Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202321938)

Decision
Case ID	202321938
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hexagon Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 January 2026

Background

The resident occupies a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. We have been told the resident is autistic and uses a wheelchair. In September 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of various repairs she had reported earlier that year. The landlord responded in October 2022, explaining how it would resolve matters. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s progress, but due to personal circumstances, she did not ask the landlord to review her complaint until September 2023. After this request, the landlord considered the complaint further and issued 2 additional responses addressing the repairs. It agreed to complete repairs in line with a surveyor’s findings, and to additional changes to the property. It also offered £750 total compensation for its handling of the repairs and the complaint.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent increases.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent increases was outside of our Service’s jurisdiction.
We found the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns was outside of our Service’s jurisdiction.
We found there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the property.
We found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord delayed completing repairs for more than 2 years and did not act within reasonable time despite repeatedly acknowledging the need to complete the work. Its communication and record keeping was poor, and it did not meet the commitments set out in its complaint responses in reasonable time.

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 member of the landlord’s management team. 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 10 February 2026
2	Works order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works to the kitchen cupboards, recommended in the surveyor’s report, are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it expects to start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. If the landlord has completed the works, it must provide us documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £375 previously offered for the failures it identified in its handling of the repairs, and any distress and inconvenience this caused. £325 additional compensation for the repair handling failures identified in this report. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 10 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord pay the resident: £375 compensation it previously offered the resident for the complaint handling failures it identified.

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, we recommend the landlord pay the resident:

£375 compensation it previously offered the resident for the complaint handling failures it identified.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 September 2022	On 21 September 2022 the resident complained about outstanding repairs to the kitchen, living room, hallway, bathroom, bedroom, garden, and communal areas. She also complained about a lack of updates from the landlord and delays in resolving a pest infestation.
11 October 2022	The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the September 2022 complaint on 11 October 2022. The landlord said it could not complete some work as the resident had been unwell. However, it accepted that it should have rescheduled this. The landlord apologised and confirmed it had asked its repair contractor to contact the resident. The landlord said it would arrange for an inspection to be completed to consider the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs. The landlord noted a pest control job had been raised in April 2022, but no further action had been raised after that date. The landlord confirmed it had ordered its pest control contractor to visit the property. The landlord said once it was satisfied there was no pest activity it would consider what repairs were necessary. The landlord apologised for the time taken to complete repairs. It said it would implement a customer relations management system to improve its interaction with residents.
6 September 2023	On 6 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to reconsider her complaint. She said a number of repairs the landlord agreed to resolve in 2022 remained outstanding. To resolve matters, the resident asked the landlord to complete all outstanding work and install non-slip floors as previously agreed.
November 2023 to 22 January 2024	In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had failed to complete the repairs in a timely manner and its communication had been poor. The landlord said it had instructed an independent surveyor to report back on all works needed. The landlord said it would consider compensation for its handling of the repairs under a separate stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and any distress this had caused. It also noted it needed to improve its communication.
20 February 2024	Following the stage 2 response, the landlord sent a separate stage 1 response. The landlord agreed to complete a series of repairs to the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living room, hallways, communal areas, garden and exterior of the property. This was based on the surveyor’s advice and recommendations. The landlord also agreed to complete non-repair work the resident requested. This included installing non-slip floors in the hallway and lounge, replacing the shower head and seat, and removing a mobility bar. The landlord said it would replace external fencing by the summer house. However, this may be difficult due to the location of the fencing and may need further assessment. It said once this occurs, it would determine whether the job can be completed as a standard repair or a major programme of work. The landlord accepted that it had delayed completing repairs and that it had not sent its stage 1 complaint response in reasonable time. It offered the resident £750 compensation for its handling of the repairs and the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked our Service to investigate her complaint as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She also remained unhappy with the compensation the landlord had offered.

