Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202521501)
|
Case ID |
202521501 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Hexagon Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
5 March 2026 |
- The resident lives with her 9-year-old daughter in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with its own garden. The landlord was aware during the complaints process that her daughter has mobility issues and uses a wheelchair user. The resident said she reported the bathroom condition, kitchen fittings and unsafe gas supply to the cooker, flooding from an external meter closet causing uneven flooring in the communal entrance and an exposed electrical wire in the communal entrance. She said the reported issues in the kitchen meant she was unable to connect her cooker and washing machine.
What the complaint is about
- The landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of the condition of the property on letting, along with outstanding repairs and gas safety concerns.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the property on letting, along with outstanding repairs and gas safety concerns.
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord’s poor record keeping meant it failed to provide us with full and accurate records for the investigation. Poor records management would not have helped the landlord to keep track of the outstanding repairs and to follow up appropriately to ensure their completion. Its poor internal and external communication meant that the resident had to chase up to receive updates. This led to delays in completing the outstanding work that was outside of its repairs policy timescale which was inappropriate.
- The landlord unreasonably delayed its complaint handling at stage 1. It failed to respond within its complaints policy and the Code timescales. There is no evidence that the landlord took any learning from the complaint to improve its repairs service delivery or records management.
- The landlord offered compensation; however, this does not fully recognise the impact on the resident of the delays, poor communication and her vulnerabilities. It did, however, offer to reconfigure the kitchen to fit the resident’s non-standard size cooker which was reasonable. It offered to redecorate, though this ordinarily would have been the resident’s responsibility which was also reasonable.
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:
|
No later than 31 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up of as follows:
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 31 March 2026 |
|
3 |
Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
The survey report must set out:
|
No later than 31 March 2026 |
|
4 |
Case review order The landlord must complete a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. It should pay particular attention to its response to vulnerable residents and support it can offer. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this timeframe. |
No later than 15 April 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
7 February 2025 |
The resident said she reported unresolved repair issues from the tenancy start date of 7 February 2025, saying the property was unsafe. |
|
12 June 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said the bathroom was incomplete, there was an unsafe gas cooker installation, no plumbing for her washing machine, loose and unsafe external flooring, a leak from the external water meter causing internal flooding. She said that the lifting communal entrance flooring caused difficulty for her daughter entering the flat. She said the problems were causing her a financial and emotional strain, including the need to use launderettes, reliance on takeaway meals and travel costs to family members to cook and store food. |
|
18 June 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord about the outstanding repair issues in the property. She referred to the same issues along with the condition of the bathroom. She said the lifting communal flooring to the flat door was making it difficult for her to get her daughter’s wheelchair into the property. She said despite efforts to engage with various staff that the issues remained outstanding. As a remedy she requested that the landlord resolve the issues and for compensation and support. |
|
15 July 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord again about the outstanding repair issues. She said despite numerous emails, phone calls and site visits, repairs were still outstanding following on from the landlord’s 23 June 2025 visit. This included the issues she had raised before other than bathroom that she said was resolved due to her occupational therapist’s intervention. She also reported that the landlord’s gas safety engineer had not signed off the gas cooker due to installation faults and a hazardous switch position. She said the landlord had only resolved the exposed wires that week. As a remedy she requested that landlord complete all outstanding repairs to be resolved, and to consider appropriate compensation for prolonged disruption, stress and additional costs. |
|
9 September 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the delay in responding. It upheld the complaint saying its contractor did not inspect the property until 11 August 2025, followed by its voids’ surveyor on 28 August 2025 as the contractor’s report was inclusive. It said it could find no documentary evidence of the resident reporting the non-standard cooker size at the time of the kitchen installation. However, it said that the resident was responsible for fitting white goods including the cooker and the washing machine. It confirmed it had inspected the bathroom. It confirmed that the local authority had since installed a wetroom and it found no health and safety concerns.
It said its contractor “may” have fixed the leak from the external meter as the resident had not reported it recently. It said was unsure whether the communal flooring was part of the resident’s complaint.
It advised the resident to not contact individual officers to report repairs but to contact its customer services team as her communications had not been documented. It acknowledged it should have responded sooner considering the resident and her daughter’s vulnerabilities and apologised.
