Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202229905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229905

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs required when she moved into the property.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. The resident has no vulnerabilities but she has stated that her child, who lives with her, has asthma.
The property became empty in 2022, the resident signed the tenancy agreement on 6 January 2023 and the landlord gave her a decoration allowance of £420. On taking possession of the property, she noticed and reported numerous problems to the landlord including a broken boiler, damp and mould in a rear bedroom and blown plaster in the hallway.
The resident complained formally about the condition of the property on 18 January 2023. She said she had been unable to move in particularly because of the mould in her child’s bedroom and the lack of heating as her child suffered from asthma. She also raised other issues such as missed appointments, broken cupboards and drawers, the back garden being overgrown and missing fences at the front and back of the property. She said she wanted to be excused rent for the period without heating as she had not been able to move in, and she sought compensation for appointments missed by the landlord’s contractor.
In its stage 1 response on 9 February 2023, the landlord apologised for the fact that some of the repairs had not been completed before the resident moved in. It offered her £50 in recognition of this. She was not satisfied with this response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She then came to this Service to ask us to investigate. We asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response twice in April and July 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2023. It said the property had been of a lettable standard when the resident signed the tenancy agreement. When the resident raised her concerns, it had taken appropriate action to make the required repairs, which it did by 18 April 2023. It had since inspected the property and said that the resident had “made things worse” by stripping the wallpaper. It said that it was not responsible for the fact that she had decided not to live at the property for a period. In its view, the property had been habitable and therefore it would not refund any rent. However, it agreed to redecorate and to pay her a further £100 in recognition of the delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response.
The resident was not satisfied with this complaint response. She asked this Service to investigate. She said the landlord had not responded adequately to her reports of problems at the property and had failed to deal adequately with some of her complaint points such as the lack of fencing in the garden, the poor state of the interior and a lack of exterior lighting. She said she wanted it to carry out the works, and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had suffered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the condition of the property had an impact on her and her child’s health. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which these events may have caused.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme, (the Scheme) states, at paragraph 42(a) that this Service may not, under normal circumstances, investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. Since she made her original complaint, the resident has reported concerns about other matters. Particularly, she has said that windows at the property need repair and that skirting boards had been blown. This Service has not investigated these concerns as the resident’s reports about these matters have not been through the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the issues remain outstanding the resident should report them again and complain to the landlord, and then, if necessary, to this Service.

Reports of repairs required when she moved into the property.

