Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202446072)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the way the landlord responded to her reports of a communal leak, which caused water ingress into her home. She said that although it carried out repairs during its internal complaints process, it failed to address the root cause of the leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a communal leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a communal leak
   2. severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Leak

5. The information provided suggest the landlord failed to ensure repairs it carried out in August 2023 were effective, leading to continued water ingress into the resident’s home. This resulted in the issue remaining unresolved for a significant length of time.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 3 response was unreasonably delayed, with no explanation or recognition given in its response. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had taken on any learning from its failings.

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.

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.

7. The landlord has not provided any records from the time to evidence what action it took in relation to the resident’s reports. As a result, our investigation relies on the resident’s communications and the landlord’s complaint responses.
8. In its stage 1 response of 28 October 2022, the landlord said the resident had reported water ingress into her property in August 2022. It said its initial findings were that the leak was coming from the roof. We have not seen a copy of an inspection report and do not know when it carried out the inspection. It said it was actively investigating, but gave no timeframe for it completing repairs, which was not reasonable.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident had reported damaged belongings and said it would expect her to have contents insurance. Without inspection records, we cannot establish whether the cause of the leak was likely to be something covered under contents insurance.
10. In its stage 2 response of 13 December 2022, the landlord offered the resident reimbursement of £255.94. She has told us that this was only for items damaged at that time, but that as the leak was ongoing, further belongings were damaged. Its reimbursement was reasonable at the time, based on information she provided to it then. However, it would have been appropriate for it to invite her to provide further information, if necessary, once the repairs were completed. It did not do this, which was not reasonable.
11. The landlord offered compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs. It said this was an interim offer, and that it would review the compensation again once the leak was rectified. As it had a 3-stage process, giving it the opportunity to review the complaint, this was a reasonable position for it to take. However, it was still unable to provide the resident for a timeframe for repairs to take place, which we would expect it to have done.
12. On 20 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 3. She said that work had not been completed and it had not put an interim plan in place to prevent water ingress into her home. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request a few days later, but we have seen no evidence it gave her any reassurance about the ongoing water ingress.
13. On 19 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord following a visit that day. She said it had recently put a temporary fix in place, which appeared to be holding. However, on 21 September 2023, after heavy rainfall, she contacted it again to say water was getting inside again. As we have seen no repairs records, it is not known what work was carried out, or whether the landlord carried out a post-work inspection to ensure repairs were effective.
14. In its stage 3 response of 1 October 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had told it that her front door was now swollen because of the leak and was difficult to close. It said that repairs had been carried out to the roof in August 2023. However, it failed to acknowledge that several weeks after that she had contacted it to say the repairs had failed.
15. The resident has told us that the landlord did not complete effective repairs to stop the leak until September 2025. This was more than 3 years after she first reported the issue, which represents an unreasonable delay. She said it did not replace her swollen front door until April 2026, which again was an unreasonable delay.
16. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation at stage 2 and a further £600 compensation at stage 3 were reasonable at those times. However, it failed to act to fully resolve the issue, despite several opportunities to do so. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience as it did not resolve the leak until almost a year after its stage 3 response.
17. We have made our award of compensation in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Our award of £1,600 replaces the landlord’s offer.

18. As we have not received information from the landlord, we do not have a copy of its complaints policy that was in place at the time the resident raised the complaint. However, we have located policies that were in place around the time of this complaint and have considered its handling against these.
19. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint 31 working days after she raised the complaint, outside its policy timescale of 10 working days. At stage 2 it responded 21 working days after she requested escalation, just outside its timescale of 20 working days.
20. There was a significant delay in the landlord carrying out its stage 3 panel review and sending its follow-up response. Its policy said it should send its stage 3 response within 28 days of the request. It acknowledged the resident’s request for a stage 3 escalation within 4 days, so it was aware of this request. Following this, it did not arrange a panel meeting until more than 18 months later. It then took a further 2 months to send a written response after this meeting.
21. We do not have records from the landlord to show all communications between it and the evidence. However, from the evidence the resident has provided, we have seen that she continued to chase the landlord to ask when it would send its stage 3 response. We have seen no evidence it responded to any of her emails. This demonstrates poor record keeping and communication by the landlord, causing the resident additional time and trouble.
22. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided any updates to the resident about the complaint during this period. Its stage 3 response did not acknowledge the delay or provide any explanation for it, which was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate that it had it recognised the significant delay or took any steps to learn from this to improve the service it provides.
23. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where the complaint response was delayed by months, affecting a timely resolution of the dispute. The landlord’s failings likely contributed to its failings in relation to the leak itself and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord provided no information regarding its repairs, despite our initial and further requests for information. We have not been provided with repairs logs or contemporaneous records of internal correspondence or contact between the landlord and the resident.
25. Effective record-keeping is a core part of a repairs service. Accurate and complete records enable landlords to track the progress of repairs, provide timely updates to residents, monitor outstanding work, and maintain an audit trail that explains delays or decisions. Good records also allow landlords to carry out thorough investigations when things go wrong.
26. We are aware the landlord has already carried out an internal complaint handling review following a finding of severe maladministration on another case we investigated. As this review covered the same period as this investigation, we have not made an order for the landlord to carry out a case review. We encourage the landlord to revisit its findings of that review and ensure it has fully implemented all the identified improvements.

Communication

27. The lack of information provided by the landlord means it has failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively with the resident during ongoing repairs. The landlord should ensure that its processes allow for accountability and responsibility for monitoring communication it receives, to allow it to respond in an appropriate and timely manner.