Consultation is open on our Business Plan 2025-26 and 5-year Corporate Strategy and we want to hear from you about our plans to deliver an efficient and effective Ombudsman.

Take part today.

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202307744)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307744

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

3 December 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
    1. Handling of work while the resident was decanted.
    2. Handling of concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and has vulnerabilities recorded for the household.

Summary of events

  1. In October 2022 the resident was moved from his property for 4 weeks to allow the landlord to complete work (decanted). On 16 December 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of these works and said:
    1. The landlord failed to keep him updated and when he returned to the property on 25 November 2022 it was a “complete mess”. He told the landlord his belongings were not protected from dust and dirt. The contractors had used his washing machine and how he felt someone had used his sons mattress.
    2. Due to his disability he could not stay at the property when it was in that condition.
    3. When the landlord attended on 30 November 2022 it said it did not expect the resident to return to the property. This was despite its email from 24 November 2022 confirming he could.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. It said:
    1. It accepted that there had been an issue with the quality of workmanship and it could have communicated more effectively. It offered its sincere apologies.
    2. It was unable to substantiate the use of the resident’s belongings based on the evidence provided. However, it reminded its contractor of its expectations.
    3. It sympathised with the resident’s health concerns and said health-related issues would form part of a liability issue. It could refer a claim to its insurers, it asked if the resident wanted to pursue this and to provide medical evidence. It explained compensation offered as a liability claim would be separate to its complaints process.
    4. There had been delays in registering the complaint and it explained the updates provided to the resident.
    5. It offered the resident compensation for £1,325 which was made up of £750 for inconvenience, £500 for delays and quality of works and £75 for its complaint handling delay. It had taken away learning from the complaint about how its communication could be improved and how it would introduce a new system which it hoped would improve how it interacts with residents in the coming months.
  3. In an undated letter around that time, the resident escalated his complaint and said the landlord did not explain the time taken to issue its stage 1 response and did not respond to his concerns about being told he could return to the property. He asked what evidence the landlord needed about use of his belongings and referred it to a picture demonstrating his washing machine had been used. He asked why the landlord had arranged for another contractor to complete works if it was satisfied its standard was met.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said:
    1. It had offered sincere apologies for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It had a backlog of complaints which caused delays in sending out responses. It offered an apology on behalf of itself and its contractors for the errors and lack of empathy shown in dealing with repairs. It accepted the issues encountered had been compounded by a lack of transparent and consistent communication. It was aware that works had been completed but issues remained outstanding.
    2. It had requested a further inspection of the property before 15 September 2023 to allow the resident to provide details of outstanding repairs. It would use this to schedule appointments to agree repairs.
    3. It had reviewed the previous compensation offer of £1,325 and noted the resident’s request for £5,000. It agreed to amend its original compensation offer to a total of £2,000. Its additional compensation amount was made up of £300 for a replacement washing machine, £150 for a new mattress, £100 for delayed stage 2 response and £125 for the inconvenience in resolving the case.
    4. It had learnt from the failings and explained further consideration needed to be given to cases where there were special requirements, a full inspection should have been carried out prior to the resident returning to the property. It should swiftly respond to issues raised and robustly manage contractors, taking appropriate action where contractors fail to perform to the required standard.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said its contractor had not apologised to him and asked again about being told he could return to the property. The resident later accepted the compensation offer of £2,000 but referred the matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In April 2022 the resident raised a complaint about issues including a loose banister rail, plastering, mould in the hallway, cracks within the property, uneven flooring and garden steps. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 May 2022 and in resolution of the complaint it arranged for an inspection and a face to face meeting to agree an action plan for works. Within its response the landlord explained its timeframe of 30 days to escalate the complaint to stage 2, as per its complaints policy and procedure. When considering the available evidence, the complaints raised in April 2022 did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and as such the Ombudsman has not considered the complaints addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response from May 2022 further within this report.
  2. It is noted that on 16 December 2022 the resident complained about new issues following his return to the property. The landlord acted reasonably in treating this contact as a new complaint. This report will consider the complaints that formed part of the landlord’s stage 2 response from 7 September 2023.

