Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202340127)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340127

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

13 October 2025

 

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:
    1. The resident’s request for a key fob for the car park.
    2. The resident’s request for a housing transfer.
    3. The resident’s reports concerning a rodent infestation.
    4. The resident’s reports concerning electrical safety and her request for a NICEIC test and certificate.
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement that commenced on 23 April 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has cancer that she reported to the landlord in November 2023.
  2. On 3 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that her key fob to the underground carpark had stopped working. She requested a new one and information to pay the £5 charge. Between 13 November 2023 to 29 November 2023, the resident chased up the landlord for a response. She expressed dissatisfaction as she had received no response. In response the landlord asked if the resident wished to make “another complaint”.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2023 as she wished to speak to the landlord about its housing transfer scheme. She said that the property was unsuitable for her and her child due to her health situation. She advised she was at that point bed bound due to ongoing cancer treatment.
  4. On 20 December 2023, the resident raised a complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of her request for the key fob complaint. She requested the complaint issue to be added to an existing complaint that she made to the landlord on 30 November 2023. On 22 December 2023, the resident also asked the landlord to add a further complaint issue regarding its handling of her request for a housing.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024. It said that the resident should have received clearer advice about the key fob which would take more time to resolve. It said that it had tried to contact the resident without success and would be able to update the resident on progress. it provided contact details for the resident to find out about how the key fob issue would be resolved. It awarded £50 in compensation for the delay in providing a key fob to the parking area.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 March 2024. She was unhappy that the landlord had not resolved the key fob issue or her request for a housing transfer since 5 December 2023. She also said that the property was infested with rodents. She was also unhappy with the level of the compensation offered at stage 1.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 July 2024. It said its neighbourhood team would keep the resident informed about progress regarding the key fob. Its panel would review the resident’s housing transfer application on 22 July 2024. It had completed some work to deal with the rodent infestation, and it was regularly monitoring the building. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the car park fob issue and acknowledged failings in the complaint handling overall. It awarded £305 compensation comprising £180 regarding its handling of the key fob issue, £75 for its complaint handling failings. This was to be in addition to the £50 offered at stage 1 of its complaints process.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, and she referred her complaint to us on 11 October 2024. As a remedy the resident has told us that she wanted proof that she is on the band A transfer list and if not why. She wanted an explanation of why the landlord had not contacted the council and feedback about this. She wanted to receive the key fob and to move as soon as possible. She would also like compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.e states that the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  2. The resident advised us that the landlord’s handling of her reports concerning electrical safety and her request for a NICEIC test and certificate were the subject of court proceedings and a judgement was made on 7 May 2025 based upon the merits of the case. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to investigation this issue under paragraph 42.e of the Scheme.

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident referred to the impact of the landlord’s handling of the complaint issues on her and her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident or her daughter’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately, are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her daughter’s health.
  2. For the avoidance of doubt this investigation covers the period from November 2023 when the resident initially reported the key fob had stopped working to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 15 July 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a key fob for the car park

