeframes and respond to complaints within its published timeframes.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs at the property. This included the kitchen window repairs, the ongoing toilet leak, and the damaged flooring. She also said that she was unhappy with the lack of progress through the rehousing list. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 18 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs at the property affected both her mental and physical health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident wants the landlord to rehouse her due to the risk of domestic abuse in her current property. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident, or to prioritise her over other applicants or tenants that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property

It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord has not kept robust records in relation to the various repairs. This is a record keeping failure.
Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said it had left her without heating and hot water following leaks from the radiators. She said that it had removed 1 radiator, and disconnected the other, following a leak into the flat below. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it failed to provide her with electrical heaters. However, the Ombudsman cannot fully assess the landlord’s handling of these repairs because of its poor record keeping.
It is unclear when the landlord first received a report of boiler issues and radiator leaks at the property. It is also unclear when it removed the radiator and isolated the other radiator. Within its initial complaint response, it said it should have resolved the boiler repairs much sooner, but it is unclear how long the delay was. In its final complaint response, it said it had raised works to repair the radiator in the lounge which was not working. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it later did so, which is a failing.
As part of the resident’s complaint on 3 November 2022, she said that she had experienced the toilet leaks for over a year. However, the first report of a toilet leak repair within the landlord’s records was on 18 May 2022. It scheduled an appointment for the following day which it marked as ‘completed’. It is unclear what works it did and whether it had fully resolved the leak during the appointment.
The toilet leak caused damage to the bathroom flooring, and on 30 May 2022, the landlord raised works to renew the bathroom flooring following the leak. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is unclear whether it raised these works following a request from the resident or through follow-on works from the toilet leak repair on 19 May 2022.
The records show that the landlord booked an appointment to renew the flooring for 24 June 2022, which it completed. However, it again did not evidence what works it did. The poor record keeping makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the repair.
Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022, she said that she still experienced the toilet leak and that it had not rectified the damage to the bathroom flooring. A lack of evidence means that this Service cannot determine whether the flooring damage remained because it did not renew the flooring in June 2024, or if the toilet leak reoccurred after its repair on 19 May 2022. The landlord’s poor record keeping is a recurring theme throughout this complaint.
The resident first reported difficulty with opening the kitchen window on 2 November 2021. This was part of a previous complaint made to the landlord. In the previous complaint, she told the landlord that she had fallen off the kitchen worktop and injured her ankle. She also raised concerns with a health and safety risk as she could have fallen forwards towards, and out of, the window.
The resident has said that the landlord did not respond to the previous complaint. The Ombudsman cannot assess the landlord’s historic handling of the resident’s concerns about the window safety. This is because the issue was not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within a reasonable timeframe. This is in accordance with paragraphs 42(b) and 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Nevertheless, as part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022, she said that it had not repaired the kitchen window. She said she found it difficult to open and close this, and she was scared of falling out of the window.
Following the landlord’s initial complaint response, it raised works on 5 December 2022 to address the various repairs. This included checking the toilet leak and damaged flooring in the bathroom. It also raised works to overhaul the kitchen window due to difficulty in opening it. However, its records do not show an appointment date. It therefore remains unclear as to whether the landlord attempted or dealt with these repairs.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that it had arranged various repairs by 31 January 2023. This included repairs to the kitchen window. The landlord has not provided any evidence in the form of repair records to show that it raised the repairs. There is also no evidence provided to show whether it did complete any works by this date.
It is a failing that the landlord has not evidenced what actions it took in response to the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs. This is a significant concern given that part of the resident’s complaint included her worries with falling out of the window. The landlord has failed to evidence that it proactively managed the repairs. There is also no evidence provided to show the support offered to the resident regarding her safety concerns while awaiting the repairs.
In addition, throughout the complaints process, the resident explained that the repairs impacted her health. She told the landlord that her mental health had worsened because of the length of time in repairing the issues at the property. She explained in detail about how her mental health had deteriorated.
While the landlord awarded compensation towards the distress and inconvenience caused to her, there is no evidence to show that it offered support regarding her mental health. It also would have been appropriate for the landlord to have maintained regular communication regarding the repairs, to prevent any further distress caused by the outstanding repairs. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she still experiences issues at the property. This includes the kitchen window not opening and closing properly, ongoing toilet leaks, and damaged bathroom flooring. As explained previously, where there is a lack of evidence and a dispute of what has occurred, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s actions after the final complaint response failed to demonstrate that it had learnt lessons to be more proactive. It did not provide timely communication and updates to the resident. It is also unclear whether it completed the works that it said it would, due to poor record keeping.
Considering this, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord has not acted in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman therefore finds a determination of maladministration appropriate in light of this.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for the delayed repairs. It offered £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount also included the impact of the delayed complaint responses and for the costs of the damaged bathroom flooring. It is unclear how much compensation it awarded for each specific aspect.
The resident has said that the various repairs remain outstanding. The landlord’s record keeping does not evidence whether it ever addressed the issues. As such, the landlord is ordered to inspect the property and produce an action plan to address any outstanding repairs. It is also ordered to pay a further £350 compensation towards the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of various repairs to the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the rehousing process

