Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202215739)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215739

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

13 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and bathroom repairs to be carried out.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a basement flat and the tenancy started in 2018.
The landlord inspected the bathroom in approximately February/March 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any record of the surveyor’s inspection, but the resident submits that he advised he would raise repair jobs including re-tiling and replacing the bath panel.
A stock condition survey was then carried out by the landlord on 7 March 2022, which noted the bathroom condition to be poor. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the stock condition survey, but neither party dispute the outcome of this assessment. The resident submits the survey was passed to the Stock Improvement Team in charge of bathroom renewals for consideration.
No evidence has been provided of the resident contacting the landlord requesting a new bathroom or for repairs to be carried out, in the following months. However, she then contacted her MP on 25 May 2022 to complain about the bathroom’s condition since she moved in. She said, instead of renewing the bathroom, which would solve all the problems, the landlord would “patch” it up and previous work carried out was poor quality and it had been re-painted and re-sealed to make it look new. She said it was a horrible environment, her children did not like going to the bathroom, it was unhygienic, and she was embarrassed to have visitors.
The resident listed bathroom issues including: cracked tiles; sink basin not properly attached to the pedestal; toilet not flushing properly; bath not level; poor ventilation causing condensation and mould; rotten bath panel and casing allowing mice to access the property; and issues with the radiator.
Following receipt of the complaint, the landlord’s repair log shows a job raised on 26 May 2022 for various repairs to be completed. The landlord spoke to the resident on 30 May 2022 and discussed her complaint and the fact she would like a new bathroom.
On 14 June 2022 in an internal email, the landlord’s surveyor said, from memory, the bathroom was not in a bad state at the time of his inspection at around the end of February/early March 2022. He said he had not seen the subsequent stock condition survey but he felt he could not justify a new bathroom at the time he visited. He recommended another surveyor attend as the condition of the bathroom could have changed since he visited, and said another inspection would be required anyway. If repairs were required, creating a repair job would not be a problem. The landlord spoke to the resident, but she did not feel another inspection would be beneficial and said it was difficult to take time off work.
The landlord sent its Stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2022. It said:
1. Although the stock condition survey noted the bathroom’s condition was poor, it did not indicate a new bathroom was required, and this would only be deemed necessary when the bathroom was no longer economically viable to repair.
2. The survey did not recommend the date for renewal consideration be brought forward.
3. It apologised that the resident felt the repairs were patchwork and it would address the outstanding repairs.
4. It had learnt from the complaint and would be changing the way it communicated with its residents, particularly at the beginning of their tenancy, end of a starter tenancy and whilst repairs were ongoing.
5. It could request its gas contractors to attend to make sure the radiators were running efficiently, and the resident should let it know if she would like an appointment.
6. The resident could escalate her complaint if she was not satisfied.
There is no evidence of the resident’s initial response to the landlord’s stage 1 response, and no evidence as to whether she agreed to contractors attending for the radiators. However the landlord acknowledged her request to escalate the complaint on 6 September 2022, and advised that she could expect a response within 20 working days.
Having not received a response, the resident chased for an update on 13 October 2022. An internal landlord email of 20 October 2022 said, although the escalation request was acknowledged, the case was not allocated for investigation and, due to a system change, the case had been closed in error.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 November 2022 as she had not received a stage 2 complaint response. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord acknowledged its error and said the stage 2 complaint had now been allocated.
The resident contacted this Service again on 19 November 2022 and said she had chased her landlord for updates on 4 different occasions, yet nothing had been done.
The resident contacted this Service, her landlord and her MP on 14 December 2022 as she had still not received a stage 2 response. She said the bathroom condition was affecting her and her children, mould had started to appear, and she was worried about her children’s health. The landlord’s repair log shows it raised a job for mould issues in the bathroom on 22 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 December 2022 and apologised for the delay. It said:
1. Although the bathroom was not due to be replaced until 2026, it would arrange for the bathroom replacement to be completed sooner.
2. It apologised for its poor complaint handling and said it had a new Complaints Coordinator to ensure residents receive a better service.
3. It had arranged for all outstanding repairs to be completed.
4. It offered £350 for distress and inconvenience caused and the delays responding to the complaint.
5. The key lessons it had learnt from the complaint included: considering replacement of a property component earlier if the condition was highlighted as poor; responding to complaints in published timescales; and responding urgently to safety related repairs.
In the resident’s email of 11 January 2023, she accepted the compensation and the bathroom replacement. However, she said she had reported the repairs to the landlord, but nothing ever came of them which caused frustration. She reiterated that the stock condition survey had described her bathroom as in poor condition and she was disappointed it did not make the decision to replace her bathroom when it issued the stage 1 response. She asked if she could speak to the landlord regarding an outstanding radiator issue. The resident subsequently chased the landlord for a response to this email.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and bathroom repairs to be carried out