  1. The resident first reported her car park key fob was faulty on 3 November 2023. Despite her 2 chase ups the landlord did not respond until 24 November 2023. It appropriately apologised for the “slight delay” in responding stating its office was closed on 23 November for staff training. Though this did not justify why it had taken 3 weeks for a response which was inappropriate. It said that it had forwarded the request on to the relevant officer.
  2. Following the resident’s chase up of 29 November 2023, the landlord asked if she was raising a complaint about the issue. The landlord responded on 5 December 2023 where it apologised for the time taken to respond. It said that the key fob needed external programming. The resident asked for confirmation of when the contractor was contacted and when she would receive the fob on 12 December 2023. We have seen no reply which was unreasonable as it had been 5 weeks since the resident’s initial report.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024 failed to provide a definitive answer. It said it would need additional time to resolve the key fob and it would be able to update the resident. However, it did not provide any date for this update which was inappropriate. While it offered £50 compensation for the delay, this was minimal given the 12-week wait. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can award up to £100 for a low impact. It can award up to £300 where there is an adverse impact which it could have considered. She had made the landlord aware of the impact of the delay in her in her email of 12 December 2023.
  4. The resident told the landlord when escalating her complaint on 12 March 2024 that she had received no update concerning the key fob and no apology for the delay. The landlord claimed to have phoned her on 17 January 2024 and on 12 March 2024, but its records were inconsistent and it was unclear whether the calls were about the fob.
  5. There was a mismatch in the dates in the landlord’s phone records indicating issues with the landlord’s record keeping. The resident’s email of 13 March 2024 confirmed that the landlord had phoned on 12 March 2024, but she had missed the call. However, no record has been seen of the missed call from 17 January 2024, so it is not clear whether this happened or not. The landlord therefore needs to ensure it keeps accurate records detailing call attempts and the reasons for calls. This can provide an audit trail to help it keep track of issues and to provide timely updates.
  6. Although the landlord made an effort to respond after the resident’s complaint escalation request of 13 March 2024, its communication remained reactive. The resident needed to chase up the landlord again in her email of 7 May 2024. The landlord’s response the next day said that the new fobs were being programmed. It said it had a new contractor and that its gates team would check the fobs were programmed to avoid further issues. The resident said she was satisfied with this response on 19 May 2024. She said that this would help her mobility issues. However, the resident had to chase up the landlord between 23 May 2024 to 16 July 2024 showing that the landlord had failed to follow up appropriately. This added stress during her cancer treatment.
  7. There were further delays in the landlord responding to the resident. For example, we have seen no record of a response to the resident’s emails of 29 January 2024 (when the resident asked if the landlord followed up with an email if it was unable to get through by phone). We have also seen no response to the resident’s emails of 23 May 2024 and 4 June 2024. The landlord only provided a full explanation on 26 July 2024 which postdates its final complaint response of 15 July 2024 to explain the procurement issues and it offered to clone the fob. It also awarded £180 compensation for the key fob issue. This was again in line with its compensation policy as above for an adverse impact.
  8. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident continued to chase up the landlord for updates from 7 September 2024 to 10 January 2025 when she advised the landlord of the importance of secure parking due to her health and past domestic violence. The landlord told the resident that the key fob was ready for collection on 15 January 2025 over 1 year since the initial report which was an unreasonable delay. It awarded a further £180 compensation after the end of its complaints process on 15 August 2025. This would have been reasonable. However, the resident has advised us during this investigation that she still has not received the key fob. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities the delay was unreasonable. The Ombudsman considers that these failings combined amount to maladministration for which orders have been made.
  9. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have awarded £500 compensation. This comprises £300 compensation to reflect the delays and poor communication (inclusive of the landlord’s £230 offered during the internal complaints process). We have also awarded an additional £200 compensation to appropriately recognise the additional distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. We have also recommended that the landlord pays the additional £180 that it offered after the end of its internal complaints process. This would be on top of the compensation we have ordered.
