Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202214477)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214477

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

16 October 2025

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 response to the resident’s request for information regarding the materials used on the building.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Background

3. The resident is the leaseholder of the property through a shared ownership lease. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat situated in a purpose built building. The resident’s lease started in 2014.
4. In early 2024 the resident contacted us for assistance in relation to a complaint he had made to the landlord. The resident explained that he had requested updated information from the landlord regarding the materials used on the building. I had failed to provide this information. The resident explained that he had made multiple requests for the information over several years.
5. On 4 March 2024, following contact from us, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
   1. It understood that the resident was unhappy that it had not provided him with a copy of the building’s fire risk assessment despite making repeated requests.
   2. It was sorry that the result of the intrusive survey dated December 2021 was not communicated to residents. It explained that this was an “initial” investigation to identify if there were any “immediate [or] significant” concerns with the building. It confirmed that while the investigation did identify some issues they were not deemed significant.
   3. It was in the process of procuring a contract with a fire engineering consultancy to complete a fire risk appraisal of external walls (FRAEW) on the building. It explained that a FRAEW was used to assess the risk of fire spread over a building’s external walls.
   4. The FRAEW was a “relatively new requirement”. It noted that there had been several court cases concerning FRAEWs as experts had disputed each other’s findings. It confirmed that it was therefore being “cautious” in engaging a consultancy to carry out the FRAEW on the building so that any recommendations could not be challenged.
   5. The building did “not have any form of cladding as defined by building regulations” and therefore did not require an EWS1 (External Wall System) form.
   6. It was in the process of finalising quotes from contractors to undertake remedial works to the panelling on the building.
   7. It was “very sorry” for the “considerable length of time” it had taken to provide an update to the resident regarding fire safety in the building.
   8. It would like to meet with the residents of the building to discuss “fire safety issues relating to the property”. It invited the resident to provide a suitable time to meet.
6. On 4 March 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
   1. The landlord had still not provided him with updated information detailing the materials used on the building.
   2. The landlord’s lack of communication following the intrusive survey in December 2021 was unacceptable. He confirmed that he had been requesting information since the survey was undertaken.
   3. It was unacceptable that the landlord had not yet secured a contract to undertake the FRAEW following the intrusive investigation in December 2021.
   4. As the landlord had not responded to his requests for information his lender had denied his remortgage application. He therefore had to switch mortgage provider which had resulted in early repayment costs and higher interest rates.
   5. He would like compensation for losses incurred in addition to stress and inconvenience.
7. On 8 April 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
   1. It met with the resident on 14 March 2024 to discuss the complaint – no further details given.
   2. It provided the resident with a copy of the fire risk assessment for the building dated May 2023 on 18 March 2024. It was sorry for the delay in providing the report.
   3. The resident may refer the complaint to us if he was not happy with its response.
8. On 16 April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that he was unhappy with its response to the complaint. In summary the resident said:
   1. The fire risk assessment dated May 2023 was inadequate. He stated the report “lacked comprehensive detail regarding the mitigation measures implemented to address identified fire hazards”. He also noted that there were “disparities” between the report and his “firsthand observations”.
   2. He would like the landlord to ensure that a comprehensive reassessment of the building’s fire safety protocols was undertaken to ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the materials used on the building

