Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202318042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318042

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

26 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and the resident has lived there since May 2023. She lives there with her young baby and has been a victim of domestic abuse.
The resident first viewed the property in January 2023, where she raised some concerns about outstanding work. On 20 March the landlord let her know that a new front door had been ordered and would be fitted in 3-6 weeks. It said it would request a list of works that would be carried out once she moved in.
On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord saying she was disappointed work was still outstanding, as she expected this to be complete before she moved in. On 26 April the landlord confirmed a surveyor had visited and set out works that would be carried out as a priority after she moved in. It said that none of the repairs were a health and safety risk so she would need to accept the tenancy on 4 May.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 23 May 2023. She was unhappy that repairs, including the replacement front door, were still outstanding. She said an appointment for a gas safety check had been missed and she had had no hot water since she moved in.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2023 and said it would respond by 15 June 2023. This Service has seen no evidence of a complaint response sent at this time.
On 27 June 2023 the boiler was inspected as the carbon monoxide alarm had triggered and it was deemed unsafe as the flue was not sealed correctly. This was repaired the next day.
On 17 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had been unable to get through to repairs or her complaint handler and had not yet received a complaint response.
On 24 July 2023 a damp survey was carried out. This said that there was minor paint bubbling in the bathroom and hallway which was suspected to be from a former leak. No evidence of dampness or moisture to indicate rising damp was found, and no mould was visible. The report recommended that humidistat controlled units be used. The resident subsequently told the landlord on 2 August that she had pointed out mould behind kitchen units to the surveyor. She also said she saw silverfish in the bathroom and kitchen daily.
As she had not received a response to her complaint, the resident contacted this Service on 18 August 2023. On 21 November we contacted the landlord to ask it to formally respond to her. It sent its stage 1 response on 29 November, in which it said:
1. A surveyor attended on 10 July and an order was raised for a mould specialist to attend. Work was authorised on 30 August and completed on 4 October.
2. A contractor attended to a plumbing issue under the bath on 19 July and carried out repairs on 24 July.
3. A post-inspection visit would be carried out when all works were completed.
4. It offered £150 compensation – £50 for the delayed complaint response and £100 for distress.
On 30 November 2023 an electrician visited the property as the power had tripped. After investigating, they found that there was damp behind the sockets going up the cables in the wall.
On 1 December 2023 the resident responded to the landlord to say its offer was unacceptable for the following reasons:
1. It did not address all repairs issues she had raised in all rooms of the property.
2. The only work carried out on 4 October was replacing faulty vents. No mould wash was carried out.
3. The front door was only replaced on 26 June, despite it being a safety and security risk, especially given her circumstances.
4. The gas safety check was not carried out correctly on 6 June, leading to a problem with the flue a few weeks later.
5. She felt pressured into signing the tenancy agreement, despite the repairs issues, as it would be her only offer.
6. The landlord had failed to acknowledge that she had first raised the complaint on 23 May.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation the same day and said it would aim to respond by 1 January 2024.
On 3 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. On 16 January she contacted this Service as she had still not had a response.
On 1 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to chase repairs as she said she was not being updated. She reminded the landlord that she was heavily pregnant. The landlord said it was in communication with a surveyor and would update her by 4 February.
The landlord called the resident on 5 February 2024. She confirmed that most of the work had been completed satisfactorily but there was still mould in the hallway and kitchen cupboards, as well as cracks in walls. The landlord’s internal records of 8 February state that it was considering contracting a specialist as there seemed to be some form of penetrating damp.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024, in which it apologised for the delayed response and said:
1. Remedial work had been done to the kitchen cupboards, but it would assess the overall kitchen condition.
2. The cracks in the living room, hallway and kitchen were deemed to be non-structural. Internal decoration was the resident’s responsibility. It said it would assess the bathroom tiles.
3. No mould was visible when the survey was carried out. Contractors were scheduled to replace the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It had asked a ventilation specialist to take another look at the property and would arrange for a mould wash to be undertaken.
4. The resident had confirmed that a leak in the living room had been resolved and no remedial work was required. She had also confirmed that issues with radiators and the thermostat had been resolved. It said that it would respond separately regarding the boiler as this was not raised at stage 1.
5. A home visit would be scheduled to investigate the kitchen wall issues.
6. The total compensation offer was increased to £250 and it said it had taken on board learnings around its communication.
On 13 February 2024 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint. She also responded to the landlord, saying that repairs had not been carried out in a reasonable timeframe and damp and mould was still present.
The landlord carried out a damp survey on 13 March 2024. It found a crack in the external rendering to the rear wall which appeared to be causing penetrating dampness internally. High damp readings were noted in the hallway, as well as mould in the hallway, bathroom and kitchen. The survey recommended the landlord arrange for the external rendering to be made watertight as soon as possible. It also said there was a suspected leaking pipe in the concrete floor which needed further investigation.
