Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202303590)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303590

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

29 August 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Request for rehousing.
    3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat.
  2. The resident began reporting ASB and noise nuisance in September 2020. She reported that the neighbour in the flat above was playing loud music, banging on the ceiling, shouting and being verbally abusive towards her.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 18 July 2022 following a discussion with a staff member about her reports of ASB. The resident reported that the staff member was rude, had ignored her recent reports of ASB and that the landlord had not provided her with sufficient support. She said that the landlord had not contacted her following a meeting with the police about the ASB. The resident raised further dissatisfaction regarding how the same staff member had spoken to her on the phone on 5 August 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2022. The landlord found that the staff member did not immediately respond to the resident in a helpful way and that the staff member had been asked to be mindful of the impact of certain comments used. The landlord explained that a community resolution did not enable it to take tenancy enforcement action. However, it said that it would issue the neighbour a warning about her behaviour. The landlord provided advice to the resident about pursuing a mutual exchange and stated that it would also send her a transfer application form.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2022. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the outcome and that there were unanswered questions regarding a medical transfer and the results of noise recording equipment. The resident questioned why the landlord could not take enforcement action due to drug taking and threats made towards her. She said that a mutual exchange was not acceptable and the landlord had a duty of care to keep her safe. The resident stated that the issue was affecting her mental and physical health.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 September 2022. It stated that a sample of the resident’s recordings had been listened to and faint scraping noises could be heard. The landlord said it needed evidence of statutory noise nuisance in order to take enforcement action against another resident’s tenancy. The landlord said a proposal had been made for a change to its structure to include 2 specialist ASB officers in order to better deal with such issues. The landlord said that it had asked for the resident to be placed on the management transfer list and that it could move a small number of people per year. It said that this would not be a quick solution and so it had sent earplugs and a Bluetooth headset to assist her in the short term.
  7. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to a stage 3 panel hearing on 18 September 2022. The resident stated that a priority move was not given to her which she was entitled to based on her health condition. She said that the issues in the property were causing her severe depression and anxiety.
  8. The resident raised a complaint with the Ombudsman on 28 April 2023. She said that her complaint was still not resolved and that the landlord should move her to suitable accommodation under priority band A.
  9. The stage 3 panel hearing took place on 25 May 2023 and the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome on 6 June 2023. The landlord said that an independent medical assessment found that the resident did not meet the high priority requirement for a transfer however, the landlord had overruled this recommendation and placed the resident on priority A for a move. The landlord stated that the availability of suitable homes was limited and there was a discussion during the panel hearing about the resident going onto the local authority’s housing list, and that a new medical assessment would be carried out.
  10. The hearing found that the landlord had followed ASB procedures but that there were gaps in its actions. It said that staff members had not followed good practice even though the process in place at the time was followed. The landlord said it had revised its ASB procedure as a consequence. It said that more recently, next steps regarding the ASB case had been communicated to the resident, but that the action plan had not been shared with her which it should have been as per the revised procedure. It said that its ASB procedure would be further revised so that a new risk assessment is completed when new evidence is available for a case. The landlord found that the stage 3 hearing should have been set up quicker and that the delays were due to staffing issues. It offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the considerable delays and the inconvenience caused.
  11. The landlord listed actions that would be taken following the meeting including meeting with the resident, carrying out a new risk assessment, a medical assessment, and sharing the action plan.
  12. In August 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that the ASB was ongoing and that she felt unsupported by the landlord. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident said that she wanted an investigation into the landlord’s handling of the issue, for the landlord to support her with an injunction against 2 neighbours, to be rehoused, a review of her medical applications, and to be compensated. She stated that she had spent money staying in hotels due to the ASB and she felt the £250 offered was insufficient to remedy the impact of the delay in arranging the stage 3 panel hearing. The resident also raised that previous complaints she had raised had not been investigated and that there had been numerous data breaches by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance began in September 2020. The resident raised a complaint in January 2022 and a stage 2 response was issued on 11 April 2022. The resident did not refer this complaint to the Ombudsman. She raised a new complaint about similar issues on 18 July 2022. The resident referred this complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023. This investigation will consider events from the April 2022. While the concerns reported by the resident, and actions taken by the landlord prior to this may be referred to in this report for context, they will not form part of the investigation.
