Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202004092)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004092

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

22 April 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident complains about the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs required at her property, in particular relating to:

a. the windows, and;

b. a leak from the bathroom.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has detailed issues going back to 2006 in her complaint to this Service, however the formal complaint was not made to the landlord until August 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  4. In this case, the formal complaint was made in August 2020 and there is no evidence that the resident raised repairs issues in the year prior to that, aside from a repair report about the leak made via an ASB officer in January 2020. Further, the landlord itself confirmed that in line with its complaints procedure it could only consider the previous 12 months.
  5. Therefore, while the historic issues provide background to the case, the determination will be limited to the landlord’s actions following on from the repair reports made in January 2020.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 4 August 2020 the resident wrote to her MP with a complaint about repair issues at her property. She said that for ten years she had experienced “discriminatory and abhorrent behaviour and neglect” from the landlord and listed various contacts regarding repairs dating from 2006. The resident detailed the repairs, which included issues with the windows which meant that some did not open/shut fully and were “hanging”, a leak from the bathroom and an infestation of mice. She explained that when she raised these issues with the landlord she was ignored and said “…surely Hexagon need to compensate me for the years of costs and suffering?”.
  2. The MP forwarded the resident’s email on to the landlord on 19 August 2020 stating that there was there was an active leak through the ceiling, the window frames of the property were severely rotten, and asked the landlord to advise what it was doing to address this. There is no record of a response from the landlord.
  3. On 27 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that two individuals had arrived at the property that day who said that they were plumbers sent by the landlord, however no one had contacted her about this to advise or arrange an appointment. She explained that she was shielding and would not let someone into her home without communication beforehand.
  4. The landlord replied the following day explaining that following the contact from the MP, an emergency works order was raised to make safe the bathroom leak and passed to the contractor, who advised that it tried to make a triage call but failed, so attended without an appointment due to the works being raised as an emergency. The landlord apologised that the operatives attended unannounced but given the seriousness of the issues it was felt that an emergency attendance was required. It said “Should you wish us to raise for operatives to reattend to make safe, please contact our Customer Services team…”
  5. The resident replied that same day stating that on 31 January 2020 she had pointed out all the repairs to the landlord when it had attended her home on an unrelated matter, and was told that they would be raised urgently, but nothing happened. In relation to the visit the previous day, she said “I am a shielder…it is imperative that not just my household but everyone else stay safe too, therefore I would have thought the very least a call and some type of ppe be arranged by you and the company….even you will admit it is essential to follow Covid-19 guidance no?”
  6. On 1 September 2020 the resident submitted a compensation claim form which she said was for disrepair which has been ongoing for years (the Ombudsman understands this was for £50,000). She chased this up on 15 September 2020 as she had received no response within the 10 day published response period, and also noted the repairs at the property remained outstanding. She said “The weather changes and with each change I am unable to stay in my bedroom due to the disrepair. Various of the elements be it rain, wind or the heat which we especially have seen this year, means I cannot open my window and where the pane is hanging and the window is hanging off its hinges and where the rot has eaten away part of the frame – water & wind get into my bedroom… Fix my repairs and pay me the compensation you owe me. Also respond or at least communicate please.”
  7. The landlord responded on 16 September 2020 explaining that the compensation claimed far exceeded the scope of its compensation policy. It acknowledged that the resident had reported repairs via the ASB Officer in early 2020, but the area surveyor was unable to get in contact with her to carry out an inspection or clarify the works required. Neither was there any record of repair requests made to the repairs team in relation to leaks or defective windows for several years. It explained “Whilst repairs can be reported to other members of Hexagon and they will endeavour to make sure that they are resolved, it is always best to either report a repair to our Customer Services team…. We would be happy to get your area surveyor to attend to inspect if you are able to contact our Customer Services team and book this with them.”
  8. In response the resident said that as per the landlord’s suggestion she had called the Customer Services team who confirmed that an order had already been raised for the windows on 27 August 2020, but this would now be raised as an emergency. A pluming contractor had also telephoned and she had arranged an appointment for them to trace and remedy the leak on 22 September 2020. In relation to compensation, the resident said “Rather than tell me it exceeds scope, why don’t you equate your calculations then and get back to me urgently…With all due respect it is not my problem that you cannot see any requests for repairs. I have definitely put in requests.”
  9. The repair records show that orders were raised on 16 September 2020 to trace and remedy a leak from the bathroom, and carry out pest control treatment.