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 handling of the resident’s rent increases.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

Part of the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of rent increases and what information it shared with the local authority. The landlord addressed this complaint point in a stage 1 response letter, dated 13 December 2023. The resident has told us she did not escalate that complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP).
We have no power to investigate complaints which have not exhausted both stages of the landlords ICP. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the rent increases.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of her concerns around fire safety. This was also addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 13 December 2023. The resident has told us she did not escalate that complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP. As this part of the resident’s complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s ICP, we have no power to investigate a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have investigated

We have commented on the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint elsewhere in this report. However, it is important to note the landlord’s poor complaint handling has made it difficult to establish an exact timeline of events. This is because numerous dates in the complaint responses appear incorrect.
In most cases, we are unable to consider new events after the date of a landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. However, in this case it appears the landlord continued to consider the complaint after it issued its stage 2 response.
Based on the evidence available to us, it appears the stage 2 response was likely issued on 27 December 2023. It also appears a further stage 1 response was likely issued on 20 February 2024. As this response continued to address the resident’s repair concerns, we have considered it as part of the landlord’s overall response to the repair issues. We have also considered whether the landlord met the commitments made in its complaint responses within reasonable time.

The compensation

The landlord has offered the resident £750 total compensation for failures it identified in its handling of the repairs and in its handling of the complaint. These are 2 distinct issues, and the landlord has not explained how the total compensation was apportioned between them. For the purposes of this report, we have taken the view that the £750 has been apportioned equally as:
1. £375 for the landlord’s repair handling failures.
2. £375 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

April 2022 to October 2022

The resident raised various concerns about repairs and the condition of the property, including communal areas, in April 2022. These were detailed in her email to the landlord, dated 20 April 2022, and include:
1. Kitchen:
  1. Damage to the cupboards.
  2. Damage to drawers and sink unit.
  3. Damage to plinths.
  4. Poor workmanship of an adapted cupboard.
  5. Damage to the window mechanism.
2. Living room:
  1. Damage to the floor.
  2. Damage to electrical systems.
3. Hallway
  1. Damage to the front door escutcheon.
  2. Damage to the front door lock.
  3. Issues with the door safety chain.
  4. The landlord’s agreement to replace the flooring in the hallway.
4. Bathroom:
  1. Damp patch on the ceiling.
  2. Damage to the windowsills.
  3. Damage to the ceiling fan.
  4. Damage to the floor.
  5. Worn grout on tiles.
  6. Issues with the shower seat.
  7. Issues with the sink tap.
  8. Leaks from the shower head.
5. Bedroom:
  1. Damp patch on bedroom ceiling.
  2. Cold air issues since windows installed.
  3. Concerns about fire safety.
  4. A request for key operated window locks to be replaced with push button locks.
6. Garden:
  1. Damage to a garden wall.
  2. Damp on the exterior wall by the windows.
  3. Blocked drains.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out what repairs the landlord is responsible for, including those relating to the structure and exterior of the property. Many of the repairs the resident has raised relate to the structure or exterior of the property. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for many of the repairs listed above.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what repairs, if any, the landlord completed between April 2022 and October 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response letter, dated 11 October 2022, suggests it had completed some work by that date. However, it is unclear what repairs were complete and what remained outstanding. The landlord accepted that its communication had been poor and that it had not responded to the repair issues in reasonable time.
To resolve matters, the landlord agreed to inspect the property and consider the repair issues the resident had raised. It confirmed it would be in touch in the week commencing 24 October 2022. It confirmed it had raised the pest issue with its contractor and it would assess the damage once it was satisfied the pests had been removed.
It is not in dispute that the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs during this period was not fair and reasonable. We have taken this into account in our overall consideration of the redress the landlord has offered in its response to the resident’s complaint.

October 2022 to December 2023

When she brought her complaint to us in September 2023, the resident said the landlord had resolved the pest issue, but the repair issues she had raised remained outstanding.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what action the landlord took between October 2022 and December 2023. An email from the resident, dated 29 November 2022 indicates that there had been some discussion about the repairs. However, the landlord has provided minimal repair information, and there is a gap in its repair records from September 2022 to September 2024. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied the landlord took meaningful action to progress the repairs during this time.
Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint in September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, likely on 27 December 2023. In its response the landlord accepted that it had failed to carry out repairs in reasonable time. It also accepted that its communication had been poor.
To resolve matters, the landlord confirmed it would arrange for an independent surveyor to report on all works needed. The landlord said it would arrange this no later than 12 January 2023 and following this it would ensure any scheduled work was completed. For reasons set out elsewhere in this report, we believe this date to be a typographical error. We consider it likely the landlord intended to schedule the inspection in January 2024.
It is not in dispute that the landlord’s overall handling of the repair issues and communication remained poor from October 2022 to December 2023. We have also taken this into account in our overall consideration of the redress the landlord has offered.

