Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202406057)

Decision
Case ID	202406057
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Hexagon Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

1. The resident commenced his tenancy on 4 September 2023 and immediately reported repairs. The landlord subsequently completed the required works. However, the resident said the property was uninhabitable at the start of his tenancy and that the time taken to complete the repairs was excessive. He also reported that a contractor entered his property without permission.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the standard of the property at the start of the tenancy and its handling of the subsequent repairs.
   2. The resident’s reports about unauthorised entry to the property.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the property at the start of the tenancy and its handling of the subsequent repairs.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to his report about unauthorised entry to the property.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to complete all identified repairs before the tenancy began in line with its lettable standard, even though it had identified them during the void inspection. It also did not tell the resident that any repairs remained outstanding or agree to complete them after he moved in. Poor oversight and record keeping contributed to these failings. Once the landlord became aware of the outstanding issues, it completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Nevertheless, its failure to complete the repairs before the tenancy started caused the resident inconvenience and time and effort.
7. The landlord acknowledged that it had entered the resident’s property without his knowledge. It investigated the incident, provided an explanation, apologised, removed the incorrectly installed white goods and offered compensation. It also demonstrated learning and took steps to prevent recurrence. The landlord’s actions were enough to put things right.
8. The landlord delayed providing its stage 1 response and failed to respond to the resident’s complaint that the property was uninhabitable when the tenancy started. Its compensation offer for complaint handling was not sufficient.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 June 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the impact of its failings on the resident. This award is made up of: £100 to reflect the inconvenience caused to him by its handling of the repairs. £150 to reflect the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. This amount is inclusive of the £50 compensation it offered in relation to this during the complaint process and the landlord may deduct this sum if already paid. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 June 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the £100 compensation it offered to the resident in relation to the unauthorised entry to the property, if it has not already done so. We made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord pays this amount.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord regarding the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the handling of subsequent repairs. He said that his tenancy began in September 2023, but the property was uninhabitable. He explained he could not move in until the landlord completed the necessary repairs, which it did on 10 October 2023. He also advised that the landlord entered his property and installed appliances in error, without his permission or prior knowledge.
9 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: The resident reported several repairs on 4 September 2023, which it completed by 10 October 2023. It explained that repairs can take time to complete when contractors are involved and confirmed that, in the circumstances, it would not offer a rent-free period for the time taken to complete the works. It outlined the sequence of events involving 2 contractors which resulted in a contractor entering the resident’s property and installing appliances intended for another property. It apologised for this error and explained the learning taken from the incident. It had not provided an immediate explanation when the resident reported the unauthorised entry because, at the time, it was unclear what had occurred. Once established, the resident received a personal apology, and the contractor removed the incorrectly installed appliances. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident, comprising £100 for the unauthorised entry and £50 for poor complaint handling.
9 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He reiterated that the property was uninhabitable at the start of his tenancy. While he acknowledged that the landlord had completed the required repairs, he maintained that the time taken to do so was excessive. He accepted that the unauthorised entry to her property was an error but remained concerned about the lack of communication and the landlord’s explanation regarding the incident. He did not consider the compensation offered to adequately reflect the inconvenience and distress caused and requested that the landlord review its offer.
23 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It repeated its earlier findings that it completed the repairs by 10 October 2023 and within a reasonable timeframe. It was satisfied that it had appropriately investigated and responded to the resident’s complaint about unauthorised entry and offered proportionate compensation reflecting the impact on him.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us because he felt the landlord should reimburse the rent he had paid due to the standard of the property when the tenancy started. He also believed it should offer compensation for the time it took to complete the repairs, and the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The standard of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs
Finding	Service failure

