Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202337498)

Decision
Case ID	202337498
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hexagon Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	11 December 2025

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder in a block of flats. She pays a monthly variable service charge. She raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the accuracy of the service charges, the provision of communal services, outstanding repairs, poor communication, and antisocial behaviour (ASB). She said the ongoing issues had affected her physical health, her mental health, and her finances.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Service charge queries and concerns raised about the level of communal services provided.
   2. Reports of repairs.
   3. Reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling,

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to service charge queries and concerns raised about the level of communal services provided.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to service charge queries and concerns raised about the level of communal services provided

5. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in sending out the service charge accounts. It acknowledged that it had not always followed its audit procedures and that it had not responded to the resident during the consultation process. It recognised that there had been issues with the quality of work from its previous grounds maintenance contractors. However, it did not recognise that it had not given the resident a sufficient response to her service charge and grounds maintenance queries. It did not put any measures in place to ensure it provided a full and suitable response. It apologised, but this was not proportionate to the identified failings.

The landlord’s response to reports of repairs

6. The landlord acknowledged the delays in repairing the leak to the cycle store and the external building panels. However, it did not make any reference to the communal door repairs, which were still outstanding at the date of the stage 2 response. There was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as there was no firm plan of action in place to resolve the repair issues going forward. The landlord apologised but this was not proportionate to the identified failings.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

7. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s first report of ASB. It also delayed in sending the action plan and did not carry out a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy. It did not recognise its failings through the complaints process.

Complaint handling

8. There were significant delays in the landlord acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and responding at stage 1. The landlord did not open a separate complaint when the resident raised additional concerns at stage 2. There were also delays in the landlord responding at stage 2 and it did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to service charge queries and concerns raised about the level of communal services provided. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of repairs. £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of ASB. £125 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Service charge order   The landlord must contact the resident and arrange a suitable appointment to discuss her concerns in relation to her service charge costs. The landlord should identify each concern and write to the resident to provide a full and specific response within 2 weeks of the appointment date.   If there are any outstanding actual accounts that are overdue, the landlord must confirm to the resident when it will provide the finalised accounts.	No later than 22 January 2026
4	Repairs order   The landlord must confirm the full outcome of the structural survey it said it would complete by March 2023 in writing to the resident and provide us with a copy. The landlord must also confirm how and when it intends to repair/replace the panels.   The landlord must also confirm that all repairs to the fob operated communal door are complete. If they are not complete, the landlord must confirm in writing to the resident and us what work is outstanding and when it will complete the work.	No later than 22 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 August 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the accuracy of service charges, the provision of communal services, outstanding repairs, and poor communication.
8 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had begun implementing a range of actions to improve its procurement processes following an advisory audit on its procurement practices, conducted in November 2023 it was limited in the response it could give in relation to the resident’s concerns about incomplete repairs and maintenance issues as it did not have any specific examples it needed to carry out an assessment of the exterior building panels and it would carry out follow-on works once the inspection had taken place. it was auditing the 2022 to 2023 service charge actuals and it had sent the resident a s20B notice (notification of costs incurred under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) it understood the resident’s concerns related to the 2023 to 2024 service charge estimates, but the actual cost would be shown when the accounts were finalised
26 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response for the following reasons: there had been a lack of consultation in relation to the service charge increase of 32%, and the service charges were still incorrect the complaints process was inadequate there had been a deterioration in the services provided as the basement cycle store was flooded, the communal cleaning had not been done, and it had taken the landlord a month to repair a communal door there had been an increase in ASB and, as a result, the communal areas were deteriorating due to the perpetrators smoking drugs and making resident’s feel unsafe the service charge team were unresponsive
13 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had given the resident a detailed response to her service charge queries on 26 April 2024 and explained how it had calculated the estimated charges for 2023 to 2024 it had set up a new team and it acknowledged how it had handled service charge queries in the past resulting in a loss of trust there would be improved transparency and timely, accurate auditing going forward, as it was launching a resident portal it had not finalised the accounts for 2022 to 2023 or 2023 to 2024 and it had not audited the accounts for 2022 to 2023, which it accepted was a service failure. The target date for completion was September 2024 it recognised it had not consistently followed its reconciliation and audit procedures it acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s email dated 23 August 2023 as part of the procurement consultation process it was satisfied with its decision to award the contract to its new contractors as the terms were more favourable and there were provisions in case of poor quality work there had been a service failure in relation to the flooded basement store as its contractors had attended without arranging access to the building. They had also completed an inspection when they should have been aware of the issue the grounds maintenance and cleaning contract had been in place since 1 February 2024, and with all contracts there was a bedding in period communication was an ongoing concern and a key focus of a review it acknowledged the length of time the replacement of the metal panels had been outstanding. It had prioritised resolving issues with its medium rise blocks. Once the work had been completed, it would prioritise low rise blocks it was committed to improving the quality and response to complaints it had emailed the resident on 1 May 2024 and set out the actions it had taken and the actions it proposed to take in relation to the reported ASB. Its actions had been responsive and timely although it had not yet resolved the issue. It did not believe reprogramming the fobs would solve the problem it was obliged to provide residents with one month’s notice of an increase in service charges. It had notified residents of the increases on 29 February 2024 following consultation it was determined to improve the service it provided but it was aware that, at times, it had not met the required standard of service
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted compensation for being overcharged, or charged for services not received, and action taking on non-financial issues. She said the issues were affecting her finances and she felt unsafe within the property. She said the lack of maintenance had affected the value of her home and she felt physically, mentally, and financially stressed.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to service charge queries and concerns raised about the level of communal services provided
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