  2. The resident’s reports of ASB remain ongoing and she has raised dissatisfaction with how the landlord continues to handle her reports. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. As such, this investigation does not comment on more recent events following the 6 June 2023 stage 3 response, unless they refer to the actions that the landlord said it would take in that response. If the resident wishes to complain about the landlord’s handling of any ongoing issues, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. It is noted that the resident raised a new complaint in 2023 and she requested for this to be escalated in October 2023. It is unclear whether this relates to the landlord’s handling of the ASB or whether a final response was issued by the landlord. It is further noted that the resident informed the Ombudsman that she has made several complaints that have not been investigated. As above, in line with paragraph 42(a) we may not investigate complaints that have not yet completed a landlord’s complaint procedure. However, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to clarify any outstanding complaints that have not been dealt with and for these to be responded to accordingly.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord failed to appropriately assess her medical needs and provide her with a transfer based on these. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether or not the landlord should have provided the resident with medical priority, as this depends on the assessment of the appointed independent medical advisor. However, we have assessed whether the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policies in the process of considering her application.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman that there had been numerous data breaches by the landlord. The nature of the data breaches is unclear. Complaints relating to the landlord’s handling of data is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as, in accordance with paragraph 42(f), such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Further, this matter has not been dealt with within the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident should contact the ICO for advice if she wishes to pursue this matter.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

  1. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the ASB allegations or to determine whether ASB and noise nuisance occurred. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and in accordance with its policies.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will develop agreed upon action plans and provide regular updates to residents. The policy says that the landlord will gather sufficient evidence before taking any action, and this may be gathered by installing noise recorders so that the frequency and level of disturbance can be accurately recorded, reviewing video or sound recordings made by residents, interviewing residents or witnesses and checking CCTV. The policy states that it may not be possible to take any enforcement action if there is a lack of sufficient and appropriate evidence.
  3. The ASB policy states that the landlord will carry out a risk assessment, which will include an assessment of the nature of the reported incidents and their impact on the victim. A risk rating, starting from category 1 (high risk) to category 3 (low risk) will determine what the landlord’s response will be.
  4. The landlord took appropriate action by installing a noise recording machine in the resident’s property between 10 to 24 May 2022. On 28 June 2022 the landlord noted that 6 recordings could be played, but that the majority of the recordings were corrupt and could not be played. The landlord documented a brief summary of what could be heard on the recordings, including traffic noises bass and voices in the communal area.
  5. There is no indication that the landlord gave consideration to re-installing the machine, which would have been reasonable given that several of the recordings could not be played. Further, it is unclear why there was a delay of approximately a month before the landlord assessed the recordings. Efforts should have been made to review these within a more reasonable timeframe
  6. On 21 and 28 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report further noise nuisance and requested to be contacted as she had not received the results of the noise machine recordings. The evidence indicates that she continued to request the outcome of the noise machine recordings and that in an email sent to her on 4 October 2023, the landlord informed her that they did not evidence noise nuisance. It is unreasonable that approximately 7 months elapsed before the resident was provided with this information, and this was a failing by the landlord.
  7. It is noted that the resident had submitted further recordings during June and July 2022 which the landlord had reviewed and found that there was no evidence of any actionable proof of noise from the neighbour’s flat. The landlord noted on 18 July 2022 that it would write to the resident detailing steps taken to interview the parties involved and regarding action plan. While this would have been a reasonable action in order to update the resident, the landlord has not evidenced that it did write to her and it is therefore unclear whether it acted in line with its policy regarding providing regular updates to residents.
  8. The resident raised her complaint on 18 July 2022 and 5 August 2022 regarding a staff member’s handling of the ongoing issues. In its 18 August 2022 stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had listened to a recording of the phone conversation and had spoken to the relevant staff member. While the Ombudsman is unable to reach a determination about staff conduct, the evidence suggests that the landlord took reasonable actions to investigate the resident’s complaint. In terms of the ASB case, the landlord stated that it would issue the neighbour a warning about her behaviour. However, no evidence has been provided to indicate whether the landlord did issue a warning letter following the stage 1 response.
  9. Within her 20 August 2022 escalation request, the resident again expressed her dissatisfaction with the way a staff member had spoken to her and questioned why the landlord would not take enforcement action against her neighbour. In its stage 2 response, the landlord proposed positive action in terms of creating 2 anti-social behaviour officer roles and the evidence supports that this action was taken. This reflects that the landlord did make efforts to improve how it handled ASB cases.
  10. The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that the recordings submitted by the resident reflected that there was some noise, but that they did not provide evidence of statutory noise, which would be required for the landlord to take enforcement action on the neighbour’s tenancy. This is in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. In these circumstances, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored whether any sound proofing measures could have been undertaken in the resident’s property. While this does not amount to a failure, and a landlord is not obliged to provide soundproofing measures, it was a shortcoming.
  11. The resident continued to make reports of noise and the evidence indicates that the landlord spoke to the neighbour’s relative on 3 October 2022 and to the neighbour on 11 November 2022. The landlord contacted the resident with the outcome of these discussions. On 4 October 2022 the landlord stated that it would be drafting a written mediation agreement to be signed by both residents to resolve the issues raised. However, no evidence has been provided to indicate that this action was taken.