The landlord holds a rehousing transfer list for residents who need to move to another property. This includes residents affected by threats of violence. Since as early as 2018, the resident has been on the landlord’s rehousing list to move to another property. This is based on a risk of domestic abuse. The police supported a move.
Within the resident’s complaint, she said she was unhappy that the landlord had not yet rehoused her. She also said that a neighbour woke her up following a leak into the property below. She said that this incident impacted her mental health. The landlord did not respond to this aspect of the complaint within its stage 1 complaint response. This was not appropriate and is a failing.
The resident escalated her complaint and said that she remained in fear of further domestic abuse. The landlord responded appropriately to her concerns within its final complaint response by offering support to her. It said it would contact her by 13 January 2023 to see how it could support her further, including from other agencies. The landlord also apologised for the reported impact on her health caused by the wait for a new property. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to set out such intentions, there is no evidence provided by the landlord to suggest it later fulfilled these commitments. The lack of evidence suggests that the landlord therefore failed to learn from its mistakes. This would have understandably caused further avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
After the complaints process ended, the landlord made a property transfer offer in March 2024. It is unclear whether this offer still stands. The landlord is therefore ordered to contact the resident to discuss her rehousing application. It should offer support to her regarding her rehousing options and further support for her domestic abuse concerns.
The compensation offered within the landlord’s final complaint response was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service. This is because the landlord failed to evidence that it completed the actions that it said it would within its final complaint response. This would have understandably resulted in further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
As such, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £150 compensation to the resident. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the rehousing process.

The associated complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines the timeframe for landlords to respond to complaints. The Code in place at the time of the complaint stated that landlords should respond to initial complaints within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
The resident made her complaint on 3 November 2022, and the landlord initially responded on 24 November 2022. This was a period of 15 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delayed response. However, it is unclear whether the compensation offered in its initial complaint response included any amount towards the poor complaint handling.
The resident then escalated her complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2022. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 28 December 2022. This was within the timeframe set out in the Code. The Code stated that landlords should issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days of the escalation request.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for the delayed complaint response again. It said it had learnt lessons to respond to complaints within its published timescales. It was appropriate for it to reflect on its failings to ensure it had learnt from its mistakes.
The landlord said that its overall offer of £1,500 compensation included an amount for the complaint delays. The landlord did not outline the specific amount awarded for its complaint handling failure.
Despite this, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer and explanation of lessons it had learnt offered redress for the complaint handling failings. The resident would have understandably experienced distress and inconvenience by the minor delays. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and reflect the impact on her within the compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the rehousing process.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered for the failings in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific apologies in reference to each complaint point where the Ombudsman found maladministration.
2. Pay the £1,500 compensation offered to the resident within its final complaint response, if it has not done so already.
3. Pay a further £350 compensation for its handling of various repairs to the property. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
4. Pay a further £150 compensation for its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the rehousing process. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
5. Inspect the property and produce an action plan to address any outstanding repairs. As a minimum, this should include an inspection of the toilet to check for leaks, the bathroom flooring, the kitchen window, and the radiators throughout the property. The action plan should include repairs timescales and a point of contact who will oversee the works and offer updates to her.
6. Contact the resident to discuss her rehousing application. It should offer support to her regarding her rehousing options and her domestic abuse concerns. The landlord should confirm the various options and support available in writing to the resident. It should then provide a copy of this to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.