Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202101317)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101317

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

20 July 2022


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 complaint is about the level of compensation offered in relation to the handling of the repair to the boiler and the related formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. At the time the repair was raised, the resident lived in the property with a child and was pregnant.

Summary of events

  1. On 7 October 2020, the resident reported a loss of hot water. The landlord’s contractor agreed to attend on 8 October 2020, however, did not attend the appointment.
  2. An appointment was then re-scheduled for 30 October 2020 but was cancelled on the day. A gas engineer attended to the property on 31 October however, as the hot water system is electric, they were not able to rectify the fault.
  3. Following the visit on 31 October 2020, two appointments were scheduled for 7 and 10 November 2020 but the contractor failed to attend both.
  4. The resident requested a call from a manager on 7 November 2020 and on 10 November. On 12 November 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord and contractor about the handling of the repair to the hot water system. They explained that the contractor missed several appointments, said that they wanted an alternative contractor to repair the system and for the landlord to place them in temporary accommodation while there was no hot water in the property. In addition, the resident said that they made four verbal complaints to the contractor but received no call backs from senior members of staff. The resident requested reimbursement from the contractor for the expenses they incurred because of the loss of hot water.
  5. On 16 November 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It said that it had been pushing to get the work completed promptly and that an appointment was scheduled for the repair the following day. It acknowledged that its contractor’s performance had been poor and said that the contractor would be offering compensation for this.
  6. The repair was completed on 17 November 2020.
  7. A manager returned the resident’s call back on 18 November 2020. During the call, the resident confirmed that the hot water issue had been resolved however expressed dissatisfaction with how the matter had been dealt with.
  8. Between 12 November and January 2021, the contractor was in contact with the resident and made various offers of compensation, the final being £550. The resident remained unhappy with the offer.
  9. On 17 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and in this letter, it acknowledged that there had been five unsuccessful appointments with the contractor, that it took more than five weeks to repair the hot water system and that it took an unreasonable time to resolve the complaint. It acknowledged that the resident and thier family experienced inconvenience and stress because of the repair being outstanding. The landlord also noted that if parts were not available, its contractor should have considered another solution. The landlord concluded that the contractor’s offer of compensation was reasonable and explained that it would have offered less under its compensation policy for the missed appointments, delays and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 15 April 2021 for assistance, as they remained unhappy with the outcome. We contacted the landlord on 30 April 2021 and requested that it review the complaint. The landlord’s contractor issued a further response to the complaint on 12 May 2021 and reiterated the offer of compensation.
  11. The resident responded on 13 May 2021 explaining why they remained unhappy with the offer and requested £5500 compensation. The resident forwarded their email to this Service and we requested the landlord provide a formal response to the complaint as it had not done so, following the Service’s previous contact.
  12. On 3 June 2021, it responded with a copy of the response it sent the resident, dated 17 January 2021. We contacted it again, on 17 June 2021 confirming that the complaint would need to be reviewed at stage 2 as the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of its initial response.
  13. On 21 June 2021, the landlord issued a response at stage one. It confirmed that it could not offer the resident the level of compensation they requested but agreed to increase the offer to £650.
  14. The resident responded on 23 June 2021, requesting an escalation of the complaint and an increased amount of £5720 which they explained included administration charges. The resident noted that they had sent a complaint to the landlord’s Chief Executive on 25 May 2021 but had not received a response. They also said that they had sent an escalation request on 8 June 2021 but had not received a response.
  15. A stage two response was sent on 19 July 2021. The landlord offered an additional £50 compensation, making the total offer £700. It apologised that the resident did not receive a response to their correspondence sent on 25 May and 8 June 2021. It confirmed that prior to the escalation of the complaint to stage 1, it had dealt with the complaint informally. It apologised that this had not been explained and that details of how to progress the complaint had also not been provided. It confirmed the key lessons it learnt from the complaint, which were that its Property Safety team and contractors should:
    1. Aim to get follow on works completed correctly the first time and ensure that the correct trades are sent to complete the required works.