  12. The evidence indicates that the resident’s ASB case was assigned to an ASB officer in November 2022, which reflects that the landlord had employed specialist staff as stated in its stage 2 complaint response. The staff member arranged to visit the resident on 28 November 2022 to discuss the issues, which was appropriate, however it is unclear what the outcome of this visit was. Emails between the resident and the landlord on 23 December 2022 state that noise monitoring equipment could be installed and the landlord would progress this in the new year. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this action again however, it ought to have done this sooner. Further, it is noted that the landlord arranged for noise recording equipment to be installed in September 2023, which indicates another lengthy delay.
  13. The evidence indicates that the landlord visited the resident on 8 February 2022 and the resident advised that there had been no new incidents involving the neighbour since December 2022. However, she reported that there had been noise nuisance from a different neighbour.
  14. The landlord’s 6 June 2023 stage 3 response stated that the ASB case would remain ongoing until the issue was fully resolved. It said that it would carry out a new risk assessment and share the action plan with the resident that had been carried out in November 2022. The landlord stated that it had updated its procedure so that action plans were shared with residents. The landlord has not provided the revised procedure to the Ombudsman.
  15. The actions proposed by the landlord were reasonable and it is evident that a risk assessment was conducted on 2 June 2023. However, there is no indication that the landlord sent the action plan to the resident. On 14 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the action plan and said that the noise and ASB was continuing. The landlord apologised and said that this would be sent by 17 July 2023. However, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the landlord sent the action plan to the resident, which indicates a failing. Further, this occurred following the revised procedure and therefore indicates that additional learning may be required.
  16. It is noted that an action plan was provided to the resident in February 2024 following a multi-agency meeting. It is evident that the ASB and noise nuisance issues are ongoing since the stage 3 complaint response, and it appears that matters have escalated as the resident has reported that she is being harassed by her neighbours, which she feels is racially motivated.
  17. Overall, the evidence reflects that the landlord acted in line with its policy, taking steps to gather evidence, it listened to the recordings submitted by the resident and determined that the noise would not be classed as statutory noise nuisance. The landlord took appropriate steps by installing noise recording equipment and by speaking to the neighbour about the allegations. The evidence also shows the landlord liaising appropriately with the police. While the Ombudsman recognises the distress caused to the resident by the noise, it is noted that the landlord appropriately explained why it was unable to take enforcement action against the neighbour due to lack of evidence. This was in line with its policy. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to take such action.
  18. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord’s communication was poor at times and it did not always appear to take the actions it stated it would. There were significant delays by the landlord in providing the outcome of the noise machine recordings to the resident and in installing a noise machine for a second time. The landlord has also not evidenced that it provided the resident with an action plan following the stage 3 complaint response, and there is no indication that a risk assessment was done prior to June 2023. This amounts to a service failure by the landlord.
  19. It is noted that the landlord’s stage 3 response identified that the previous neighbourhood officers did not follow good practice even though the process that was in place at the time was being followed. The landlord did not comment specifically on how good practice had not been followed. It did explain how it took learning from this, by revising the procedure and recruiting specialist ASB officers, which was appropriate, but it did not offer the resident a remedy for the impact the failings had.
  20. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  21. The resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and she has incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord in relation to information that should have been provided. An order has been made below for compensation to be paid to the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident.
  22. Some of the failings identified in this report occurred after the landlord had updated its ASB procedure and recruited specialist ASB staff. This indicates that further learning is required to ensure that the landlord provides updated action plans to residents complaining of ASB and that timely steps are taken to install noise monitoring equipment. An order under paragraph 54 g of the Scheme has been made below, to support the landlord to learn from the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

  1. The landlord’s lettings policy states that it offers transfers to those in urgent need of a move, or to those whose current housing is deemed inappropriate. The transfer criteria include urgent medical moves in instances where the current home is severely affecting the health or condition of the applicant, as assessed by the landlord’s medical assessor. Priority within the urgent transfer list will be decided by the urgency of the resident’s need, the suitability to the property and the time they have spent on the waiting list.
  2. The landlord requested medical evidence on 14 April 2022 to establish how the resident’s housing was adversely affecting her health. It is unclear when this was provided. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it would send the resident a transfer application form. The landlord also explained that the resident could pursue a mutual exchange and advised that this may provide her with a better opportunity to find a suitable property. Within her escalation request, the resident stated that a mutual exchange was unacceptable.
  3. In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated the police agreed that a move to an alternative property would be helpful in resolving the case, and that a request had been made to place her on its management transfer list. The landlord stated that it had rights to 25% of the homes let in the area which gave it the potential to move a small number of people each year. The landlord advised that this may not be a quick solution.
  4. While the resident’s home situation was clearly distressing for her, the landlord acted appropriately in managing the resident’s expectations by making her aware of the increased wait for properties via a management move. It was also reasonable for the landlord to provide advice to the resident about all housing options available to her, as it could have potentially increased her chances of securing a move.