It agreed to complete the work to put in a minor opening so the resident could fix her washing machine, replace some missing door handles that the resident had reported as a gesture of goodwill, fix a gap between wall tiles and the bottom of the kitchen wall units, secure a loose waste under the kitchen sink, and check the kitchen extractor fan. It would also redecorate affected areas.
It offered £650 in compensation comprising £200 for distress and inconvenience, £400 for the length of time it had taken to rectify the issues, £50 for the late reply to the complaint. It provided a single point of contact. |
|
9 September 2025 |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She reiterated that the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard. She said she had lived without basic facilities for over 7 months. She said this had caused serious disruption to her daughter’s care and ability to live safely and with dignity. She asked the landlord to complete the outstanding work immediately, provide a formal written apology and for more compensation. |
|
10 September 2025 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response. It said its surveyor had visited the property on 29 August 2025. It outlined repairs that it would complete to resolve the issues the resident had reported. This included repairs to the kitchen, the door handles in the hallway to be replaced as a goodwill gesture, internal redecoration work and it would review the flooring damage outside of the resident’s flat door for accessibility concerns. It would monitor completion of the works. It offered a further £100 in compensation as it said it had not fully considered the resident’s household’s vulnerability. This brought the total compensation to £750. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response, and she referred her case to us on 11 September 2025. As a remedy, the resident requested a written apology, further compensation, the outstanding repairs to be completed and for the landlord to review its policies and procedures so that other tenants did not have to go through a similar experience. |
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 the resident’s reports of the condition of the property on letting, along with outstanding repairs and gas safety concerns |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident told us she had reported issues with her garden fence which backs onto a pub car park. We have not seen that the resident raised a complaint about this issue, so we have not investigated this matter further. The resident may wish to raise a complaint if she is not happy with the landlord’s handling of the fence repairs.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the period from February 2025 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 September 2025. The landlord has failed to provide us with full and accurate records that evidence the dates of the resident’s initial reportswhich she said was from the tenancy start date in February 2025. This was inappropriate. The records it has provided show that the resident reported issues in her 12 June 2025complaint to the landlord, but we have no evidence of the resident’s earlier reports.
- The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported issues to individual officers in its stage 1 complaint response of 9 September 2025 which meant that the repairs were not taken forward. Its stage 1 complaint response put the onus on the resident to report repair issues to its customer services team. This was inappropriate and showed a lack of consideration of the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. The landlord said that the resident’s previous reports were not documented. It could not say with certainty that its neighbourhood officers visited as they should have 6 weeks after the tenancy start date. This evidenced its poor record keeping and poor internal communication. The poor communication was not disputed by the landlord.
- Despite the resident notifying the landlord of potential unsafe conditions in the property, the landlord unreasonably delayed the action it took. It demonstrated a lack of awareness concerning the resident’s gas safety concerns and her mention of exposed wires. The resident told us that the landlord’s contractor had cut off the gas supply to the cooker due to it being unsafe. We have seen no documentary evidence of this to verify that this happened. The resident said that the landlord visited the property on 23 June 2025 to check the outstanding issues but she said that there was no follow up from this visit. The landlord’s call record said that its system had not been updated again demonstrating poor records management.
- The landlord needed to consider whether emergency repairs would have been appropriate but failed to do so which was unreasonable. The delay in sending its contractor on 11 August 2025, followed by its voids surveyor on 28 August 2025 was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for it to check the property for repairs.
- The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should remedy emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. Its contractor’s and surveyor’s attendance exceeded this which was inappropriate. The landlord also needed to satisfy itself that the property was fit for habitation in line with its repairing obligations. We have not seen evidence that it did this which was inappropriate. The landlord’s record of the earlier home visit of 23 June 2025 only says that the landlord spoke to the resident and took a photo. This would not have reassured the resident about the gas safety or how the property had met its lettable standard. Its records do indicate it completed a void inspection on 16 December 2024. It also inspected the property again on 6 February 2024.
- The resident told the landlord at least from June 2025 that she was struggling in the property without the use of a washing machine or cooker. She said this had led her to using a launderette weekly and having to get takeaway meals. She also said that it led to her having to travel some distance to relatives where she could cook and store food. She told us of the impact causing significant stress, inconvenience as well as the unnecessary time and trouble due to the landlord’s delayed response. She also told the landlord and us how it caused her to get into financial difficulties with the rent.