Upon receipt of requests for repairs from residents, landlords are entitled to make the final decision on what work is carried out and how it approaches the work, so long as it is fair and reasonable and in line with its policies. Surveyors will provide their opinion, but the landlord ultimately decides if repairs are necessary, having regard to any recommendations and other factors such as budgetary constraints and good practice guidance.
The decent homes standard sets out a timescale to renew bathrooms at 30 years. This is not a strict rule or policy, as other factors such as functionality and condition do play a part in deciding whether a replacement is due. However, the decent homes standard can be used as an indicator to gauge the appropriateness of the landlord’s decisions on renewals.
The landlord said it would generally replace bathrooms every 25 years, or when a bathroom is beyond economic repair. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine when the resident’s bathroom was installed or last refurbished. However, despite the stock condition survey noting the condition to be poor, it did not expressly state that renewal was required and there was no statutory obligation on the landlord to replace the bathroom.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident asked for the bathroom to be replaced prior to her complaint being made. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord delayed in its response to the request. Instead, once the complaint was raised, the landlord considered its position and explained its approach to the resident. The bathroom was not due to be replaced until 2026, but the landlord ultimately replaced it in January 2023, 3 years ahead of schedule. As detailed above, the landlord was within its rights to make the most effective use of its limited resources and, based on the information available to it, to take the decision not to replace the bathroom at the time of the stage 1 response.
While the landlord reasonably decided, in response to the resident’s complaint, that a full bathroom renewal was not required immediately, it still had an obligation to keep the property, including the bathroom, in good repair and condition. The repair log does not show any requests for repairs to the bathroom from when the resident moved in to when the complaint was made. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the surveyor’s report from February/March 2022, but the fact that the surveyor attended indicated that the landlord had received notice that some level of repair was required, and this should have been reflected in its repair records.
Given that the surveyor who attended on 7 March 2022 found the bathroom to be in poor condition, the resident said the surveyor that attended in February/March 2022 agreed to raise repairs, and the complaint listed a number of outstanding repairs only 3 months later, it is reasonable to deduce that some level of repair was required at that time. However, there is no evidence of a repairs job being raised or any action being taken to address the poor conditions identified.
The landlord’s repairs policy says its target to complete normal repairs is 28 days. It says residents can request a surveyor attend the property and, once the inspection is complete, the surveyor will authorise any necessary work within 24 hours, informing the resident when the work will be completed. Based on the documents provided, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the landlord did this. Any repairs should have been completed by April 2022 but they were not. As a result, there was an unacceptable delay in carrying out repairs, which was a failing, and ultimately led to the complaint and the resident feeling like she was being ignored.
The landlord ultimately raised a repair job on 26 May 2022 for various repairs following receipt of the complaint, but there is no evidence it took any action until 14 June 2022 when it contacted the surveyor (who inspected the property earlier in the year) and a further inspection was recommended. This suggestion was not unreasonable given the list of repairs in the complaint and the length of time that had passed between the inspection and the complaint. However, it is unclear if the landlord arranged the inspection (the evidence suggests it did not) as its stage 1 response asked the resident to arrange an inspection at her earliest convenience.
It is understandable that the resident felt frustration at the requirement for another inspection due to having had 2 in quick succession previously. The evidence suggests she did not want a third survey or that she arranged a survey following the stage 1 response. Despite this, the landlord could have done more to arrange the survey. Had it done so, repairs could have been addressed earlier, which was a failing. This led to the resident escalating her complaint to stage 2 and caused further frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord offered compensation for distress and inconvenience, but it did not make it clear whether this was for delays in addressing the repairs or specifically for its complaint handling. It acknowledged the need to consider improving property components identified as being in poor condition.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the complaint, including any redress offered, put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. This Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer did not clearly distinguish how much of the compensation, if any, was for delays addressing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this. It was therefore not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in relation to its handling of the repairs and orders further compensation to be paid to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 3 stage complaint process. Its response time for stage 1 is 15 working days, stage 2 is 15 working days and stage 3, when a complaint is referred to members of the board, is 20 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 22 working days after it received the complaint, outside of its target response time. Although it apologised for the delay, this was a failing.
The landlord gave an incorrect timescale in its acknowledgement of the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2 of 20 working days, rather than 15. It also sent its stage 2 response 79 working days later, and 39 working days after it advised our Service it had been allocated, which was an unacceptable delay.
The resident said she chased on 4 different occasions and had to contact this Service in order to obtain a response from the landlord. The stage 2 response was prompted by the Ombudsman’s intention to investigate the complaint after the landlord incorrectly closed the case. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, complies with the timeframes set out in its policy and complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Its failure to do so was unfair to the resident and caused her inconvenience of chasing the landlord and delayed the outcome, which could have an impact on the overall landlord tenant relationship.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has learnt from its complaint handling failures and made changes to avoid delays in the future. It does have a compensation policy, but this does not give guidance on amounts it will pay. It has paid £350 to compensate for the inconvenience and distress caused, and delays responding to the complaint, however it did not break down the offer. The landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. On the basis that the compensation offer related solely to its complaint handling, and having considered the landlord’s compensation policy alongside this Service’s own remedies guidance, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress on this point.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of the surveyors notes, the stock condition survey or records of its communication with the resident.

The landlord’s inability to provide these documents demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. The lack of records has also delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation causing further time and trouble to the resident. There was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping as it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s
1. Handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and bathroom repairs to be carried out.
2. Knowledge and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident with respect to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a further £350 compensation made up of:
  1. £250 for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of the bathroom repairs.
  2. £100 for inconvenience caused by its knowledge and information management.
3. Carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide the results of this assessment to this Service.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.