Handling of work while the resident was decanted

  1. The landlord’s pre and post inspection policy explains how it considers it vital to conduct inspections to ensure its maintenance service is high quality. It should assess work against a criteria to decide if work was completed in accordance with instructions and set standards. It says records should be kept of all inspections and a post inspection should be conducted within 28 working days of the completion of works. The landlord’s lettable standard says that all areas must be cleaned to ensure all dust debris and dirt is removed.
  2. On 24 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that repairs had been completed at the property and it was ready for him to return on 25 November 2022. It said an inspection had been conducted and repairs had been verified to the correct standard. The landlord has not provided evidence to show an inspection was conducted at that time or that it verified works in accordance with its policy. This was not appropriate.
  3. It is understood that it was later established that an inspection was not conducted. The landlord should have processes in place to ensure it provides correct information about post inspection works. Its failure to do this, and in providing the resident with incorrect information, was not appropriate and would have added to the resident’s frustration of its handling of work during the decant.
  4. In addition to the above, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property following decant. He provided the landlord with photographs and said dust and dirt had been left around the property. It is understood that initially the resident was told he should pay for cleaning service himself, however the landlord adjusted its approach and arranged for the property to be cleaned the following day. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for the cleaning of the property.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling work while the resident was decanted was not appropriate. It did not follow its pre and post inspection policy, conduct an inspection of works and incorrectly told the resident it had. It failed to offer the resident support when it was made aware of the condition of the property after the decant, especially in light of the vulnerabilities of the household and claims about not being able to stay at the property.
  6. However, it is noted that the landlord did arrange for cleaning of the property, it completed work and offered a further inspection to discuss any outstanding repairs with the resident. Within its stage 1 response, it appropriate apologised for its failings and offered the resident £500 compensation in recognition of its failings around the quality of works and £750 for the inconvenience caused. The compensation amount of £1,250 falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. When considering this and the points mentioned previously, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of concerns about the quality of decant work. The compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Handling of concerns about staff conduct

  1. The above complaint relates to concerns about the conduct of staff during the decant period as the resident has said his electricity and gas, washing machine and son’s bed had been used while he was away from the property.
  2. It is understood that the landlord’s appointed contractor completed work on its behalf. The landlord has provided some information about its agreed code of conduct with contractors. This includes the requirement to maintain the highest standards of hygiene and courtesy. For the purposes of this report, the Ombudsman has decided that any action, or inaction, of the contractor will be treated as that of the landlord.
  3. The evidence shows that after the resident returned to the property following the decant, he told the landlord that £100 of his gas and electricity had been used. When considering the nature of the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to have reimbursed £100 to the resident.
  4. The resident reported his washing machine had been used and provided the landlord with photographs of paint within the machine filters. He also provided photographs of his son’s bed that had been moved raising concerns about it being used. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, from 28 March 2023, it explained that it was unable to substantiate the issues with the evidence available. While it is appreciated that such allegations can be difficult to prove, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have considered how it could investigate the resident’s concerns at that time. It missed an opportunity to do this, this was not reasonable in the circumstances and meant the resident had to challenge the landlord’s approach. However, the landlord did adjust its approach within its stage 2 response, from September 2023. The landlord demonstrated it had considered the resident’s concerns further and offered compensation for a replacement washing machine and for a new mattress. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. As part of the landlord’s internal complaints process it offered the resident a refund of £100 for gas and electricity, £300 for a replacement washing machine, £150 for a new mattress and £125 for the inconvenience caused by not resolving the matter sooner. When considering the amount of £675, this falls within this Service’s severe maladministration banding, and the landlord’s insight into the impact of not resolving the matter sooner, the landlord has offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure explains how it had 10 working days to issue a stage 1 response and 20 working days for a stage 2. Its complaints policy allows for an extension of 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 16 December 2022. The landlord took over a month to acknowledge this (26 January 2023). Within its acknowledgment the landlord said it would respond by 9 February 2023, however it did not do this. This was not appropriate.
  3. While the landlord revised its response timeframe to 22 February 2022, it failed to meet this, it did not keep the resident updated and did not issue its stage 1 response until 28 March 2023. The timeframe of around 3 months to issue a stage 1 response was not appropriate.
  4. In an undated letter the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord’s notes show it received the escalation request by no later than 30 March 2023. However, the landlord took 6 months to issue its stage 2 response. This timeframe was not appropriate and also exceeded the timeframe set within its complaints policy.
  5. Overall, the landlord took around 9 months to conclude its internal complaint process. This significantly exceeded the timeframes set within its complaints policy and was not appropriate. The landlord’s complaint handling delays would have added to the resident’s frustration with its communication.
  6. Within its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately apologised for its complaint handling failings and offered the resident £75 compensation. It offered a further £100 for its delayed stage 2 response. The landlord’s complaint handling compensation offer of £175 falls within the maladministration banding for this Service’s remedies guidance. When considering the landlord’s attempts to put things right and its acknowledgement of the impact caused, its compensation offer was reasonable and satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of work while the resident was decanted.
    2. Handling of concerns about staff conduct.
    3. Complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the total compensation of £2,000 it previously offered, if it has not already done so.