On 24 March 2024 there was a leak into the property from an upstairs neighbour, which was raised as a new complaint. This has not been considered as part of this investigation.
On 30 May 2024 the resident told this Service that her baby had been coughing and sneezing due to the conditions in the home. She said she taken her to hospital as she was worried.
In June 2024 the resident was the victim of an assault a short distance from her home which led to the landlord considering moving her permanently. It had been considering a temporary decant to carry out repairs, however this was put on hold whilst a decision was made about a permanent move. In a phone call with this Service on 24 October 2024, the resident confirmed she was expecting to move to a new home in the next few weeks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Repairs

The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says it will carry out normal/routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s re-lettable standards policy says that all properties will meet the Decent Homes Standard. It says there will be adequate ventilation and there will be suitable locks to all doors. It also says that walls will either be decorated or in a suitable condition ready to be redecorated and that a decoration allowance will be given for any room that requires redecoration.
The landlord’s repairs record shows that it identified a problem with the front door on 9 November 2022, before the resident had viewed the property. This was categorised as urgent and said a new door was required. An internal email of 5 December again confirms that this door needed to be replaced. This email noted that the lead time for a new door would be around 5-6 weeks. The landlord did not confirm to the resident until 20 March 2023 that the door had been ordered, and said it would be fitted within 3-6 weeks. It was not fitted until 26 June 2023, after the resident’s tenancy began on 4 May.
The landlord was aware that the resident had experienced domestic abuse, and during the viewing process she had raised her concerns about her security. The landlord failed to act with urgency to replace the door, despite raising the job as urgent. This Service appreciates that there may have been a delay after it ordered the door that was outside of the landlord’s control. However, had it ordered the replacement door when it first identified the need, it would likely have been fitted before the resident moved into the property. It did not handle this repair appropriately, or in line with its policy timescale.
During a survey carried out in April 2023 it was identified that there were mould spots that needed to be treated, and a ventilation report was required. It said that there was damage to sections of the wallpaper, which was the resident’s responsibility to redecorate. It is unclear whether the damage to the wallpaper was due to the mould, and it is not reasonable that the resident was to be responsible for something that was damaged before she moved in. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord provided a decoration allowance, so it did not act in line with its re-lettable standard policy. The survey also noted cracks to the external rendering which required repair, but which it said were not urgent.
The resident told the landlord on 23 May 2023 as part of her complaint that an appointment for a gas safety check had been missed on 9 May 2023. She said that she had not had hot water since she moved in. The landlord’s repairs records do not show that it raised a work order to reinstate the hot water. On 27 June 2023 a gas safety warning notice was completed which showed that the boiler was unsafe as the boiler flue was not sealed correctly. The engineer noted that the resident had said she had been having headaches and the carbon monoxide alarm had been triggered.
The landlord confirmed that the repair was carried out the next day, and said it would speak to the engineer to find out how this issue had occurred so soon after the annual service. The landlord’s records do not show when this service took place, or whether the engineer provided an explanation for the cause of the issue. It is not clear why this problem occurred, however the landlord’s response to this was poor.
The landlord’s repairs log shows a work order was raised on 10 July 2023 relating to a possible leak from an external wall, causing damp behind a kitchen unit. The order showed as closed on 1 August, however the records do not state what action was taken. A damp survey was carried out on 24 July. This noted minor paint bubbling but said mould growth was not visible in the kitchen at this time. The report does not detail whether the wall behind the kitchen cupboards was inspected. Its only recommendation was for constant humidistat controlled units to be used.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023 to say that she had pointed out the mould behind the kitchen units to the surveyor. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this email, or did any further investigation at that time. Ventilation work was subsequently carried out on 4 October, which was not in line with the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
In its stage 1 response of 29 November 2023, the landlord said that a mould wash had been carried out. It offered £100 compensation for distress caused by the time taken to have to raise the issues with it. The following day an electrician visited as the resident reported that the electrics had tripped. After investigating, they found damp behind the sockets going up the cables into the wall.
On 1 December 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response. She disputed that a mould wash had been carried out and said the only work undertaken in relation to damp and mould was replacement of the extractor fans. She said that the landlord had failed to address her complaints about the delay to the front door replacement and the problems with the boiler. She told it she felt pressured into signing the tenancy agreement despite the outstanding repair issues.
On 1 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was not being updated as promised. The tiling in the bathroom was getting worse and plaster was falling into the bath. She also said that contractors had taken photos of cracks in the wall twice and asked for it to be replastered, but this had not been done. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a work order for a mould wash on 6 February to the visible areas behind the kitchen wall units, which was completed on 15 March. This was outside the repairs policy timescale and the landlord has not demonstrated that this removed all mould, only that which was visible without removing the kitchen units. This does not demonstrate that the landlord took its obligations under the HHSRS seriously.