On its website, the landlord has a document which sets out the standards properties must meet before they are fit to be let (the lettable standard). This states that “new tenants can expect their home to be clean and tidy and for all the necessary fixtures and fittings to be in place and in working order”. It says that, before a property is let, kitchens and bathrooms must be decorated. Dirty wallpaper must be cleaned or removed. Guttering and downpipes must be free from blockages and watertight. Fencing must be in good condition and garden rubbish should be removed. The landlord might consider a one-off clearance if the garden was in a very poor state. The boiler should be fully serviced. Garden gates should have appropriate locks. Properties “will be free of damp, rot and infestation”. These works must be carried out when the property is empty or “void” and are often called “void works”.
This Service has issued a special report; Spotlight on Damp and Mould, which sets out that landlords must adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to damp and mould and adopt policies to ensure that it is eradicated from their estates.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord carried out adequate checks on the property to ensure it met the lettable standard before the resident moved in. Nor have we seen any inspection reports prepared about the property. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that some void works had been completed and, after that, an inspection had shown that the property met the lettable standard. However, in the same response, it accepted that it had failed to carry out some of the repairs it should have during the void process. It said it had fallen short of its own standards and apologised.
This was a confusing and inadequate response to the resident’s reports because it failed to say which works it should have carried out. The landlord did not explain what failures its offer of £50 in compensation was intended to remedy. Given the extent of the works which seem to have been required such as the faulty boiler, the damp and mould, broken fences, and repair issues throughout the house, the amount offered was insufficient to remedy the failings.
The landlord also stated, at stage 1, that there had been no damp and mould present at the property at the time of the void inspection. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, it said that the void inspection “would be visual and not intrusive and, as such, may not have noted damp and mould which was later exposed after removal of the wallpaper”. The landlord accepted, therefore, in its stage 2 response, that there may have been damp and mould present which it failed to notice because it did not carry out the checks which would have found it. Given its lettable standard document says properties must be ‘free from damp’, to be lettable, it was inappropriate that it did not conduct a more thorough check in this regard.
When the resident signed the tenancy agreement on 6 January 2023, she quickly noted problems with the property, in particular that there was no heating and that there was damp and mould in her child’s bedroom. She says she reported this to the landlord the same day. Its repairs policy says that it will treat a lack of heating between the months of October and March as an emergency and attend within 24 hours. It is not clear when the landlord first attended to mend the heating but the evidence shows that it took 2 weeks to complete the repair.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any temporary heating while the heating was broken. Nor that it considered decanting her and her child to alternative accommodation in the meantime. This was, therefore, an inadequate response to her report as the landlord, once alerted to the fact that there was no heating, particularly in January, 1 of the coldest months of the year, should have considered the impact on the family and considered how to remedy the situation. This Service has, therefore, made an order to compensate the resident for this failure.
Having received the resident’s reports of multiple problems at the property, the landlord arranged for a further inspection of the property on 26 January 2023. The inspection showed that there was damp, which the surveyor believed was caused by a leaking external gutter. The surveyor told the resident how to treat mould and said the landlord would arrange for the guttering to be repaired. While this was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns, it should not have been necessary as the problem with the guttering should have been picked up during the lettable standard inspection.
The landlord said that the damp and mould was insufficient to justify rehousing the resident. The resident had reported that her child had asthma and there is no evidence that it considered this when making its decision that there was no need to consider alternative accommodation. The landlord should have, in its response, addressed the matter of the resident’s report of health concerns and explained why this did not justify rehousing in the circumstances.
The first time the landlord appears to have considered decanting was in its July 2023 stage 2 complaint response when it said that “the property at handover reached the lettable standard” because “the damp and mould was not of a level requiring you to be decanted to another property”. This shows the landlord did not pay sufficient attention to the question of damp and mould as was set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and the evidence shows that when the resident stripped the wallpaper in January 2023, significant levels of damp were discovered throughout the property.
When the resident began stripping the wallpaper in January 2023, she uncovered areas of blown plaster. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident had “made matters worse” by removing paper from the walls and ceilings. This was not a fair criticism as stripping wallpaper is common practice in the redecoration process and the problems with the plaster were not, on the evidence, caused by the resident but revealed by her. This criticism was, therefore, an unreasonable response to the resident’s reports. It blamed her for a pre-existing problem which it should have discovered in the void period.
The resident reported and complained about many other issues in January 2023. She said that the landlord’s contractors had missed appointments which delayed the repairs. The landlord denies this and says the resident was responsible for these delays or had contributed to them with poor communication. No evidence has been provided to this Service on the basis of which to determine the accurate version of events with respect to these allegations.
The resident also reported that the key to the property’s garden had been given to her neighbours. The landlord agreed to change the locks and provide her with new keys. This was a reasonable response.
The resident raised various other repair issues on moving in and complained formally about the landlord’s failure to remedy them in her complaint of 18 January 2023. These included that, a cupboard drawer was broken and did not open; a plinth beneath a sink was broken; some of the electrics in the kitchen did not work; and there was no exterior lighting. The landlord’s repairs policy says that non-urgent repairs will be carried out within 1 month and usually much quicker. It agreed at stage 1 that it would carry out these repairs.
Although this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord completed the works, it says it completed most of them by mid-April 2023 which means they took 3 months which was, again, a failure to meet the terms of the policy. And, again, these works should have been completed during the void period as they were all matters set out in the landlord’s lettable standard document as being works that should have been completed before the property was let.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider making payments of compensation when it fails to meet its service standard for making repairs. However, while it offered her £50 at stage 1, it offered her no further payment for the extensive delays in carrying out works at stage 2. This was an inappropriate response as it failed to abide by its own policy.
The resident also raised concerns that the garden was overgrown and the fences to the rear and front of the property had collapsed. She also reported that a skylight was dirty. The landlord failed to address her concerns about the garden and fence issue in its stage 1 response, and there is no evidence that it considered clearing the garden or that it did so. Instead, it said it had checked the boundary line and considered there were no concerns. With respect to the skylight, it said it would arrange for necessary works to be completed. These responses did not fully address the issues she raised nor provide clear information about when action would be taken.
In her response to the stage 1 decision, the resident said she could not live at the property as there was damp and mould in her child’s bedroom, there was no heating, and the child was asthmatic. She said there was a leak affecting the property. The garden fences were rotten and there was no exterior lighting. She said she wanted the problems sorted out. She had been told twice that exterior scaffolding would be needed to repair the guttering and remedy the leaks but none had been erected.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord completed the repairs which it said it would do. It reported in its stage 2 complaint response that it had dealt with or would soon deal with all the outstanding issues set out in the stage 1 and 2 responses.
At the time of its final decision on the complaint, the landlord failed to meet its own service standards. It made commitments to solve the problems at the property which, on the evidence, it broke. It offered £50 compensation, a wholly inadequate amount, at stage 1 and offered no more for its failures to carry out repairs by the time it sent its stage 2 response, when a further 6 months had passed.
The fact that the landlord claimed that the property met its lettable standard while at the same time accepting that it should have carried out more repairs during the void period, indicates that there is internal confusion about what the lettable standard is and how to ensure that properties meet it. It accepts, in its complaint responses, that it carried out “visual only” inspections and so it could not have been expected to know that there was damp at the property. It is inappropriate for it to rely on visual only inspections if they do not enable it to meet the lettable standard it says it will meet.
There is a possibility that other residents may experience similar experiences when moving into one of the landlord’s properties. This Service has therefore made an order which seeks to ensure that it investigates the underlying issues in its handling of this case and considers how a repetition can be avoided.