9. On 22 December 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s request for information regarding the cladding on the building to support his remortgage application. It did so by providing him with a copy of the report following an intrusive survey on the building on 17 December 2021. This was appropriate as this was the most recent information it had detailing the materials on the building and fire safety.
10. The evidence shows the mortgage provider did not deem the report sufficient and therefore refused the resident’s application. The lender confirmed that to proceed with the application it required either an EWS1 certificate or “written confirmation from a chartered professional in the built environment that the materials actually fitted to the building [were] not ACM/MCM/HPL”. We note that these are references to different types of materials used on buildings.
11. In late December 2021 and January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it did not have any further information which it could provide which detailed the materials used on the building. It stated that the report following the intrusive survey did confirm the materials used in the exterior areas of the building and “ACM/MCM/HPL” was not mentioned. It further advised that the building did not need an EWS1 certificate as it was below 18 metres tall. It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed its position in relation to the information the lender wanted and what it was able to provide. We note that in July 2021 the government announced that EWS1 certificates were not required for buildings under 18 metres.
12. Also in January 2022 the landlord confirmed that it was in the process of instructing a third party fire engineer to review the findings following the intrusive survey. It explained that the review would determine if any remedial works were required to the building in relation to fire safety. This was a reasonable approach as the report did disclose that some of the decorative panels on the building were considered to be combustible and should be further investigated.
13. We note that after the introduction of the Government’s guidance relating to fire safety the demand for fire engineers was greater than the number of experts available. This resulted in protracted timescales for work needing fire engineers. We cannot see that the landlord provided any updates to the resident between February and October 2022 regarding the status of the review. It was only in October 2022, following contact from the resident, that the landlord shared an update confirming that the review had been delayed due to the “very short supply” of fire engineers. Updates would have been appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations and to provide reassurance that matters were still progressing, albeit at a slower pace.
14. Within its response dated October 2022 the landlord reiterated that no ACM had been used in the construction of the building and confirmed this was supported in section 8 of the report following the intrusive survey. It was appropriate that the landlord reiterated that information was available in the report which could address the lender’s request for clarification regarding the cladding on the building.
15. On 27 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had instructed a fire engineer to review the results of the intrusive surveys it had completed on all the buildings it owned. It explained that it would write to the resident by 24 February 2023 to confirm when the fire engineer would review the results from the building and therefore when further information would likely be available. The evidence shows that this update was only provided as the resident made contact with the landlord.
16. On 3 February 2023, as part of its response to a separate complaint, the landlord said that it was in the process of “attempting to secure the services of a qualified fire engineer” to review the results of the intrusive survey. It added that it was “unable to provide any potential timescales on when this would be completed”. It is concerning that less than 2 weeks after confirming that it had instructed a fire engineer the landlord’s position had changed. This will have resulted in confusion and uncertainty to the resident.
17. Throughout the rest of 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the outcome of the review of the intrusive survey and when further information would be available. Despite the resident’s contact we cannot see that the landlord wrote to the resident to provide a comprehensive update on the situation. This is a failing.
18. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it was in the process of procuring a contract with a fire engineer to complete a FRAEW. We note that this was in contrast to the information which the landlord had provided the resident with in January 2023; where it confirmed that a fire engineer had been instructed. It is concerning that the information which the landlord was providing in March 2024 was different and there is no evidence that the resident had been updated on this or its change in approach.
19. In response to the resident’s escalation request the landlord wrote to him to seek clarification on what information he was seeking in relation to the building’s fire safety. It explained that 2 reports were available. The first was the report following the intrusive inspection in December 2021, which it had already provided to the resident, and the second was the report following a fire risk assessment completed in May 2023.
20. It is concerning that the landlord was seeking this clarification after more than 2 years of the resident contacting it to request the outcome of the review by the fire engineer which it had informed him of in January 2022. This demonstrates a lack of understanding by the landlord on the request which the resident was making, and had been making since the start of 2022. If the landlord was not clear on the information which the resident was seeking it should have taken action at a much earlier time to seek the clarification it needed in order to provide a proper and accurate response.
21. The evidence shows that in May 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the fire risk assessment for the building dated 31 May 2023. It also stated that the report following the intrusive survey was “shortly to be reviewed” which was the precursor for work commencing in “2024-25 to address construction issues within the [building]”.
22. In an update to us in September 2025 the landlord confirmed that works to replace the “aesthetic wooden panels” on the building was due to begin within the next 12 weeks. The landlord confirmed that it was keeping residents updated through virtual meetings.
23. As part of the complaint the resident said that the landlord’s failure to respond to his request for information resulted in additional mortgage costs as his lender denied his remortgage application. While we note the resident’s position we cannot conclude that the lender’s decision would have been different if the landlord had of provided additional information or documents beyond what it provided in December 2021.
24. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s request for information was appropriate as it provided him with the current information it had and confirmed its position. These actions were taken promptly.
25. Thereafter there was maladministration by the landlord in how it managed and responded to the resident’s request for information regarding the materials used on the building. This is because the landlord did not provide regular or comprehensive updates to the resident after it confirmed in January 2022 that a fire engineer would be consulted on a way forward. As a result the resident was left chasing the landlord for an extended period of time without a clear understanding of when information would be available confirming the materials used on the building and what remedial action was necessary, if any.
26. The landlord has also demonstrated that throughout the period of investigation it did not have a clear understanding of the information the resident was seeking. This will have contributed to the landlord providing an unclear outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. In April 2022 the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced. It set out that a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made.
28. Prior to contacting us the evidence shows that the resident was contacting the landlord raising concerns regarding the information that was available detailing the materials on the building and fire safety. As the resident’s contacts were clear expressions of dissatisfaction it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have opened a complaint to respond to the concerns formally. In doing so this may have resulted in a better outcome for the resident at an earlier time. This was a missed opportunity. This is because the landlord could have explored with the resident what he was seeking and to confirm its position.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for information regarding the materials used on the building.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Provide the resident with an update following the review of the intrusive survey and the plan for any remedial works identified as necessary.
    3. Pay the resident £300 compensation for its handling of his request for information about the materials on the building from January 2022. This is in recognition that clear and regular updates were not provided to the resident which will have resulted in uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
    4. Pay the resident £100 for poor complaint handling. This is in recognition that the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction about the information it provided in relation to the materials used on the building.

Recommendations

31. The landlord should ensure that it provides all residents with at least quarterly updates regarding the fire safety remediation works to the building until they have been completed.