    2. Provide residents with progress updates on ongoing repairs until completion and ensure that repairs are completed as soon as possible, being aware of the impact any delays may have on the household.
    3. Have a robust system in place to address complaints in line with the complaints policy and clearly explain the complaints process when a resident is not familiar with it.
    4. Where relevant, offer compensation at the first opportunity.
  16. The resident remained unhappy, and the complaint was taken to stage three, an optional stage within the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord arranged a panel hearing with the resident and following this, it issued a response on 17 September 2021, increasing its offer of compensation to £3000. This comprised of:
    1. £504 under the right to repair.
    2. £210 for the loss of hot water.
    3. £100 for the missed appointments
    4. £130 for the loss of bathroom.
    5. £2056 for the time, trouble, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
  17. The resident remained unhappy with the offer and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. On its website, the landlord provides information about the timeframe it aims to complete repairs within. It states that urgent repairs, those that are serious but not likely to put life or health at serious risk, have a target completion time of 7 days. It notes that urgent repairs include no hot water.
  2. Soon after the resident reported the repair in October 2020, the Government introduced a tiered system of restrictions across England on 14 October, because of the pandemic. This was then escalated to a national lockdown on 31 October 2020, during the national lockdown, people were advised to stay at home where possible. At the time the Covid 19 restrictions were in place, the landlord confirmed that it would continue to carry out all repairs in line with government’s guidance.
  3. The repair to the hot water system was completed on 17 November 2020, 42 days after it was first reported. This was 35 days outside of its repair timeframe and therefore was a significant delay.
  4. The contractor failed to attend on two occasions, on 8 and 30 October 2020. It then attended on 31 October 2020 however, it sent the incorrect tradesman which meant that the system could not be repaired. In addition to this, it failed to attend two further appointments scheduled for 7 and 10 October. This is an excessive number of unsuccessful appointments which contributed to the delay in completing the repair.
  5. While the repair was outstanding, the resident was asking for a senior member of staff to contact them as they were unhappy with the way the matter was being handled. There is no evidence that the first request, on 7 November 2020, was responded to and the second request for a call was responded to just over a week later. Therefore, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity and put things right for the resident.
  6. In the response to the complaint, the landlord has acknowledged that the repair took a significant period to complete. It provided explanations for the missed appointments, which were due to administration errors, staff absence and parts not being available. The outstanding repair undoubtedly caused the resident inconvenience and distress, which was exacerbated by their personal circumstances at the time. The resident also explained that they had to travel to another household to access hot water and also had to change their birth plan to have a home birth, as a result of the lack of hot water.
  7. When responding to the complaint, the landlord rightfully acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the matter whilst the repair was outstanding.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy provides that it can consider compensation in several circumstances, including when it has failed to meet an essential service outlined in the tenancy agreement and when it has not kept to an appointment and not given the resident 24 hours’ notice of cancellation.
  9. For a loss of hot water, it will pay £2.50 a day for additional fuel or utility costs after the second day without hot water between October and March. For a missed appointment, it can offer £20. A resident may also be entitled to up to £50 compensation, under the Right to Repair, when the landlord fails to carry out emergency or urgent repairs at the second attempt and within its repair timeframes.
  10. In this case, the resident was without hot water from 7 October 2021, under the compensation policy they are entitled to £2.50 per day from 9 October until 17 November 2021. This is equivalent to £100. The landlord has offered the just over double the amount the resident is entitled to.
  11. There was a total of four missed appointments and the resident is therefore entitled to £20 for each missed appointment, amounting to £80. The fifth appointment was attended to but was unsuccessful because the wrong tradesman was deployed. It was appropriate for the landlord to also offer £20 for this appointment, as no repair could take place because of the error.
  12. Under the right to repair, the landlord’s policy explains that for a loss of hot water specifically, the amount of compensation is set at £10 plus £2 a day for each day outside of its repair target time, between 1 May and 31 October.