  10. The landlord responded on 17 September 2020, acknowledging that the resident had contacted the Customer Services team and arranged for works orders to be raised. It explained that it was unable to provide a suggested value for compensation as it had no record of any recently reported repairs for the issues raised and when contact was made via the ASB officer in January/February 2020, its area surveyor attempted to contact the resident without response. Its records showed that the last request logged for a window repair was in January 2017 and for a leak in January 2018. It said “Given this, I would need you to provide me with information in relation to who was contacted at Hexagon and when in relation to these repairs in order for me to advise on whether compensation was due.” The resident responded setting out her chronology of repairs dating from 2006. She explained that on 31 January 2020 the ASB officers were shown the hole in the ceiling and she explained that she had been waiting years for it to be fixed.
  11. The landlord responded on 21 September 2020, explaining that its Complaints Procedure meant that it could only consider the previous 12 months. The repair request sent to the surveyor in February 2020 was acted upon, but the surveyor had been unable to contact the resident in order to assess the works required. The landlord said that it would now do its utmost to replace some or all of the windows as soon as possible, with those most urgently in need of replacement being done first. The landlord set out its own repairs log in relation to windows and / or leaks from 2015 onwards and noted that its own records accorded with the resident’s list of dates that she raised the repairs.
  12. In September 2020 the landlord’s CEO replied to the resident’s MP and Cllr stating “I was both disappointed and surprised to see the condition of the property from the pictures provided. We will urgently request our general repairs contractor attend and rectify the leak as well as our specialist contractor attend and provide a quotation to renew the windows at the property. We will instruct further works as soon as we have inspected the property.”
  13. On 21 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint to stage two. She refuted the landlord’s assertion that there had been multiple jobs raised with no access. The following day she emailed to say that the plumber had attended to the bathroom leak and had advised that the bathroom needed to be fully tiled as the walls were porous and water was leaking through them. The ceiling could be repaired once this was done. She asked the landlord why it didn’t replace the whole bathroom given its age.
  14. On 9 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she was still waiting for compensation and for the repairs to be carried out. Neither had she had a response to her request for escalation.  She said that, since highlighting the outstanding repair on 4 August 2020, only a plumber had attended to assess the bathroom leak and living room ceiling. The plumber had advised that the bathroom required tiling, and once this was done the ceiling could be repaired. She explained that she spoke with the repairs line on 16 September 2020 and was promised that the repairs would be logged and get work orders raised. In addition, that a surveyor would contact her to have the windows fixed as an emergency, but this had not happened.
  15. The landlord provided its stage two response on 29 October 2020. It said that from the pictures that the resident had provided, it was accepted that some of the windows at the property needed to be replaced, and that it would be in touch before the end of November 2020 to arrange this. The landlord acknowledged that there had been previous reports of repairs required to the windows and jobs had been raised in August 2016, with three attempts to attend with all no access. Another job was raised in January 2017 but the contractor was unable to make contact with the resident, and when they attended the property there was no access. The landlord also listed jobs raised in relation to a leak from the bathroom in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the attempts made to contact the resident by telephone, and the no access attendances.
  16. It said that the recent plumbing repair raised for the leak found an issue of water from the bath tap hair rinse attachment running down behind the tiled splash back to the bath when being used as a shower. It said “If one were to use the hair rinse attachment as a shower with just the tiled splash back in your bathroom, water would seep through the un-tiled area.” It said that the rinse attachment should not be used as a shower. However, as a goodwill gesture, it was willing to fully tile around the bath to ceiling level, and asked the resident to confirm whether she would like this to be done. It would also rectify the damage caused to the ceiling caused by the leak from the bathroom.
  17. In relation to the poor state of repair of the windows, it said that its stock condition survey carried out in 2015 suggested that to its knowledge, the windows were in an average state of repair in 2015. Repairs/inspections were subsequently raised, but its contractor and surveyor were unable to gain access. The landlord acknowledged that from the pictures provided the windows were not in good condition nor safe and, for the inconvenience, compensation of £50 was offered. It also offered a payment of £100 in line with its compensation for “Time and Trouble and Distress and Inconvenience”. It said “Going forward, Hexagon and its contractors will now ensure that in addition to calling you to arrange appointments and follow-up on missed appointments, you will also be contacted via email.”
  18. On 15 November 2020 the resident responded and asked that the bathroom be tiled with immediate effect. She said “You have failed to take into account the other repairs of which you have pictures for, for example the gaping hole in the kitchen wall…I would ask that you see that all my repairs are fixed as a matter of urgency.” She also contested the compensation amount, explaining that even looking only at the complaint made in August 2020, it was now November 2020 with no work having been carried out. Neither had the landlord considered the displacement of rooms which she listed as two bedrooms and a bathroom.
  19. The resident emailed again on 26 November 2020 asking when the bathroom would be tiled. An internal email from the landlord dated 30 November 2020 stated “I have now raised the tiling works…”. The landlord has confirmed that the tiling was completed on 21 January 2021.