The associated formal complaint

The version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint’s handling Code (the Code) which applied at the time of these events said that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. If a resident asks to escalate their complaint to stage 2, landlords must respond within 20 working days. The landlord had a complaint handling policy (the policy), which broadly complied with the Code.
The Code also says that complaints must set out and deal with all complaint points, providing a decision on each.
The resident made her initial complaint on 18 January 2023. The landlord responded on 9 February 2023. The complaint response, therefore, took 17 working days which failed to comply with the Code or the policy. The landlord should have apologised for this delay, had it done so, that would have been adequate redress for its failure.
The resident came to this Service in February 2023 having received the stage 1 response. We wrote to the landlord asking it to provide a stage 2 decision by 26 April 2023, but it did not do so. We wrote to it again on 5 July 2023,requiring it to send the response within 5 working days. It issued its complaint response on 18 July 2023, 11 working days later and 110 working days after the escalation request. This was, therefore, a service failure.
The landlord explained, in the stage 2 response, that some of this delay had been caused by its desire to deliver a complete response at stage 2 and that it had therefore waited until it had reached a resolution before replying. It said that it had a new complaints team and was working through a backlog of complaints. It was right for the landlord to be open about any potential delay and to explain that it was reducing delays for the future. It was also right that it offered compensation for the delay. However, given the length of the delay and the other failures in the complaint process, the £100 it offered was not sufficient to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident for its failures.
This Service has recently required the landlord to carry out an investigation into its complaint handling processes. For that reason, we have not made recommendations for a similar investigation in this decision.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required when she moved into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must undertake the following and provide this Service with evidence of compliance:
1. Send a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £700, inclusive of the £150 it has already offered her, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of repairs which were required when she moved into the property.
  2. £200 for its failures in responding to the associated formal complaint.
3. Pay the resident £150 to compensate her for 2 weeks period when there was no heating at the property.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must undertake the following and provide this Service with evidence of compliance:
1. The landlord must create a schedule of works to complete any outstanding repair issues inside and outside the property. This will include redecoration, which it undertook to complete in its stage 2 response, and any outstanding works in the property and in the garden. It must arrange for these works to be completed and send a completion certificate to the resident and to this Service.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure that similar failures in checking the void standard do not occur in future.
3. The prevention of future incidents is addressed by identifying any current weaknesses in the landlord’s void response practices which might affect vulnerable people in future.