  13. The second attempt by the landlord was the appointment on 30 October 2021, which was a missed appointment. This appointment was also outside of its 7-day target for urgent repairs. In line with its policy, the resident is entitled to compensation under the right to repair, between 14 October 2021 and 31 October 2021, equivalent to £46. The landlord has not specified how it calculated its offer of £504 under the right to repair, but this decision to apply discretion and offer more than the maximum under this aspect of the policy was appropriate given the overall shortcomings in the handling of the repair.
  14. The landlord’s offer for the loss of bathroom was also reasonable as this recognised that the resident had limited use of their bathroom for 6 weeks.
  15. The landlord does not have set amounts for what it would offer for time, inconvenience, and distress. The Ombudsman considers that compensation awards in excess of £700 are applicable in recognition of severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on a resident. The Ombudsman, therefore, considers the landlord’s offer of compensation for £2056 for the resident’s time, inconvenience and distress is more than proportionate to the impact of the service failures they experienced as they were left without hot water for 6 weeks whilst they were pregnant. No evidence has been provided that this situation, whilst very inconvenient, had a severe long-term impact on the resident. Nevertheless, the resident had to pursue the landlord for updates on the repair, and consequently updates on the subsequent complaint, for several months.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure consists of two formal stages, stages one and two. It explains that before stage one, it will try to resolve a complaint informally and will log and monitor the complaint and provide a reference number to the resident. In the event the complaint is not resolved informally, the landlord’s policy explains that the complaint can be taken to stage one.
  2. When the resident submitted their complaint, the landlord did not follow its procedure. It responded to the resident and confirmed it was chasing up the repairs, however, it did not formally log the complaint or inform the resident that it would seek to resolve the complaint informally. Instead, its contractor liaised with the resident directly and made various offers of compensation.
  3. The landlord’s complaints procedure does not have a provision that indicates that its contractor may deal with the complaints. Whilst this may be the informal arrangements in place for the resolution of complaints, this was not clearly made out in the landlord’s policy. It is unclear therefore, why the landlord did not record the complaint and provide a response from when it was submitted.
  4. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the contractor’s offer of £550 compensation, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to a formal stage one. This resulted in the Ombudsman’s intervention, on two occasions, before it provided a response at stage one.
  5. Its policy explains that complaints at stage 1 are responded to within 10 working days. However, it failed to adhere to this and did not provide a stage one response to the resident until 21 June 2021, seven months after the complaint was submitted. This is a significant delay.
  6. Moreover, while waiting for the stage one response, the resident submitted correspondence to the landlord’s chief executive office and made it clear that they wished to escalate the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the lack of support it provided in the complaint’s procedure as it failed to act on several requests made for the complaint to be escalated.
  7. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman expects landlords to have a complaint’s process that allows for residents to escalate a complaint for review at a more senior level. The landlord failed to record the formal complaint when it was submitted and failed to escalate and provide a formal response to the complaint between November 2020 and June 2021, despite being aware on several occasions that the resident remained unhappy and wished to progress the complaint.
  8. The landlord’s response to the complaint acknowledged that there were significant service failures in both the handling of the repair and the formal complaint process. Its offer of compensation did not specify what amount was for the complaint handling service failure. However, the level of compensation it offered for the resident’s time, inconvenience, and distress, is proportionate to severity of the impact its poor handling of the repair and formal complaint had on the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman expects landlords to learn from complaints to drive service improvements. In this case, the landlord has identified the relevant learning from the complaint, in how it should deal with repairs and associated complaints. It was appropriate that as well as offering the resident redress for the service failures they experienced, it identified relevant learning and improvement requirements following its investigation into the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has recognised the failures in its service delivery, regarding both the repair and the complaint.
  2. It has offered the resident compensation that is proportionate to the service failures and, the impact those service failures have had on the resident. In addition to this, it has identified the learnings from the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The information provided to this Service, indicates that the parties were in communication about the payment of the £3000 compensation. As the above finding is dependent on the landlord making the payment to the resident, the landlord is to confirm to this Service within 28 days, that the payment has been made.