Assessment and findings

Leak from bathroom

  1. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the ASB officer’s email to the Area Maintenance Surveyor dated 7 February 2020 in which she reports “…a number of repairs needed to the bathroom and also the living room ceiling due to a leak.”. The ASB officer provided the resident’s telephone number and email address for contact.
  2. In accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and carry out basic repairs. It therefore had a duty to act following this report. The repairs policy that the landlord has provided to the Ombudsman gives no timeframe in which it undertakes to carry out repairs, but its website states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours and urgent repairs will be attended within seven days. It also states that non-urgent repairs will be attended within 28 days, and planned repairs “over a longer-term basis”, although in some circumstances it would ask the contractor to complete the work more quickly.
  3. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for evidence of attempts made to contact the resident following the 7 February 2020 email, and to address the repairs that were reported, but it has not provided any, only stating that the surveyor attempted to carry out a visit (no date provided) and there was no access. This is a slightly different explanation to those given in the landlord’s responses to the resident, in which it stated that the surveyor had been unable to make contact with her. It has stated that no inspections were carried out after 23 March 2020 until government guidelines relating to the Covid-19 pandemic were eased.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord took action to make contact with the resident or otherwise address the repairs issue that its own staff member had brought to its attention (notably, this did not include the windows). While the Ombudsman appreciates that the Covid-19 restrictions would have impacted the landlord’s ability to carry out inspections and repairs, given these did not come into force until over six weeks after the ASB officer’s email, this does not account for the failing in line with the timelines for repairs set out on its website. Arguably, had the surveyor attended to inspect the property, the issue with the windows could have been picked up sooner too.
  5. By the resident’s own timeline, she did not make further repair reports to the landlord until her contact with her MP in August 2020. The MP detailed an active leak through the ceiling and the resident has stated in her complaints that plumbers did arrive on 27 August 2020, although she was unaware that they were coming. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s explanation for this visit reasonable; given the report of an active leak and the job being logged as an emergency, the landlord took proportionate action in attending despite not being able to make telephone contact with the resident.
  6. When the resident emailed the landlord about this that same day, it advised her to contact the Customer Service team to rearrange the appointment, which was appropriate. The resident did so on 16 September 2020, this was logged on the landlord’s repair systems, and its plumber attended within the week, which was in line with the landlord’s “urgent” timeframe. No leak was found, but rather the use of the rinse attachment as a shower was found to be the cause. After the resident chased the issue with the landlord, it agreed in its 29 October 2020 response that it would tile the bathroom as a “good will gesture” to address this issue.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that this was a reasonable and fair course of action for the landlord to take and demonstrates that it was willing to find solutions for the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to make alterations, in the form of additional tiling, to allow the resident to use the attachment as a basic shower without risk of further leaks.
  8. However, the landlord then took over two months to carry out the work proposed which constitutes an excessive delay. Further, the Ombudsman has seen no confirmation that the damage to the ceiling below the bathroom has been remedied.

