Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202409523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409523

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

4 June 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about repairs in her property following fire safety works.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since July 2010. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
3. It is evident that in or around July 2022, the resident was moved into temporary accommodation due to extensive fire safety works involving cladding required in her building. It is not disputed that she was initially told that the move would be for a period of 6 months, but that the works took significantly longer.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 March 2024. She noted that:
   1. She had now been in temporary accommodation for 22 months and the works still had not been completed.
   2. She wanted all outstanding repairs to be completed and for an explanation for the delays.
   3. She also reported that the contractors had been unpleasant to deal with.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 March 2024 and requested an additional 10 days to respond. It advised it would provide its response by 4 April 2024.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 April 2024, which included the following:
   1. It acknowledged there had been extensive delays but noted that the resident had now returned to her property.
   2. It acknowledged there had been poor communication due to the use of temporary staff and the use of an external project managed. It noted it has since taken over the project.
   3. It noted that the resident had been dissatisfied with its communication; however, it provided a list of updates it had given to residents for a period between March 2023 and January 2024.
   4. It also noted the specific discussions it had with the resident about the specific works in her property, such as replacing the carpets.
   5. It did not offer a conclusion as to whether there had been service failure or what further actions were required.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 April 2024. She reported that the carpets had been poorly laid, the kitchen installation was poor, the locks had been removed from windows, and the door was difficult to open. She further reported that while her fitted wardrobe had been rebuilt, there were parts missing. Around this time, she also noted that the removalists had damaged her sofas, for which she was only offered £150 compensation by the removalist company.
8. On 15 April 2024, the landlord advised it had raised her repair concerns with its repairs team. It also formally acknowledged her complaint escalation on 24 April 2024 and advised it would provide a stage 2 response by 22 May 2024.
9. It is evident that the landlord attended to complete some repairs in May 2024; however, the resident advised that the contractors were not aware of the works required. Following a period of inaction, she subsequently chased the works in October 2024. It is not evident any further action was taken at this time.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 January 2025, which included the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
    2. It noted it was no longer using its previous repairs contractor and that it had arranged for a new contractor to assess the outstanding works.
    3. It offered £500 for the disruption caused by the outstanding repairs and £100 for its delayed response.
11. As of May 2025, the resident has advised this service that a further inspection took place in February 2025, which identified further repair issues, but that since then, no action has been taken.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

12. It is not disputed that extensive works were required to make the property safe and that temporary accommodation was necessary while works were ongoing.
13. As part of her formal complaint, the resident noted there had been delays to the works in her property, resulting in her staying in temporary accommodation longer than anticipated. She asked for an update and an explanation for the delays. The landlord subsequently explained that it had initially used an external project manager and temporary staff, which had resulted in delays and poor communication. While this was not an excuse for the delays, it was appropriate that it acknowledged the reason for the delays and that the overall service delivery had been poor.
14. Regarding updates, it noted several specific occasions in which updates had been provided. It was reasonable for the landlord to give its position that some updates had been given, while also acknowledging overall poor communication.
15. However, its response fell short of concluding there had been any specific finding of service failure or offering any redress. It also missed the opportunity to demonstrate any learning from the shortcomings it had acknowledged. Furthermore, while it noted some specific works in the resident’s property, it failed to provide a clear explanation of what had been done and when. This would have been helpful for the resident to allow her to understand if there had been any delays specific to her property. Given that the works were completed after the resident had raised her complaint, it would also have been helpful had it made enquiries with her either as part of its investigation or as part of its response as to whether there were any follow-on issues with the completed works.
16. As part of her complaint escalation, the resident noted dissatisfaction with the works in her property and with compensation offered in relation to damage caused by the removalists. Following this, it is evident that there were failed appointments to complete repairs. It was therefore evident that the landlord knew there were outstanding issues, and it should have recorded that these remained outstanding following the failed appointments.
17. However, between May 2024 and October 2024, it is not evident there was any progress or meaningful updates. This not only meant that works were not completed within a reasonable time or in line with the landlord’s policy but also meant that the resident had to expend time and trouble chasing the issues. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that delays had been due to issues with a previous contractor, which it had now replaced. Once again, while this was an explanation, it was not an excuse. This would have been particularly frustrating for the resident, as it was the same reasoning given for the delays to the larger building works. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learned from that experience or put in place more effective record sharing procedures with its contractors. Had it done so, it could have identified delays and provided updates to alleviate the impact on the resident.
19. Given that it was now using a new contractor, it was reasonable that the landlord sought to conduct a new inspection to determine what was required. It is evident this occurred in February 2025, which was within a reasonable period following its commitment to complete works made in January 2025. However, since that inspection, it is not evident that works have been agreed with the resident or that any other action has taken place. This further demonstrates that the landlord has failed to learn from the previous failings, resulting in the continued detriment of the resident.
20. In summary, there were long periods of unreasonable delays without adequate communication. Additionally, the landlord repeatedly failed to take control of the repairs and ensure adequate processes were in place to monitor them and avoid delays. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately recognised that the delays had negatively impacted the resident. It offered £500 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. While it was appropriate that it sought to provide some remedy, given that it subsequently failed to resolve the issues, this offer is not proportionate in the circumstances.
22. While the landlord had an expectation the repair issues in the resident’s property would be solved during the period she was in temporary accommodation, it was made aware that this was not the case in April 2024. These repair issues remain outstanding 13 months later, despite the resident repeatedly chasing the issues. Allowing for 28 days for the landlord to have reasonably attended to the issues, there has therefore been a 12-month unreasonable delay. An order for £1,200 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is made up of £100 for each month of unreasonable delay. This amount is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has had a significant impact on a resident and where the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £500.
23. An order has also been made relating to the progress of the outstanding works.

Complaints handling

24. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. It would acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of an acknowledgment and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an acknowledgement. These timeframes echo this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
25. In this case, the resident raised a formal complaint on 4 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 21 March 2024. This was 13 working days after the complaint and so was outside of the landlord’s policy timeframes and those within the Code.
26. The landlord’s policy and the Code allow for the landlord to request an extension for a response; however, this should be requested prior to the expiry of any timeframes. The landlord requested an extension in its acknowledgement of 21 March 2024. This was prior to the due date for its stage 1 response and so was reasonable in the circumstances.
27. It requested an extension until 4 April 2024; however, it did not provide its stage 1 response until 8 April 2024. It therefore missed its extended timeframe, which was unreasonable in the circumstances. It also failed to address the delayed stage 1 response within its response or offer redress.
28. The resident requested an escalation on 12 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 April 2024. This was 8 working days later. This was once again outside of its policy timeframes.
29. It committed to providing a response by 22 May 2024. This was 19 working days later and so in line with its policy and the Code. However, it did not provide its stage 2 response until 10 January 2025. This was 182 days after its acknowledgement. This was significantly outside of the timeframes in its policy and the Code and would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
30. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response, for which it apologised and offered £100 compensation. Given the considerable delay, this was appropriate. Its offer was also in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure which have negatively impacted the resident. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made for the landlord’s complaints handling failures.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about repairs in her property following fire safety works.
32. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its poor complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the outstanding repairs.
34. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Confirm which works remain outstanding in the property.
    2. Commit to a timeframe for the completion of those works, in line with its repairs policy.

Recommendations

36. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £100 compensation in relation to its poor complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.