  10. We have also ordered the landlord to update the resident on when she can expect to receive the key fob, if it has not already provided this information. It must send a copy of this update to us.

The resident’s request for a housing transfer.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord initially on 12 December 2023 concerning a housing transfer. She explained to the landlord that she was to be admitted to hospital. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why she asked the landlord on 22 December 2023 to add this to her complaint or what advice, if any, was given at the time. This highlighted poor communication and record keeping.
  2. As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025), without good knowledge and information management, a landlord cannot adequately record and monitor its actions to provide a good service to its residents. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.
  3. Although the landlord agreed on 2 January 2024 to include this complaint issue in the complaint, its stage 1 complaint response of 29 January 2024 did not cover this issue appropriately. It did not give any specific date to follow this up with the resident. This was not appropriate. In its internal email of 22 January 2024, the landlord said it had left an answerphone message for the resident about her housing transfer. It also said on 12 March 2024 that it was arranging a home visit and that it had phoned the resident and left a voice mail. It asked for a suitable time to visit.
  4. The landlord could have followed this up the missed calls with an email. The landlord did not send the medical form until 22 March 2024, which was over 3 months from the resident’s initial enquiry in December. We have seen no records that the landlord provided advice on other options such as mutual exchange. The landlord’s records evidence that the resident was applying to the council’s housing register. However, according to the landlord’s priority move procedure, it must always consider other options to provide a quicker route such as a mutual exchange. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the visit or phone call that the landlord mentioned in its 12 March 2024 email took place. This would have been an opportunity for the landlord to provide some advice on the resident’s housing options such as mutual exchange.
  5. The resident submitted her medical application on 22 April 2024 for a housing transfer. The landlord sent this to its independent medical assessor and received the response that the resident had no medical priority on 13 May 2024. However, it did not advise the resident until 8 July 2024, nearly 2 months’ later of the outcome which was not in line with its priority move policy and procedure. This states that the landlord should contact an applicant within 5 weeks of a medical assessment response.
  6. The landlord’s panel considered the resident’s housing transfer on on 22 July 2024 and it approved her application for a band A transfer on discretionary grounds. This was reasonable under the circumstances. It confirmed this in writing the same day, which was appropriate. It also promised to contact the council regarding the possibility of a reciprocal move, however, it failed to follow up on this. It wrote to the resident on 25 July 2024 confirming her band A status. It offered to provide further support in its email to the resident of 26 July 2024.
  7. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident chased for updates between 7 September 2024 to 12 September 2024. The landlord attempted to visit on 13 September 2024 to help set up the resident’s mutual exchange profile and take photos but there was no answer. The resident confirmed in her email of 18 October 2024 that the landlord had called and taken some photos. It was appropriate to provide this support in line with its policy. However, it needed to consider this at a much earlier point in line with its policy as it was 9 months after the resident’s initial request. This delay was inappropriate.
  8. Whilst the landlord took some action to consider a band A transfer request, there was no evidence that the landlord contacted the council as promised. There was delay and missed opportunities for the landlord to provide earlier support and advice. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing transfer request and we have made orders for this.
  9. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have awarded £400 compensation. This comprises £200 compensation to reflect the delays in progressing the resident’s request for a housing transfer and £200 compensation to appropriately recognise the additional distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
  10. We have also ordered the landlord to review the resident’s housing transfer application and to provide an update on her application. It must also update the resident on its promise to contact the council for a possible reciprocal move, including a date of when it has contacted the council, along with confirmation that it has provided the necessary information.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning a rodent infestation

