Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202205797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205797

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the emergency escape route from the property was compromised.
2. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a 2-bedroom flat in a converted mid-terrace house. The tenancy agreement began on 28 September 2015. The flat’s entrance is located directly behind the communal door on the ground floor, with a small landing and a narrow staircase leading to the first floor. The resident lives with her partner and 3 children, the youngest of whom is 2 years old and has autism.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2021 and said she had nowhere to park her youngest’s pushchair. She said she had to use the landing at the bottom of the stairs, which could hinder her evacuation in an emergency.
5. The landlord inspected the property on 16 November 2022. Over the next 2 months, the resident discussed the options with the landlord. It was accepted that:

a.     The staircase was narrow.

b.     The pushchair was large. However, the resident needed a bigger pushchair. She explained that the pushchair was her child’s ‘lifeline’, as she said he needed outdoor space to assist his development.

c.      The pushchair at the bottom of the stairs was a fire safety hazard and would hinder evacuation in an emergency.

6. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 26 January 2022 and said the landing space was unsafe and would obstruct a ‘safe and prompt exit’.  Therefore, she said this was a considerable risk, the danger was ‘imminent’, and the property was ‘inadequate’ for a young family.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 March 2022 and said the physical constraints of the property meant there were limited options it could take. It said that the home itself did not pose a fire risk. It had discussed some options with the resident, including folding the pushchair or hanging it from hooks behind a door. It said that this was not ideal, but it would remove the risk.
8. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 15 April 2022 and said:

a.     The solutions offered by the landlord were “impractical, unhelpful, and careless”. The landlord’s surveyor reported in November 2021 that the fire risk would be classed as Category 1 under the HHSRS as the pushchair would block the exit out of the flat in an emergency. She said the report found “the hallway to stairs leading into the first floor flat from the entrance door was very narrow, which verifies the structural failures of the dated building and the dangerous physical constraints of the property”. She said this contradicted the landlord’s position that the home did not pose a fire risk.

b.     The report said that ‘the narrow space was made even narrower by the resident leaving the pushchair at the bottom of the stairs. The resident said while this was true, she could do nothing about it.

9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 October 2022 and said:

a.     It had visited the resident’s home on 4 October 2022 and understood the resident’s concerns and anxiety around safety in her home. It would ask the fire service to inspect her home. It would then share the findings with the local authority to assess.

b.     It apologised for the delay in handling the complaint since April 2022. It would review its complaint handling and update the resident on the lessons learned. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it offered £500 in compensation.

10. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 24 October 2022. It said the fire service had visited the resident’s property and had not identified the need for the family to be moved immediately. It was recommended that the resident store the collapsed pushchair under her bed or that the landlord explore fitting a shed at the front of the property. The landlord said it hoped the resident would be satisfied that it had taken her safety concerns seriously.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3 on 4 November 2022. She said:

a.     The landlord did not take measures to reduce the risk under HHSRS. 

b.     The fire service said that to be fire-safe, the stairway and landing should be obstruction-free. Her child needed access to outdoor space to support his social, communicative, physical, and emotional needs. The pushchair was his lifeline, and she believed the landlord could do more to help.

12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 April 2023 and said the stage 3 hearing panel would take place on 4 May 2023. It said it could install a storage shed at the front of the property. If the resident was interested, it could start the work straight away. The resident responded on 4 May 2023 and said a store shed sounded ideal; however, the landlord had not visited the property and did not know whether it had the space to fit a shed.
13. The landlord sent its Stage 3 response on 11 May 2023. It summarised the key points from its stage 3 hearing as follows:

a.     The property was assessed, and safety concerns were considered. The Fire Service confirmed that the pushchair needed to be removed. The local authority confirmed that the property did not require structural modifications, and the resident was not eligible for a priority transfer. 

b.     The panel had agreed that the compensation of £500 offered at stage 2 was sufficient.

c.      A suitable outside storage ‘must’ be provided. This would be installed by 14 July 2023.

14. In October 2023, the landlord said to the resident that the ground-floor flat’s palm tree and flower bed would have to be removed to make space for the shed. It would, therefore, need to consult the ground floor resident. It also suggested that the resident involve an occupational therapist to identify future housing needs or aids and adaptation that would be required.
15. This Service was not able to get hold of the resident during this investigation. The landlord provided this Service with an update in May 2024. It said the palm tree and flower beds had been removed, but the shed had not been installed yet. The reason for the delay was unclear.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling or the resident’s reports that the emergency escape route from the property was compromised

16. The crux of the complaint was that the pushchair obstructed the resident’s emergency escape route. It was accepted by the resident and the landlord that:

a.     Storing the pushchair at the bottom of the stairs would hinder the resident’s emergency escape route, and it needed to be stored elsewhere.

b.     The staircase was narrow, and there were deficiencies due to the age of the conversion.

c.      The pushchair was a non-negotiable requirement to aid the development of the resident’s child.

17. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, landlords must assess risks and take mitigating action to minimise hazards in their rented properties. The resident raised her concerns on 12 November 2022; the landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the risk in the property within days on 16 November 2022.
18. The HHSRS Enforcement Guidance for landlords says:

a.     “The government recognises that all dwellings will contain some hazards and that the degree to which the underlying HHSRS principle can be satisfied in existing dwellings will vary”.

b.     “HHSRS is primarily concerned with those matters which can properly be considered the responsibility of the landlord. This means that it is necessary to distinguish between those elements of a dwelling for which responsibility lies with the landlord and those for which responsibility lies with the resident”.

c.      “Landlords are not responsible for the state of any fixtures or fittings provided by the occupier or anything that is not fixed and removable”.

19. Section 9 (a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says landlords must ensure a dwelling they let out is fit for human habitation. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 says: “Landlords are not responsible for fixing problems caused by tenant behaviour”.
20. The Ombudsman’s fire safety advice for residents says: “Residents must make sure they do not create a fire hazard in their homes, for example, by blocking a fire escape route.”
21. The Housing Ombudsman’s investigation seeks to establish whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved reasonably and competently.
22. It is acknowledged that the resident’s situation was undeniably challenging. She had to manoeuvre the pushchair up and down a narrow staircase several times a day with three young children. She was concerned about how she would do this in an emergency and for a few more years to come. The impact on the resident was significant, and the distress caused is recognised. However, the landlord was under no legal obligation to provide storage solutions for the pushchair. The pushchair was not supplied by the landlord and was not part of the property’s fixtures and fittings. Removing the pushchair would clear the emergency escape route and it would restore the safety of the property.
23. The fire service confirmed this when they assessed the resident’s home in October 2022. The local authority, as the enforcing authority of the HHSRS, also confirmed that the landlord was not required to carry out structural modifications to the property. The local authority also confirmed that the resident was not eligible for priority bidding based on her circumstances at that time.
24. While the landlord was not legally obliged to act, the risk remained, and it was appropriate for the landlord to work with the resident and try to find a solution. It is noted that there were significant delays at every step of the landlord’s internal complaint process, which caused significant distress to the resident. This will be discussed later on in this assessment. However, the landlord’s efforts to resolve the resident’s concerns should also be recognised:

a.     On 16 November 2021, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property, 4 days after the resident raised her concerns. This was a reasonable time frame. The surveyor appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and said that there was little that could be done to alter the structure of the property.

b.     On 15 March 2022, the landlord discussed the option of relocating the resident. It explained that the resident’s situation did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It is acknowledged that there is a shortage of social housing across England and a severe shortage in London. Therefore, landlords are required to effectively manage their housing stock by allocating homes to those most in need. As a result, this was a reasonable response. On 18 March 2022, the landlord explained that sometimes residents want to downsize. For those who receive full benefits, the amount of rent may not be the most important factor in their property search. The landlord said it would inform the resident if it received relevant inquiries.

c.      On 4 October 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s home before writing a formal stage 2 response. During the visit, it agreed with the resident that it would ask the Fire Service to carry out a safety assessment of the resident’s home. It would then notify the local authority of the outcome of the Fire Service’s assessment. It wrote the resident again following the fire safety assessment and confirmed that the Fire Service advised the pushchair must be removed in order to restore the safety of the resident’s home.

d.     On 24 October 2022, it presented the Fire Service’s assessment to the local authority, who advised no structural safety work was required. The landlord asked the local authority whether it would add the resident onto its housing register. The decision was the local authority’s to make.

e.     On 19 October 2023, the landlord advised the resident to get an occupational therapy assessment for her child so that any future transfer needs or adaptations are identified at the earliest opportunity. This was reasonable advice.