In its stage 2 response of 8 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged that it had not previously carried out a mould wash as it had said in its stage 1 response. It said that whilst remedial work had been carried out to the kitchen it would assess the overall condition. It said that cracks in the walls had been deemed to be non-structural but that it would assess the bathroom tiles.
The landlord did not provide any detail about the damp problem found by the electrician in the kitchen, but said that a home visit would be scheduled for this. It offered an additional £100 compensation and said it had taken on board learnings about communication.
On 13 March 2024 a further damp survey took place to investigate suspected rising damp. This found that a crack in external rendering to the rear wall appeared to be causing penetrating damp and needed to be made watertight as soon as possible. This crack in the rendering had been picked up in the previous damp survey in April 2023, but had been marked as not urgent. No evidence has been provided that the landlord ever took any action to repair the crack, despite the resident’s ongoing reports of damp on the inside of that wall. The landlord’s failure to take any action to repair the rendering in April 2023 allowed water to continue to penetrate into the property.
The survey also noted that there was mould growth inside the kitchen cupboards. It was suspected that there may be a concealed leaking water pipe in the concrete floor which needed further investigation. There was also dampness found in the bathroom due to a lack of wall tiles, which it said should have gone all the way to the ceiling. These issues all appear to be related to the problems the resident had been reporting since she moved in 10 months earlier, and it was not reasonable that it took this long for the landlord to identify the problems.
The landlord’s internal records of 20 March 2024 indicate that it had identified that the resident would need to be decanted, likely for more than a month. Its records do not show that it tried to make these arrangements as a matter of urgency. The resident was still living at the property on 11 June when she was assaulted a short distance away. Following this incident, the landlord agreed to look into moving her permanently.
The landlord’s records of 31 August 2024 show that it had found a suitable property for the resident to be moved to, but it needed some work before it could be let. It spoke to the resident and she said she was happy to wait until she could move permanently rather than face the disruption of 2 moves. The resident told this Service on 24 October that she was expecting to be moved permanently in the next few weeks.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. It did not order a new front door until many months after identifying it was needed, leading to the resident moving into a property she felt unsafe in. It repeatedly failed to carry out repairs in line with its repairs timescales. It dismissed a crack in the rendering as unimportant despite the resident continuously reporting mould growing on the inside of the same wall.
The landlord missed opportunities to put things right more quickly, including during its internal complaints process, where it failed to fully identify its failings. Even once it had identified major repairs and a decant were required, it failed to take these actions swiftly. The Ombudsman appreciates that following the assault on the resident, a permanent move became the preferred option. However, the landlord should have already carried out the repairs before this happened.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay compensation of £100-£600 ‘where there has been service failure which adversely affected the customer but has not had a permanent impact, where we have failed to acknowledge there was service failure, or where we’ve acknowledged service failure but failed to provide a remedy’. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its repairs failures. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £700.
As the resident has confirmed she will soon be moving out of the property, no orders have been made in relation to repairs.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says it will acknowledge escalation within 5 working days and send its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident first raised the complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June, which was outside its policy timescale, however it did apologise for this delay at that time. It said it would provide a response by 15 June, however it did not do this, nor did it provide the resident with an update or explanation.
On 18 August 2023 the resident asked this Service to intervene as she had still had no response, almost 3 months after the complaint was raised. This represented an unreasonable delay, and it was not appropriate that she had to ask this Service to step in to prompt the landlord to respond.
We contacted the landlord on 21 November 2023, and it sent its stage 1 response on 29 November, which was a prompt response to our intervention. Whilst it did offer £50 compensation for the delay, it did not acknowledge how significant the delay had been, or that it failed to respond until we asked it to. The compensation offered was not proportionate to its failing at this time.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 1 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this request the same day. It said it aimed to respond by 1 January 2024, in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord did not meet this deadline, nor did it update the resident that it would need more time. She chased a response on 4 January, however it did not send its response until 8 February, more than a month after the deadline it had set. This was a further unreasonable delay in dealing with the complaint.
The landlord declined to address the resident’s issue with the boiler as it said she had not raised this at stage 1. Whilst the issue with the flue did not happen until after she raised her complaint, she did raise the landlord’s failure to turn up for a gas safety check. As this may have been related to the boiler issue, it would have been appropriate for it to respond to this point. Furthermore, it said it would respond to this separately, however this Service has seen no evidence that it did this.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not respond in line with its policy timescales at either stage, taking more than 8 months to complete its internal complaints process. It also failed to update the resident when it was unable to meet the deadlines it had set.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling failures. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £300.
The landlord has already completed a senior management review of its complaints service in relation to an earlier complaint. A copy of its review was provided to this Service on 29 May 2024, after the conclusion of the internal complaints process in this case. Therefore, no further orders have been made in relation to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to:
1. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and its handling of subsequent repairs.
2. Its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £1,000, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
1. £700 in relation to repairs.
2. £300 in relation to complaint handling.
3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any possible arears.
A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology.
The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.