  1. The resident added the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation as a complaint issue in her complaint escalation request of 12 March 2024. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 March 2024. It said that it was aware of the rodent infestation in the building and it was monitoring this. It advised that baiting was taking place throughout the building. It told the resident to contact its customer services team if the rodents were getting inside her property to arrange an inspection. This was inappropriate as the resident clearly said that her home was infested with rodents and the landlord need to therefore take action to inspect the property in line with its pest control policy.
  2. The landlord’s website states it will treat pests deemed to be a statutory nuisance in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This includes rats and mice. The landlord’s policy is available as a download on its website; however, we have not seen the content as the landlord provided a broken link to us. We asked the landlord to provide its policy and procedure during this investigation, but it has failed to do so. The landlord should upload the correct version of the policy to its website.
  3. The landlord told us that its pest control contractor had conducted some pest control on 6 June 2024. However, the landlord’s records do not evidence exactly what work it completed or whether this related to the pest control in the communal areas. The landlord’s record keeping was therefore insufficiently robust. Even if this related to pest control work in the resident’s property, the landlord delayed this work as it was 2 months after the resident’s 22 March 2024 report.
  4. According to the resident’s email of 8 July 2024, a pest control contractor found mouse droppings when it attended her property on 30 June 2024. The contractor found an open cavity around the waste pipe allowing mice to come in and out of the property. It advised that the landlord needed to organise a carpenter to take out the kitchen units. The resident said another visit was due on 6 July 2024. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether a contractor visited on 6 July 2024. Its poor record keeping will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to effectively manage the work required and to ensure it completed this in a timely manner.
  5. Whilst the landlord has provided photos of its contractor’s work, the exact date of this is not known which again evidenced issues with the landlord’s records management. The landlord reported in its final complaint response of 15 July 2024 that it had undertaken work but again this did not set out the date of the work or what exactly had been done which was inappropriate. It also recognised that the work undertaken had not fully resolved the issue, but it would continue to monitor the situation.
  6. Following the end of the internal complaints process, the landlord emailed the resident on 26 July 2024 where it advised that following the baiting, reports of rodent infestations had reduced. It said it would continue to collaborate with its contractor to confirm that the problem was under control. It advised that its contractor was going to complete the work to address the open cavity in the resident’s property “soon.” This evidenced that its contractor had not completed the work.
  7. The resident advised the landlord in her email of 8 October 2024 that a surveyor had visited to inspect the property on 18 September 2024, and they had identified outstanding works to prevent access to rodents. The landlord advised us that its contractor completed further proofing work at the resident’s property on 14 November 2024. The resident advised us during this investigation that despite the landlord doing work in 2024 to fill in the large hole where rodents were accessing her property, the issue was unresolved.
  8. Whilst we recognise the difficulties that there can be in stopping rodents from accessing a property, the landlord’s actions were delayed. Its poor communication and record keeping did not help the landlord to monitor the works that were needed. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning a rodent infestation and we have made some orders.
  9. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation. This comprises £150 in respect of the delays in taking appropriate action, the poor communication and record keeping. It also comprises £200 to appropriately recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident through the landlord’s failings.
  10. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property using a suitably qualified surveyor, to determine any access routes that rodents are entering the property. It must provide its schedule of any works required, along with the anticipated completion dates to the resident and to us.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 30 November 2023, and the landlord phoned the resident on 20 December 2023 to discuss the complaint. At this point, the resident asked the landlord to include its handling of the key fob as a complaint issue. The landlord did not send its complaint acknowledgement until 21 December 2023 which was 15 working days after the complaint was made. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, requires it to send an acknowledgment within 5 working days of the complaint being made.
  2. The resident subsequently requested that the landlord added another complaint issue to her complaint on 22 December 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of her housing transfer request. The landlord agreed to this additional complaint issue in its email of 2 January 2024.
  3. The landlord’s records evidence that it tried to phone the resident and left an answerphone message on 9 January 2024 as it needed to extend the deadline to provide its stage 1 complaint response. Whilst we understand that the landlord would have needed additional time once the resident asked for additional complaint issues to be added to her complaint, the delay in acknowledging the complaint led to overall delay in the landlord’s complaint handling which was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024. This was 39 working days after the resident made her complaint and 24 working days after it sent its acknowledgement. This delay was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord’s policy and the Code it to send a response at stage 1 within 10 working days. The Code states that if a landlord needs an extension of time this should be no longer than 10 working days. The landlord actions were not in line with this which was inappropriate.
  5. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 12 March 2024. The resident had to contact us to chase up the landlord for a response on 11 April 2024. After we wrote to the landlord on 27 June 2024 and on 9 July 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 July 2024. This was 86 working days after the resident’s complaint escalation request. This was outside of the landlord’s policy and the Code timescales for a response. The landlord’s policy and the Code require a landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The Code states that if a landlord requires an extension, this should be no longer than 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with this.
  6. The delayed response was particularly unreasonable with the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and her deteriorating health from at least November 2023. The delays at both complaint stages unnecessarily extended the complaints process at a time when the resident was undergoing cancer treatment. This will have caused detriment to the resident, as well as the inconvenience, time and trouble trying to seek a resolution to her complaint.
  7. The landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in its complaint handling in its final complaint response, but it did not say what the failings were or how it had learnt from this. It awarded £75 compensation in its final complaint response for the complaint handling failings. However, the Ombudsman considers that this does not fully cover the failings identified.
  8. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and we have made orders for this. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation (inclusive of the £75 already offered). This comprises £100 in respect of the delays at both complaint stages and £100 in respect of the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. It also recognises the additional time and trouble caused to the resident in in pursuing her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  9. We have also ordered the landlord to issue a written apology and to conduct a senior management review of the resident’s complaints. This is to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a key fob for the car park.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports concerning a rodent infestation.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning electrical safety and her request for a NICEIC test and certificate is outside of our jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident from a senior leader in respect of the failings identified in this investigation. It must send a copy of this to us within the same time limit.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,450 in compensation. This comprises:
    1. £500 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a key fob for the car park (comprising £300 compensation to reflect the delays, poor communication and record keeping (inclusive of the landlord’s £230 offered during the internal complaints process) and £200 to recognise the additional distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
    2. £400 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer (comprising £200 in respect of the delays and £200 to appropriately recognise the additional distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
    3. £350 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning a rodent infestation (comprising £150 in respect of the delays, poor record keeping and communication, and £200 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident through the landlord’s failings)
    4. £200 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint (comprising £100 in respect of the delays in progressing the complaint (inclusive of the £75 previously offered) and £100 in respect of the detriment, along with the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints process).
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to update the resident on when she can expect to receive the key fob, if it has not already provided this information. It must send a copy of this update to us within the same period.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the resident’s housing transfer application and to provide an update to her on her application, its status and on its promise to contact the council for a possible reciprocal move. This should include the date of when it has contacted the council, along with confirmation that it has provided the necessary information. It must send a copy of its update to us within the same period.
  5. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete an inspection of the property using a suitably qualified surveyor, to determine any access routes that rodents are entering the property. It must provide its schedule of any works required, along with the anticipated completion dates to the resident and to us within the 4-week period.
  6. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this time limit.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based upon our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pays the additional £180 that it offered on 15 August 2024 after the end of its internal complaints process. This would be on top of the compensation we have ordered.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord upload its pest control policy to its website to fix the broken link.