9. The resident told us that the ongoing issues have affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. Part of the complaint is about the increase in service charge costs, the reasonableness of the charges, and the level of the service charges in relation to the services the resident has received. We may not investigate complaints about the level of rent or service charge or their increases, or where it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy via another procedure, such as the Tribunal. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable and whether it responded sufficiently to her queries. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of service charges, or the level of increase in service charges, she may wish to seek independent advice.
11. The resident raised a formal complaint in August 2022 about service charges, provision of communal services, and repairs. The landlord responded at stage 2 in October 2022. The resident did not escalate this complaint to us for investigation. Therefore, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2023, which is when the resident raised further concerns in relation to similar issues.

What we have investigated

12. The resident sent the landlord an email on 6 February 2023. This followed a meeting with the landlord to discuss service charges on 2 February 2023. The resident said she was unable to evaluate and agree to the service charge estimate for 2023 to 2024 due to the lack of transparency relating to the sinking fund and how it was being used. She said she had agreed to a second meeting with the landlord on 22 February 2023. The landlord has not provided us with any details of the content of the meeting. This raises concerns about its record keeping practices.
13. The landlord carried out a site audit on 20 February 2023. The report noted that there was litter, leaves, and weeds visible in the external communal areas at the time of the audit. It confirmed the weekly cleaning log had been completed. However, there is no indication within the audit report that the landlord had put any measures in place to rectify the issues it had noted within the external areas.
14. The resident sent the landlord an email on 20 February 2023. She said she had not received any confirmation that the service charge meeting was due to take place on 22 February 2023. She also said all the issues raised at the previous meeting were still outstanding. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the meeting took place and, if it did, what was agreed with the resident in relation to the service charge estimates. 
15. The landlord completed a further site audit on 6 March 2023. The report noted that there was litter and leaves present and it scored the grounds maintenance as 3 out of 5. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this was an acceptable score or whether the landlord had raised any concerns with its grounds maintenance contractors.
16. At some point in August 2023 the landlord was completing the consultation process to enter into a qualifying long term agreement for grounds maintenance services under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is unclear from the evidence provided which stage of the process the landlord was consulting on when the resident sent her observations on 17 August 2023. She asked the landlord for more information on the annual service charge and the anticipated impact of the new contract. She also raised concerns that the contractors under consideration had poor business ratings.
17. The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 say where, within the relevant period, observations are made in relation to the landlord’s proposals by any tenant or recognised tenants’ association, the landlord shall have regard to those observations. There is no legal definition of “have regard”. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered or responded to the resident’s concerns.
18. The resident sent the landlord a further email on 23 August 2023 expressing concerns about the grounds maintenance. She said the grounds had not been maintained properly for years. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to either concern. This is not in line with the service charge enquiry standards detailed on the landlord’s website which says it will respond to service charge enquiries within 10 working days.
