Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202419734)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a converted house with communal access. The resident and several other tenants reported ASB from their neighbour for around 6 years before the complaint. The issues ranged from noise nuisance and loose pets to drug use and violent incidents. The complainants also reported fleas which they believed entered the building from the neighbour’s cats.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. A flea infestation.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a flea infestation.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB

4. There is evidence that the landlord issued warnings to the neighbour in line with its policies. It worked closely with the police to log incidents and asked for more patrols in the area. After the judge granted it possession of the property it chased the courts regularly to try and secure a warrant and bailiff. While the delay was frustrating for the resident, the landlord did all it could to speed up the eviction.

The landlord’s handling of a flea infestation

5. The landlord did not send a pest controller until 9 months after the resident first reported the problem. There is evidence that the resident and her neighbours chased the landlord during this time, and it was aware of the continued problem in the block. When it treated the fleas, it also treated the individual flats. This action was additional to the requirements in its policy. It also reimbursed the resident for her own flea treatments and provided added compensation to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord met its policy timescales at both stages of the complaint process. The responses were thorough and clearly reflected its investigation, while acknowledging the impact on the resident.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. There is evidence that the ASB began in 2018 and escalated over time. It is fair and reasonable for us to limit the investigation to events that occurred within 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint on 28 June 2024, through to the landlord’s final response on 25 September 2024. References to earlier events are included only to provide context.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord’s policy says that it will review reports of ASB within 24 hours, assess risk, and confirm whether the report meets its ASB definition. It will contact the complainant within 1 working day for serious cases and within 5 working days for others to agree an action plan.
9. The landlord will use early interventions such as warnings and home visits and take enforcement action if the behaviour continues. This can include extending starter tenancies, applying for injunctions, or starting possession proceedings. All legal action is based on risk, evidence, and proportionality. The landlord may also work with the police or local authority to use powers such as closure orders or criminal behaviour orders.
10. The Housing Act 1988 requires social landlords to show the court that they have a lawful ground for possession, such as a breach of tenancy, rent arrears, or ongoing nuisance. Based on the evidence provided during the investigation period, the landlord collected sufficient evidence, which led to a successful possession order in March 2023.
11. After the court granted the possession order, the landlord applied for a warrant of possession immediately. However, without bailiffs executing the warrant, the landlord could not legally remove the resident or enter the property without their permission.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord regularly chased the court for updates through its solicitors. It also made a formal complaint to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). HMCTS informed the landlord that there was a shortage of bailiffs due to a dispute over personal protective equipment, which created a backlog.
13. The landlord considered escalating the case to the High Court. However, its solicitor said that this could cause further delays. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow its solicitor’s advice, as they were more experienced in the court system.
14. The landlord obtained an injunction against the neighbour in August 2024 and asked the police to act promptly when the neighbour breached it. However, because the injunction did not include a power of arrest, the landlord’s only choice was to apply to the court for enforcement. At the same time, the court confirmed a possession date for the property. It was reasonable for the landlord not to pursue enforcement of the injunction, as this would have taken longer than waiting for the scheduled eviction.
15. The landlord spoke to the police about the possibility of a closure order; however, the police said that they did not have enough reports from the neighbours to justify one. We have seen evidence that the landlord encouraged the tenants to report all issues to the police but that several occupants were afraid of reprisal.
16. We acknowledge that the eviction process took significantly longer than expected. The resident reported that the impact on her has been long-lasting. However, the landlord acted within the legal framework and took all reasonable steps to progress the process as quickly as possible.
17. The landlord gave the resident updates throughout, however there were limitations on the level of information it could give. It was right for the landlord to avoid providing too much information about the neighbour however we recognise that this frustrated the resident.

18. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will treat fleas when they affect communal areas or multiple flats. The policy allows discretionary treatment of pests it is not responsible for. It also says the landlord will attend within normal repair timescales: 24 hours for emergencies and within 28 calendar days for routine repairs.
19. The resident reported the infestation in September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed or treated the infestation until July 2024. We asked the landlord to clarify how many visits it completed and when, but it did not provide this information.
20. There is evidence that multiple residents reported the flea infestation, and the resident reported it several times. The landlord did not act until she made a complaint in July 2024, at which point it arranged treatment promptly.
21. In cases of severe infestations that may affect health and safety, the landlord should assess whether the household has vulnerabilities that require alternative temporary accommodation. The resident told the landlord she was experiencing allergic reactions to bites. The landlord told her she was not eligible for temporary accommodation, but there is no evidence that it carried out the required assessment or explained how it reached this decision.
22. The landlord offered £600 compensation, made up of £300 reimbursement for flea treatment and £300 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. This offer was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case and reflective of the impact on the resident. It was also consistent with our remedies guidance for delays of this nature, so we’ve recommended that the landlord re-offer this to the resident.
23. While there were delays in the landlord’s response to the flea infestation, the compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay and amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
25. The resident escalated her complaint after seeking advice from our service. It acknowledged and responded to the complaint within the proper timescale. This was consistent with the Code.
26. It gave clear explanations of its decisions, and the comments reflect its investigation. That said, it did not specifically acknowledge the delay in responding to the reports of fleas.  It did, however, offer compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the infestation.
27. For the reasons above, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping was thorough in relation to the ASB concerns from the neighbour. There were also clear records of the complaint to the courts, and its communication with the police about alternative enforcement.
29. Record keeping in relation to the flea infestation was not as robust. We have not seen any reports from site, and there is no evidence of why there was such a delay in its original attendance. The landlord should review the case to understand what happened and put in place any extra processes needed to prevent it from happening again.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication about the neighbour’s eviction clearly detailed what steps it took to try and speed it up. While communication appears reactive, we acknowledge it would be difficult to set up regular updates given the number of new ASB reports from the resident and her neighbours.