9. In September 2023, shortly after signing his tenancy agreement, the resident reported numerous repairs within the property. These included rubbish left on the balcony, non-functioning extractor fans, disrepair in the kitchen, a problem with the front door film, mould on the bedroom window, a dirty toilet, faults affecting some heaters, and issues with the electrical connections for certain lights. The resident said that, due to the extent of these issues, he was unable to move into the property. He further advised that delays in completing the required repairs caused him significant inconvenience.
10. We understand that the resident felt the property was not habitable in September 2023. It is not within our remit to determine whether a property is legally habitable, as this is a matter for the courts. In addition, we have not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord deemed the property to be uninhabitable. We therefore cannot conclude that the property was uninhabitable between September and October 2023.
11. The landlord’s lettable standard says that new residents can expect their property to be clean and for all necessary fixtures and fittings to be in place and in working order. This sets the intention of the landlord and, as a result, a resident’s expectations. Residents moving into one of the landlord’s properties would expect to settle and enjoy their new home from the start.
12. The evidence shows that, while the property was empty, the landlord identified several repairs and completed them by 23 August 2023. The resident later reported issues already identified during the void inspection. The landlord did not explain why it had not completed those repairs before the tenancy began. It did not dispute the repairs or that it should have completed them during the void process. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it had failed to address these as planned. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to complete repairs identified during the void inspection in line with its lettable standard. This failure caused inconvenience as the resident understandably believed the property was ready to move into when he signed the tenancy.
13. It is common for residents to move in while some repairs remain outstanding. Such flexibility can benefit residents who need, or want, to move quickly. In these cases, it is reasonable for landlords to agree arrangements with residents. They should explain which repairs remain and provide a schedule with expected completion dates. In this case, we saw no evidence that the landlord explained its approach to outstanding void repairs or scheduled the remaining works. These failings prevented the resident from making an informed decision before signing the tenancy. The landlord acted unreasonably and caused inconvenience as the resident had to report problems early in the tenancy.
14. Landlords often appoint contractors to complete repairs. However, they retain responsibility and must oversee works to ensure contractors complete them as planned. In this case, the landlord’s repair logs lacked detail about completed works, raising concerns about its record keeping. The contractor provided photos of some repairs but did not confirm completion of others. These included replacing the toilet, securing heaters, and installing missing light fittings. We saw no evidence that the landlord inspected the property to confirm completion of the required works. Its poor oversight and record keeping likely contributed to its failure to meet its lettable standard before the tenancy began.
15. Both parties agreed that the resident reported the repairs on 4 September 2023 and that the landlord completed them by 10 October 2023, 36 days later. The work required several trades. It would have been straightforward for the landlord to address some of the actions, such as rubbish removal, while others would have taken longer to arrange and complete, including kitchen repairs. Overall, once the landlord became aware of the outstanding issues once the resident moved in, it completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Although this was slightly longer than its 28 days published target for routine repairs, more complex work, such as kitchen repairs, would reasonably have taken longer.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it would not offer a rent free period for the time it took to complete the repairs. We understand that, as a resolution to his complaint, the resident is seeking for the landlord to refund the rent he paid to the landlord until it resolved the issue.
17. In some circumstances, and in line with our compensation guidance, we may award compensation based on rent charged. This applies where evidence shows rooms were substantially impaired and the resident could not use them as intended. Such evidence may include reports from qualified experts, landlord records, or photographs. In this case, the resident provided photographs of the repairs. These showed the landlord had not completed the repairs in line with its lettable standards before the tenancy started. However, these did not show that he could not use the rooms for their intended purpose or that the property was uninhabitable. It is therefore not reasonable or proportionate for us to award compensation based on rent.
18. However, we acknowledge that the resident could not immediately fully enjoy the property after signing the tenancy. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This award reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the time and effort he incurred in reporting the outstanding works. It also reflects that the landlord resolved the issues and that the impact of its failings was short in duration.

Complaint	Unauthorised entry to the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The resident reported that, on 7 September 2023, the landlord entered his property without his knowledge or authorisation. Although the resident‘s tenancy had started, the evidence shows this occurred before the resident moved into the property. The landlord promptly investigated the incident once it became aware of it. During the complaint process, it explained what had happened and apologised for the failing. While it confirmed that the incident resulted from an error, it also outlined the learning from the complaint and the steps it took to prevent a recurrence. These were reasonable actions by the landlord.
20. In addition, the landlord explained why it could not immediately identify what had happened when the resident first reported the issue. It said that it only understood the sequence of events after completing its investigation. While we recognise that the incident was upsetting for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate before providing an explanation. It was also understandable that the landlord was initially unaware of the details as 2 contractors were involved and neither recognised the error at the time nor knew the actions of the other.
21. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged this failing. Where a landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In doing so, we assess whether the redress aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We also consider whether any compensation offered is consistent with our guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.
22. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s report in line with its compensation policy to put matters right. It acknowledged the error, provided an explanation, and apologised. It also removed the white goods that had been incorrectly installed and offered a discretionary payment of £100 to reflect the impact on the resident. In the circumstances, this was fair and proportionate. The landlord returned the resident to the position he would have been in before the incident by promptly removing the white goods from the property.
23. The landlord’s remedies aligned with our compensation guidance for failings that cause inconvenience and distress with limited impact. It also sought to learn lessons in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We therefore conclude that its offer was proportionate in the circumstances.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

24. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages, respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and respond within 20 working days at stage 2. Where delays occur, the landlord will explain the reasons and agree a new timeframe. It also commits to addressing all complaint points and providing clear reasons for its decisions.
25. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint promptly but issued its response 110 days outside its timeframe. We saw no evidence that it explained the delay or agreed a revised timeframe. This failure was unreasonable and caused inconvenience, as the resident had to chase a response on multiple occasions.
26. We saw no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. However, it responded within 10 working days, within its policy timescales. This was reasonable.
27. At both stages, the resident raised concerns about the property’s habitability at the start of the tenancy. The landlord did not address this issue. This was unreasonable and not in line with the Code or its policy. Addressing all complaint points is essential as it shows landlords have listened and considered residents’ concerns. The failure also represented a missed opportunity to rebuild trust.
28. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failings. However, this amount was insufficient. It did not reflect the significant delay in issuing the stage 1 response or the failure to address all complaint points. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This reflects that, although these failings did not cause a permanent detriment to the resident, they significantly affected him and caused inconvenience and frustration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord should maintain clear, accurate, and detailed repair records. Records should show what repairs it identified, its instructions to contractors, and when the contractor completed the required repairs. In this case, incomplete repair logs and limited evidence of completed works made it difficult to confirm what actions the landlord and its contractors had taken. This contributed to missed repairs and reduced oversight. Improved record keeping would support better contractor management, ensure accountability, ensure all identified repairs are completed and help demonstrate that the landlord has met its obligations.

Communication

30. The landlord should communicate clearly, proactively, and in a timely manner throughout the complaint process. It should keep residents informed of delays, explain reasons, and agree revised timeframes. In this case, the landlord failed to update the resident about significant delays and did not address all complaint points. This undermined trust and caused frustration. Improved communication would help manage expectations, demonstrate transparency, and show that the landlord has listened to and considered the resident’s concerns.