19. It is unclear from the evidence provided what events took place from September 2023 until the resident raised further concerns about her service charges and the grounds maintenance service on 21 March 2024. She said she had received a letter informing her that her service charges had increased by 32%. She said she had raised formal complaints with the landlord but it had yet to respond. She also said the standard of services had also declined and that she objected to paying for several of the service charge costs, including the garden services. She asked the landlord to recalculate her service charges and remove the items she had identified. She also asked it to provide justification and evidence of the remaining charges. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
20. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 27 March 2024. The landlord responded the following day saying it was committed to addressing the issues and providing a clear resolution.
21. The landlord sent the resident an email on 2 April 2024. It said the estimated service charge was based on the running costs of the communal areas and it was dependant on the size, location, and age of the building. It said the estimates were calculated by taking the previous year’s expenditure and applying an inflationary increase. It said it was an estimated amount and the actual expenditure would be determined in September 2026. It said it would need to speak to the estate services team to address the resident’s concerns about the cleaning and grounds maintenance services.
22. The landlord’s response was general and did not address her specific concerns about the increases. In addition, the information provided by the landlord was incorrect. The resident was referring to the service charge estimates for 2024 to 2025. The landlord’s service charge policy says by 30 September each year it will provide customers with the actual cost of providing services for the preceding financial year. As the financial year would end at the end of March 2025, the landlord should determine the actual expenditure by September 2025, not 2026. There is also no evidence that the landlord investigated whether its grounds maintenance and cleaning contractors had performed in line with their contractual obligations or, if it had, what the outcome of the investigation was.
23. The landlord sent the resident an email dated 26 April 2024. It said it had clearly shown the apportionment and description for each of the service elements in the service charge increase letter. It said the resident could request the documents for the 2024 to 2025 expenditure in September 2026. It said it was auditing the 2022 to 2023 actual expenditure accounts and it would send the information out when it had completed the audit process. This was not in line with the landlord’s service charge policy as, according to the policy, it should have sent the 2022 to 2023 actual accounts to residents by September 2023. The 2024 to 2025 accounts were due to be sent in September 2025. 
24. In the stage 2 response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a delay in sending out the actual accounts for 2022 to 2023 and 2023 to 2024. It also said it had not yet audited the 2022 to 2023 accounts. It said the target date for completion was September 2024. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided whether it provided the resident with the accounts by this date. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not consistently followed its audit procedures and it had not responded to the resident’s email during the consultation process. It apologised and acknowledged that it had not addressed her concerns. It also recognised that there had been issues with poor quality work from its previous grounds maintenance contractors.
25. However, it did not recognise that it had still not given the resident a detailed response to her service charge queries or her queries relating to the grounds maintenance and cleaning services. This meant that there was no meaningful resolution to the complaint. The landlord did not put any measures in place to ensure it provided an appropriate response to her queries going forward.
26. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. We do not consider the landlord’s apology sufficient redress given the impact of its failings. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

28. When making her complaint, the resident made a number of generalised statements about the maintenance service the landlord had provided. It is important for a landlord to know when its residents are not happy with its services. However, it is difficult to respond to general statements of dissatisfaction. This is because general views cannot be compared to specific obligations in the lease, the landlord’s policies, or relevant legislation. As such, this investigation will only focus on the specific areas of the landlord’s maintenance service raised by the resident during the complaint. We will consider whether it responded reasonably to those concerns.