  5. Within its stage 3 response the landlord stated that a previous medical assessment had found that the resident did not meet the threshold for a band A transfer, but this was overruled by the landlord as it was felt that the priority should be raised to high. This indicates that the landlord was taking positive steps to increase the resident’s opportunity to be moved. The evidence reflects that the resident was authorised for a band A priority move on 11 November 2022 and a property was offered on 14 March 2023 however, the resident declined this due to it being in an unsuitable location.
  6. The landlord stated that it was agreed during the stage 3 hearing that it would carry out a new medical assessment for her to be placed on the local authority’s housing register. The resident remained on band A priority with the landlord. The independent medical assessment was issued on 30 June 2023 and it was determined that medical priority did not apply.
  7. The landlord informed the resident of the outcome on 10 July 2023. This indicates a slight delay in communicating the decision which was seemingly due to staff sickness. It is clear that the resident was disappointed with the decision and the landlord offered advice on re-submitting the application if she had new supporting evidence.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2023 to state that she had repeatedly made contact about providing evidence to support a medical move but had not received a response. No evidence of this contact has been provided to the Ombudsman. The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 September 2023 and following this, the resident provided further medical evidence. The landlord requested the resident to re-send this so that the letterhead was visible. From the evidence provided, it is unclear when the resident re-sent this and when the application was re-submitted to the independent organisation. It is possible that there were delays in the landlord submitting the application however, it is difficult to determine this from the information provided.
  9. It is noted that the resident chased the outcome on 25 October 2023 and the medical assessment was issued on 3 November 2023, which again determined that the threshold for medical priority had not been met. The outcome was provided to the resident on 13 November 2023 which again indicates a slight delay.
  10. The evidence suggests that the resident submitted further evidence for a medical move on 22 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 5 December 2023. No further evidence has been provided to reflect when a third application was submitted. However, the resident informed the Ombudsman that 3 medical applications were rejected and she felt that her medical conditions had been ignored, which was evidence of disability discrimination. As stated previously, the medical assessments were conducted by an independent medical advisory service rather than by the landlord, and the Ombudsman is therefore unable to investigate how these decisions were reached.
  11. Overall, while there were some delays by the landlord in communicating with the resident about her medical applications following the stage 3 response, the landlord acted reasonably by confirming that the resident was on its band A priority list and by providing support to the resident in submitting medical applications for the local authority’s priority housing. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide advice about alternative rehousing options.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has not provided the complaints policy that was in place when the resident raised her complaint. However, it is clear that it operated a 3-stage complaint handling process.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. This includes the number of days that a landlord should provide its stage responses and the number of days that this can be extended, on agreement with the resident. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. A stage 1 and stage 2 response should be provided within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  3. The landlord’s use of a 3-stage complaint process was not appropriate and not compliant with the Code. The landlord has informed us that it ended its 3-stage complaints process in 2023.
  4. The resident complained on 18 July 2022 and the stage 1 complaint response was issued on 18 August 2022, which indicates a minor delay outside of the 10 working day timescale stipulated and a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2022 and the stage 2 complaint response was issued on 14 September 2022.
  5. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 3 on 18 September 2022. The stage 3 panel hearing took place on 25 May 2023 which indicates a significant delay. The evidence provided indicates that the landlord did not properly communicate with the resident to provide regular updates as to when the hearing would take place. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to this delay as the complaint continued to be unresolved. It is noted however that within its stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident that she could raise her complaint with the Ombudsman, which she could have done prior to the stage 3 hearing.
  6. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes
  7. The landlord acknowledged the unreasonable delay in progressing the complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process and offered the resident £250 to remedy this failing. The amount offered is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident, and is therefore sufficient to remedy the adverse effect caused. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right.
  8. The landlord explained that the delays were largely due to staffing issues. While it did not state what it would do to learn from outcomes, it is acknowledged that the landlord has updated its complaints policy so that it now operates a 2-stage complaint process, which is appropriate.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident £250 for the impact of the failings in its handling of ASB reports.
  2. Under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must, within 6 weeks, review its handling of the ASB following on from implementing the revised ASB procedure and recruiting specialist ASB officers, and identify and implement any measures required to ensure staff are following the revised ASB procedure. It should set out whether it is satisfied that the revised procedure and specialist ASB team has adequately addressed the failings identified in this case. The landlord should provide the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the timeframe stipulated.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the understanding that the £250 compensation offered is paid to resident within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not already been paid.
  2. As the ASB issue appears to be ongoing, and in light of the failings identified in this report, the landlord should ensure that it keeps the resident updated regularly, promptly provides the outcome of any investigations, and takes the actions it says it will in good time.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to establish whether there are any outstanding formal complaints that have not been dealt with, and if so, the landlord should respond to these accordingly.