December 2023 to September 2024

A surveyor inspected the property on 25 January 2024 and provided their report on 9 February 2024. The surveyor found repairs were required in the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, hallway, living room, garden, and exterior and communal areas. Many of these repairs aligned with the resident’s concerns. The surveyor did not find that all the resident’s concerns required action from the landlord. For instance, there was no damage to the adapted cupboard, shower head, shower seat window locks, or to the mobility bar. And there was no requirement for the landlord to install non-slip flooring.
Following this report, the landlord sent a further stage 1 response, incorrectly dated 20 February 2023, in which it committed to completing repairs based on the surveyor’s findings. The landlord also agreed to resolve some of the non-repair related issues the resident had raised. This included replacing the shower head and seat and removing the mobility bar. The landlord said it could not find a record of agreeing to install non-slip floors. However, it agreed to install this. It also confirmed it had arranged for its pest control contractor to contact the resident about her concerns. It is commendable that the landlord agreed to complete work it was not obliged to carry out. This was resolution and customer-focused, and it was reasonable given the landlord’s acknowledged failures.
This showed it was resolution focused and customer orientated. This was reasonable given the landlord’s acknowledgment of its failures.
The landlord noted it would replace the external fencing by the summer house. However, it said this may be difficult due to the location of the fencing and may need further assessment. It said once this occurs, it would determine whether the job can be completed as a standard repair or a major programme of work.
We generally expect landlords to rely on the advice and recommendations of their repair contractors, and other relevant experts, when dealing with repair issues. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to assess the property. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on a surveyor’s advice to establish what repairs were necessary. However, there is no explanation from the landlord for why this report was not arranged within reasonable time of the repair issues being raised in 2022. So, it remains that the landlord unreasonably delayed matters.
The landlord has recognised it unreasonably delayed completing the work and that its communication has been poor. It has offered £375 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this has caused the resident. It also committed to carrying out non-repair related work at its discretion. This showed a willingness to recognise mistakes and resolve matters. We have taken this into account when considering the overall compensation offered to resolve this complaint.
We generally expect landlords to act in line with any commitments made in their complaint responses in reasonable time. In this case, we would have expected the landlord to begin repairs within a reasonable time after responding to the complaint.
However, the landlord hastold us the member of staff responsible forthe repairs left the organisation shortly after February 2024. As a result, work did not progress until early September 2024. This aligns with when the resident told us works began.
It is concerning that in each complaint response the landlord has recognised a need to complete repairs and subsequently failed to do so. This indicates a significant inability to manage repairs effectively. As a result, it seems some repairs that were originally raised in around April 2022 did not begin until September 2024, which is more than 2 years. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
It is also concerning that in each complaint response the landlord recognised a need for improved communication. However, it has not demonstrated any meaningful improvement to its communication in the periods following its complaint responses. This is a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s record keeping has been poor. It has not provided clear records of what works have been completed or when repairs took place. It has also not responded to our request for further information. This has made it difficult for us to establish an accurate timeline of events. It is unclear whether the landlord is unwilling or unable to provide clear repair records. In any case, this is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The significant delays and poor communication evidently caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It is commendable that the landlord agreed to carry out non-repair work. However, we are not satisfied the £375 compensation is proportionate in the circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to increase this to £700. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there has been maladministration by the landlord, which has had a significant negative impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise for the failures identified in this report and the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident recently told us most of the work has been completed, with only the damaged kitchen cupboards and a complete replacement of the front door outstanding. The landlord committed to repairing the damaged kitchen cupboards. However, it has not demonstrated that it has done this. So, we cannot be satisfied this repair has been done. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to complete repairs to the kitchen cupboard recommended in the surveyor’s report, if it has not already done so.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord committed to replacing the entire front door. While we recognise the resident’s concerns. We note the surveyor assessed the door and did not recommend this be replaced. Therefore, we consider it fair and reasonable that the landlord did not replace the entire door.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out how landlords that are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme should handle complaints fairly and effectively. The landlord has not provided a copy of its complaint handling policy in force in October 2022. So, we have assessed its handling of the complaint against the Code relevant at the time.