What we have investigated

29. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 to ask for an update on the missing external cladding panels. She said she had not heard anything even though the issues had been ongoing for 8 years. The landlord responded on 13 February 2023 and said it had asked a structural engineer to review all the panels by the end of March 2023.
30. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that a structural survey took place before the end of March 2023, or that it provided the resident with any updates in relation to the cladding. This raises concerns about the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping practices.
31. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 September 2023 to report that the fob operated door leading to the car park was not closing, which posed a building security risk. The landlord’s contractor responded the following day and gave the resident an appointment date of 19 September 2023. The appointment date was within the timeframe of 28 days set within the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs. The resident asked the contractors to attend as an emergency due to the security risk. The contractor agreed but then said it was a different contractor who were contracted to attend to the fob operated doors. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the correct contractor was notified of the repair.
32. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 September 2023. It said its contractor had attended on 8 September 2023 and adjusted the door closer. It asked the resident to check whether the door had been repaired. It said it thought its contractor may have repaired the wrong door or that the door may have been broken again. The resident said the door was still not closing properly. She confirmed it was the fob operated door on the basement floor. The resident told the landlord that she felt unsafe in the building due to the security risks. The landlord said it would speak to its contractor and they would attend the following day. This was within the timeframe of 28 days for routine repairs. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the repair was actually completed.
33. It is also unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord relied on the resident to confirm whether its contractors had completed the repairs. Had the landlord taken the time to post inspect the repair, it would have been clear much sooner whether the contractors needed to reattend. This would have reduced the overall time that the building was accessible to non-residents. This raises concerns about the landlord’s contract management.
34. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2024 to report a leak in the cycle storage area close to the gas and electric meters. She contacted the landlord again later that day and said an operative had attended to the repair without a key. She said, had she not been at home, he would have been unable to access the area. The operative’s attendance was within the timeframe of 24 hours to make safe emergency repairs set within the landlord’s repairs policy. The repair was completed on 2 March 2024.
35. The landlord’s records show that there was further flooding in the cycle storage area on 20 March 2024. However, the work was not completed until 22 April 2024, which was outside of the 28 day timeframe for routine repairs.
36. Further flooding was reported on 26 April 2024. The landlord attended on the same day to complete an emergency repair, within the expected timeframe. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2024 to ask when the contractors would be attending to fix the issue. She contacted the landlord again on 3 May 2024 to inform it that another resident had drained the cycle store after the contractor had turned up that day without a key. She said the operative left before a resident could bring a key down. The landlord said the contractors would re-attend and would contact residents for access. Had the landlord pre-planned the access arrangements for its contractors, it would have reduced the reliance on the residents to be available to allow access for communal repairs. It would also ensure repairs could be completed within the required timescales.
37. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a service failure in completing the repair to the leak in the cycle store. It accepted the overall delay and that its contractors had attended unprepared to gain access. It also acknowledged its poor communication with its contractors and it apologised for how it handled the repair. It also appropriately acknowledged the length of time the external metal panel repairs had been outstanding. It said it was meeting with residents on 27 June 2024 and the panels would be an item for discussion. However, the landlord has not provided us with any evidence in relation to the outcome of this meeting or confirmed whether it has made any firm arrangements to replace the panels.
38. The landlord did not make any reference to the fob operated door repairs within its stage 2 response. The evidence shows that the repair was still outstanding on 18 June 2024. It also did not recognise that it unfairly relied on the resident to confirm whether the repairs had been completed. There was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as the door repairs and external panel repairs were still outstanding with no firm plan of action in place to resolve them.
39. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. We do not consider the landlord’s apology sufficient redress given the impact of its failings. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of ASB
Finding	Service failure