Windows

  1. The issue with the windows at the property was raised via the MP in August 2020. The MP described the window frames of the property as severely rotten. As above, in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord was obliged to act following this report.
  2. An internal landlord email dated 25 August 2020 shows the landlord asking for jobs to be raised to address this and noting that the resident had reported issues previously, but it had not been able to gain access. The repair records show that a routine order was raised on this date to repair/overhaul windows. However, there is no indication of any action having been taken in relation to this job. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for further details, and it has stated “Order to overhaul windows raised on 27 August deemed that they were beyond economical repair so job raised 16 September 2020 was subsequently cancelled.”
  3. There is evidence that supports that the windows had been assessed as beyond economical repair, although there is no indication that an inspection took place. The Ombudsman therefore understands that the assessment was likely to have been on the basis of the photographs and description provided by the resident. There are internal emails from mid-September 2020 that show that the landlord noted that the windows had not been due for replacement until 2027, but this would be brought forward “as by the sound of things they won’t last another year.” On 13 October 2020 an internal landlord email records that it had instructed its contractor to survey and replace the windows that year (the Ombudsman assumes this refers to the financial year 2020/21).
  4. The landlord’s stage two response said that it would be in touch before the end of November 2020 to arrange works to the windows, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this happened. Given the assurances that the works would be carried out urgently the Ombudsman considers it a failing on the part of the landlord that no progress had been made to address this.
  5. The landlord has provided copies of more recent internal emails from February 2021, which mention that it had issued an instruction for full window replacement in October 2020, but its contractor’s sub-contractor ceased operations due to the Covid–19 pandemic, which had caused significant delays to “the programme.” A new sub-contractor had been appointed and the landlord had asked for the property to be placed as priority. The landlord has more recently confirmed that the new sub-contractor has completed its survey, and the windows are in the process of being fabricated, but it has not been able to provide at date as to when the works will be complete.
  6. Although the Ombudsman has not found this specifically stated anywhere, it seems that the window replacement has been dealt with as a “planned repair”. The Ombudsman accepts that the issue with the sub-contractor would have been outside of its control. However, this would not account for the entire delay in these works. Given that the landlord was aware in September 2020 that the windows needed to be replaced, assured the resident that this would be done urgently, and acknowledged that they were not safe, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken proactive action to ensure that the works were done much sooner. As stated on its website, in some circumstances the landlord can ask contractors to complete the work more quickly.
  7. To date, no repairs or replacements have been carried out to the windows, and there is still no confirmed date for this to happen. Further, there is little evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated on the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of repairs to the windows
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak

Reasons

  1. In relation to the leak, there is no evidence to show what efforts were made to contact the resident to arrange an appointment following on from the ASB’s officer’s February 2020 email, despite this email providing both the resident’s telephone number and email address. The landlord would also have had the option of writing to the resident with an appointment.
  2. The landlord’s offer to tile the bathroom was appropriate, but it took two months to carry out this work, which represents a delay. It is not clear if the damage caused to the ceiling has been repaired.
  3. In relation to the windows, it has now been six months since this matter was brought to the landlord’s attention. There is still no date for the windows – acknowledged by the landlord to be in a very poor state of repair and assessed as unsafe – to be replaced. There is no indication that any repairs have been carried out to try and improve the situation or “make safe” in the meantime.
  4. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that compensation should be paid to the resident for the time, trouble and inconvenience she has been caused. It should be noted that, as described in the jurisdiction section above, this relates to the period following on from the repair reports made in January 2020.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident a total of £475 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in carrying out works to the bathroom and to the windows (any amount that has already been paid to the resident, i.e. the £150 that was previously offered, can be deducted from this amount).
    2. Write to the resident, copying in this Service, providing a date for the works to the windows, which should be no later than six weeks from the date of this report.
    3. Use the outcome of this case to determine what action it will take in the future to avoid the delays that have occurred to the window replacement. A copy of the landlord’s conclusions should be provided to the Ombudsman within six weeks of the date of this report.
    4. If it has not already done so, carry out any repairs required to the damaged ceiling underneath the bathroom within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. In her 15 November 2020 email to the landlord the resident referenced “other repairs” including a “gaping hole” in the kitchen wall. The landlord should ensure that any outstanding repairs at the property have been addressed.