The Code sets timescales for when landlords must answer complaints. Landlord’s must answer stage 1 complaints within 10-working days, unless an extension is agreed. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 September 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response letter on 11 October 2022, which is 15-working days. The landlord caused a brief delay. However, it is not clear this had a negative impact on the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 September 2023. The landlord’s poor complaint handling has made it difficult to establish a timeline of events after this point.
The landlord’s stage 2 response is dated 21 September 2023. However, it refers to events on 15 November 2023 and 13 December 2023. The stage 2 response invited the resident to reply by 22 January 2024. This indicates the response was issued sometime between 13 December 2023 and 22 January 2024.
The resident has said she received correspondence about the closure of her stage 2 complaint on 27 December 2023. We have asked the landlord to clarify when its response letters were sent. It has not responded to this request. In the absence of clear evidence to show otherwise, we consider it likely the stage 2 response was issued on 27 December 2023. This was 79-working days after the stage 2 escalation. This is a significant delay and is a failure by the landlord.
We note in its stage 2 response the landlord has said it is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint. It therefore treated correspondence from the Ombudsman on 15 November 2023 as the escalation date. However, in later correspondence the landlord said it received the resident’s request to review her complaint on 6 September 2023. It is clear the landlord received the residents request and should have been aware of it. This further indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
The Code says a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition. The landlord did not do this. It considered the resident’s request for compensation under a separate stage 1 complaint. This stage 1 response also further considered the resident’s repair concerns. Addressing the resident’s concerns across 2 separate complaints clearly caused avoidable confusion, particularly as both complaints related to the same repair issues.
The landlord further added to this confusion by incorrectly dating its most recent stage 1 response letter. This was dated 20 February 2023. However, it refers to events on 6 September 2023, 12 December 2023 and 25 January 2024. It also invited the resident to reply within 30 days and no later than 21 March 2024. This indicates the letter was issued between 25 January 2024 and 21 March 2024, most likely on 20 February 2024. This inaccuracy is a further indication of ineffective complaint handling.
The landlord asked for an extension to the deadline to send its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023 and 20 December 2023. It committed to responding no later than 12 January 2024. As mentioned, it appears the response was issued on 20 February 2024. Therefore, the landlord delayed sending its stage 1 response. The landlord accepted this in its response letter.
Taking the above into account, there have been clear failures by the landlords in its handling of the complaint. It has caused significant delays and confusion, which has negatively impacted the resident. The landlord has offered the resident £375 for the complaint handling failures it identified. This is a considerable amount of compensation for complaint handling failures. Overall, we are satisfied this compensation is fair and reasonable for the failures we have identified in this report. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

The landlord’s record keeping has been poor. To improve matters, the landlord should ensure it keeps complete and accurate repair records so it can track and evidence what work has been completed. The landlord should also keep clear complaint records to show when residents raised and escalated concerns, and how each stage of the complaint has been managed. The landlord should ensure all correspondence and records include correct dates so timelines are clear and decision-making can be properly evidence.
The landlord’s communication was poor. To improve matters, the landlord should provide regular and timely updates so residents can know the progress of repair work and what actions the landlord has taken.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It confused matters by dealing with the resident’s escalation under 2 separate complaint responses. There were clear date inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint response letters. This indicates a need to maintain an effective complaint process and further training for complaint handling staff. The landlord could also improve its complaint responses by providing a clear breakdown of any compensation offered.
The landlord identified delays and poor communication, but it did not demonstrate improvement after recognising these failures. The landlord may improve matters by treating failures as learning points to inform better practice in the future.