40. It is not our role to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances were a nuisance. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
41. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2024 to report a group of people loitering in the car park area. She told the landlord that they had a fob and were able to enter the building. She said they had left litter in the communal areas and she felt unable to use the cycle storage area at night as they had full access to the building. The resident asked the landlord to raise the issue with the police. There is no evidence to show that the resident received a response from the landlord.
42. The resident contacted the landlord to chase a response on 16 January 2024 and 19 January 2024. The landlord responded on 24 January 2024. It said it was sorry she had not been kept informed. It said it would send her a copy of the action plan it was putting in place and it would send her a copy of the newsletter it was sending to residents with an update. The landlord’s response was not in line with its ASB policy which said it would investigate reports of ASB and complete initial actions between 24 hours and 10 days of the first report, depending on the outcome of the risk assessment. There is no evidence to show that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident or that it completed any actions within 10 days of her report.
43. The landlord contacted the resident again on 25 January 2024. It apologised for not responding to her report of ASB. It said it had added her as a joint complainant to a case already opened following a neighbour’s report. It said it had attached an acknowledgement letter and it would send an action plan. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord sent the action plan to the resident. However, she thanked the landlord on 27 February 2024 for sending her a copy of the action plan. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that it took the landlord just over a month to forward the action plan. This was a considerable delay.
44. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 April 2024. She said the ASB was continuing and had escalated. She said she noted that the landlord was not proposing to replace the fobs, despite evidence that the perpetrators were accessing the building using a fob. She asked the landlord to explain why. The landlord responded on the same day and said it was not replacing the fobs as it would cost in excess of £5,000. This was a reasonable decision given that the landlord said it appeared, from its investigations, that someone had given a fob to the perpetrators. There was no guarantee that would not happen again.
45. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 April 2024 and 27 April 2024. She said she was struggling to understand how the landlord had arrived at the estimate of £5,000 for reprogramming or replacing the fobs. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided the resident with a response.
46. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had emailed the resident on 1 May 2024 setting out the actions it had taken to date and further proposed actions to address the ASB. We have not seen a copy of this letter. It also said, in its opinion, it had acted appropriately and it was committed to working with residents and the police to resolve the issues. The landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns, and it did act in line with its policy when it agreed an action plan. However, it did not recognise the delay in responding to the resident’s first report of ASB, the delay in sending the action plan, or its failure to carry out a risk assessment. The resident has told us that the ASB issues are no longer a concern.
47. In light of the identified failings, we consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

48. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2022 and April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
49. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 October 2023. This was significantly outside of the 5 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. Following intervention from us, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024. This was significantly outside of the 10 working days set within the landlord’s policy.
50. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 March 2024. Within her escalation request the resident included issues she had not previously raised at stage 1, such as her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The landlord did not open a new complaint. Instead, it included the additional concerns in the stage 2 complaint. This was not in line with the Code (April 2022) which says at 5.7 additional complaints should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. However, where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. This meant the resident’s complaint about ASB did not fully complete the landlord’s complaints process.
51. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 6 April 2024. Its policy at the time of the complaint did not specify the timeframe for acknowledgement at stage 2. However, the Code (April 2024) says requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged within 5 working days of escalation. The landlord’s acknowledgement was just outside of the required timeframe.
52. The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the resident on 13 June 2024. This was outside of the 20 working days from the date of acknowledgement set within the landlord’s policy. The landlord did not recognise or acknowledge its complaint handling failures within either of its complaint responses.
53. In light of the identified failings, we consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

54. Under s19(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, service charge costs must be reasonably incurred and services provided, or works completed, must be of a reasonable standard. The landlord should therefore review any concerns raised about the delivery and quality of such services and take appropriate action to address any identified issues.
55. The landlord should also ensure that it has measures in place to adequately manage and oversee its repairs contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

56. The landlord provided very limited evidence in this case. When we went back to the landlord to ask for further information, it did not respond. There were missing key documents that we had to ask the resident for, such as the formal complaint and request for escalation. This significantly hindered our investigation and raises concerns around its record keeping practices.

Communication

57. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout this case. There were several occasions where the resident contacted the landlord, yet there is no evidence to show that the landlord responded.