- As the resident was struggling with managing the tenancy, the landlord should have considered providing support and signposting at the earliest opportunity. It did make a referral to its money support team for 1 July 2025 which was in line with its reasonable adjustments policy. However, it could have considered signposting to other support agencies as well that may have provided further help which would also have been line with its policy to signpost to relevant agencies.
- The landlord said in its complaint responses that connecting white goods was the resident’s responsibility, along with decorating work. Its repairs policy supported its position. It also said that the resident’s cooker was a non-standard sized range cooker which would mean that the installed kitchen would need reconfiguration. As the landlord provided no documentary evidence, we have been unable to confirm that the resident told the landlord at the time of the installation about the non-standard cooker size. However, it offered to reconfigure the kitchen during the internal complaints process which was reasonable.
- The resident told us that the landlord did not complete work to make room for the cooker until 20 January 2026. This was 4 months after it agreed to do this which was inappropriate. She said the landlord had sorted the electrics for the cooker, so they were in line with regulations, along with an exposed wire in the communal hallway. She mentioned that the landlord had fixed some broken tiles but had not completed repairs to the cupboards or completed the redecoration it promised to do. This indicates that the landlord still needs to complete some outstanding work in line with what agreed to do in its final complaint response of 10 September 2025.
- We have considered the landlord’s remedy of £750 in compensation comprising £200 for distress and inconvenience, £400 for its delays in resolving issues and £100 for failing to recognise the resident’s vulnerability. The repair issues were outstanding up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 September 2025. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can consider compensation, but it does not specify the amounts it can consider. It is also unclear whether the landlord has completed all the work it agreed to. We therefore consider that the landlord’s £750 offer does not fully compensate the resident for the detriment its failings caused the resident. This was poor given the additional burden that the resident and her daughter faced due to their vulnerabilities.
- The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of the property on letting, along with outstanding repairs and gas safety concerns. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation. This comprises £125 for the continued delay in the landlord resolving the outstanding issues and £175 to recognise the detriment that the landlord’s failings caused the resident. This gives a total of £1,050 in compensation inclusive of the landlord’s offer.
- As it is unclear whether the landlord has completed all the repairs, including work to the communal flooring by the front door. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the property and to provide a schedule of works with estimated completion dates to the resident and to us. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of this case to identify any learning from the complaint so that it can review its policy and procedures. It should pay particular attention to its response to vulnerable residents and support it can offer.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident raised her complaint on 12 June 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 September 2025. This was within 59 working days which was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
- The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code state that it should respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It should respond within 20 working days from its acknowledgement at stage 2.
- We have not seen that the landlord responded to all the complaint issues. It said it was unsure whether the loose and uneven flooring was part of the complaint when the resident complained specifically about this on 12 June 2025. It failed to answer this point which was inappropriate.
- The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 September 2025. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 10 September 2025. This was within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code timescale for a response at stage 2 which was appropriate.
- The landlord offered £50 in compensation for the delay in its complaint handling at stage 1. The Ombudsman considers that this does not fully compensate the resident for the delayed complaint handling which unnecessarily extended the complaints process or its failure to answer all the complaint points.
- The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 in compensation to reflect the delayed complaint handling at stage 1. This gives a total of £100 in compensation inclusive of the landlord’s offer.
Learning
- Complaints provide an opportunity for landlords to learn and improve their services to residents. We have not seen that the landlord identified any learning from the complaint in its complaint responses. Our Centre for Learning provides an opportunity for the landlord to engage with our events to learn from our casework to improve its services. We recommend that the landlord considers appropriate events to attend and to familiarise itself with our Spotlight reports, particularly our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance (May 2025) and our report on attitudes, respect and rights (January 2024).
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord failed to provide full and detailed records. Without good records management, a landlord cannot keep track of outstanding repairs and provide accurate information to its residents. We have previously recommended in another case (reference 202340127) that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.
Communication
- We identified poor internal and external communication in this case. The landlord’s poor internal communication meant that the resident’s earlier reports and concerns were not followed up internally. This was exacerbated by staff turnover. Its communication with the resident was reactive rather than proactive and it generally responded when the resident complained or chased up which was inappropriate.