25. In summary, the landlord demonstrated it considered the resident’s concerns, and it took action to try and find solutions, going above what it was legally required to do. As noted, the execution of its actions undermined its efforts to solve the complaint. For example, on 26 April 2023, it said it was ready to start work on installing the storage shed. The resident responded that pushchair storage sounded ideal. However, she said the landlord had not visited the property and had not considered whether this was a realistic solution due to the limited space. She said this was not the first time the landlord had suggested solutions without inspecting the property first. The landlord responded that it was ready to start the do work.
26. In its May 2023 stage 3 response, the landlord said that it ‘must’ provide suitable outside storage to accommodate the resident and her belongings and that this would be completed by 14 July 2023. In October 2023, the landlord had not started consultation with the resident of the flat below. It also did not apply for consent from the property’s freeholder. In May 2024, it was confirmed that the palm tree and flower beds had been removed, but the shed had not been installed yet. The landlord committed itself to installing a shed, and it failed to do so. It is unclear whether the resident was kept informed regarding the reason for the delay or whether the landlord provided a timeframe for completion.
27. Overall, the landlord was largely resolution-focused and took the resident’s concerns seriously despite it not being the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue. It empathised with the resident’s situation, investigated the problem, and engaged with third-party agencies for advice. It recognised some of its failings, and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, it offered the resident compensation of £500. Given that it was under no legal obligation to find a storage solution for the pushchair, this was a fair and proportionate amount to put things right. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
28. Although the landlord’s actions amounted to reasonable redress, the impact on the resident is recognised. With this in mind, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to write to the resident and set out whether it is possible and practical for it to install the shed, and if it is committed to doing so, it should commit to a deadline for completion.
29. The landlord should also identify lessons learned from the case and what it would do differently in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

30. There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, which ultimately resulted in this Service issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 2 June 2023.
31. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2022. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded 37 working days later, on 18 March 2022. The resident raised her stage 2 complaint on 15 April 2022. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord responded 119 working days later, on 6 October 2022.
32. Following the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 on 15 April 2022, the resident pursued the landlord for its response. She approached this Service for advice on 22 June 2022. This Service asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 response on 27 June 2022, 23 August 2022, and 11 September 2022, but the landlord did not respond. We contacted the landlord again on 30 September 2022 and advised that we would issue a CHFO. The landlord responded with its stage 2 response on 6 October 2022. On the same day, it also carried out an internal review of its complaint process. The review was comprehensive, and it found:

a.     Due to high staff turnover and an inability to capture emails sent from individual employees’ accounts, the landlord’s complaints team, like many other teams [within the organisation], suffered from poor organisational habits, especially in task, email, and file management. These habits, along with human error, are the most likely reasons for the team’s failure to respond to the Ombudsman.

b.     It recommended that the landlord conduct an urgent review of all inbound emails to the complaints inbox to ensure it takes mitigating action in other cases where it also failed to respond. It recommended that the landlord conduct a further review of its organisational practices, with particular attention to file and email management.

c.      The underlying issue in this complaint and many others was that the company failed to respond to residents. Until it develops a culture that holds staff accountable for providing poor Service, failures like this are likely to continue.

33. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 October 2022. The resident escalated her complaint to Stage 3 on 4 November 2022. This service contacted the landlord 3 times and asked it to respond to the resident. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord responded 128 working days later, on 11 May 2023. Overall, the landlord’s handling the complaint caused a delay of 234 working days. This service issued the landlord with a CHFO on 2 June 2023.
34. Additionally, this Service asked the landlord for its policies and procedures on 13 March 2024, but it has yet to send these to us. This suggests the issues with its communications and record keeping are ongoing. Orders have been made below for the landlord to form an action plan to address these issues and to learn from the outcome.
35. A further order has been made below for the landlord to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
36. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
37. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
38. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling or the resident’s reports that the emergency escape route from the property was compromised, reasonably.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must form an action plan (with times to be adhered to). The plan must be discussed with and approved by its board and put into action within 6 weeks. It must (at the minimum):

a.     Conduct a risk-based review of all open complaints within its internal complaint process, to which it has yet to respond. It must form a plan to deal with any backlog identified, adhering to timescales. It must also send a holding letter to all affected residents.

b.     A review of its complaints that have already escalated to this service (pending investigation). It must confirm to the board that it has handled all outstanding evidence requests.

c.      An assessment of the measures it had implemented following its 2022 review and identify the reasons that led to the continued delays with its complaint process as well as in its correspondence with this service.

d.     It must agree at board level on the actions it would need to take to improve its practices. It must also agree on the key performance indicators it would use to monitor the effectiveness of its action plan.

e.     It must meet with its board again within 6 months from the date of this report and discuss the results as measured by its agreed key performance indicators.

f.        Evidence must be shared with this service at each of the steps above.

42. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report. It must also pay the resident directly £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

43. The landlord should the landlord to write to the resident and set out whether it is possible and practical for it to install the shed, and if it is committed to doing so, it should commit to a deadline for completion.