Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202427054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427054

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident moved into the property in 2006. At the time of the events referred to in this investigation, she resided there with her teenage son, who has neurodiverse conditions known to the landlord.
On 29 July 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with its handling of her reports of ASB. Her reports were in relation to her son being stabbed in September 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 August 2024. It provided a timeline of events and said:
1. It accepted that it had failed to follow its ASB policies and procedures and apologised to the resident for the service she had received.
2. As a result of the complaint, it would undertake ASB refresher training with the relevant teams.
3. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the distress it had caused her.
4. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to move home due to her ongoing safety concerns. It confirmed that it had recently reviewed her housing application and authorised a “Band A” (the highest priority banding) transfer, and said it would keep her updated with the process.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2024. She disputed some of the dates and facts that the landlord had included in its complaint timeline. She also said she felt that the offer of compensation was “an insult” as she had “spent more [money] than that” on additional security, and it did not take into consideration the distress she and her son had experienced.
Following intervention from our Service on 21 January 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 February 2025. It said:
1. It maintained that it had handled the resident’s reports of ASB “poorly”, and that it did not have sufficient oversight of the case. It apologised to the resident for the shortcomings in its service.
2. Since the resident’s stage 1 complaint, it had implemented several service improvements to minimise the likelihood of similar complaints in the future.
3. It apologised to the resident for failing to escalate her complaint to stage 2 in September 2024.
4. It confirmed that the resident had the highest priority banding for a move. It explained that it would endeavour to accommodate her housing needs, but options were limited due to the availability of housing stock in her required geographical areas.
5. It offered the resident an additional £550 in compensation (total £750 including stage 1 offer). This included £500 (total £700) for its handling of her reports of ASB and failing to recognise her household’s vulnerabilities. It also offered a further £50 for its poor complaint handling.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 23 February 2025, the resident informed the landlord that she rejected its offer of compensation. She said this was because:
1. The amount offered did not reflect the seriousness and length of time it had taken to resolve her complaint.
2. It did not take into consideration the costs she had incurred for extra home security.
3. It did not take into account the “severe” emotional and physical distress the landlord had caused her and her son. She said her son had since been diagnosed with several health problems as a result.
4. She was unhappy that she had not yet been offered a move to an area that she considered safe for her and her son to live in.
In March 2025, the resident was subject to a further ASB incident, which involved damage being caused to the windows in her property and her car. As she was concerned about her household’s safety, she vacated the property and moved into a hotel.
In June 2025, the resident informed us that she had recently moved into another property owned by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request to be moved (between September 2024 and May 2025). As such, she told this Service that she would like the landlord to consider reimbursing her for moving expenses. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, any new issues that the resident has raised prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure will not be considered as part of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may make a further complaint and refer it to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted her household’s health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of ASB

The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances constituted a nuisance. Instead, this Service’s role is to establish if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if its response was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. Identifying potential risks and keeping residents safe is paramount, particularly for children or young adults.
2. When a report of ASB is made it will carry out a risk assessment. This is designed to pick up potential safeguarding issues when there are vulnerabilities identified.
3. Reports that involve threats of physical assault, serious intimidation or harassment are categorised as high risk. The landlord will take appropriate action within 1 working day of such a report.
4. An action plan will be agreed with the victim, and the landlord will update them regularly on their case.
5. Whether it is nuisance diaries, witness statements or general correspondence, any evidence compiled or actions taken will be recorded with date, time and any other relevant facts. Evidence should always be uploaded for ease of use and accessibility.
6. Partner agencies can assist with supporting victims, achieving resolutions or helping enforcement. The landlord will consider referring a wide variety of appropriate agencies and forums when logging cases.
7. ASB for which it is responsible does not necessarily have to take place on its property, but must happen in a way that directly affects a resident’s use or enjoyment of their home.
8. Its approach to all ASB is victim centred, and it will be supportive and sympathetic in its approach.
On 18 September 2023, the resident informed the landlord that her son had been stabbed. The evidence suggests that the incident had taken place on 12 September 2023. The resident said that her son was “out of danger” but she had child protection outside her house, as he was under the age of 18. Later correspondence shows that the resident believed it was a targeted machete attack by a group that were known to her son. This was a serious incident, that warranted a proper and timely response from the landlord.
The landlord’s internal records show that the resident’s report of ASB was appropriately flagged as “urgent” and forwarded via email to the relevant staff member. However, as they were out of the business at this time, the email was not actioned. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have had effective mechanisms in place to monitor the inbox. For example, it could have considered setting up automated responses and/or diverting emails to the appropriate account (if it did not do so). This may have prevented the delays in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged that the resident had contacted it on 21 September 2023, and it had failed to return her call. We have not seen any documentary evidence of this call, which is a record keeping failure. However, the landlord appropriately apologised to the resident in its complaint response for failing to respond to her and explained that her call back request had been incorrectly forwarded to the wrong inbox. The landlord demonstrated openness in providing an explanation for its mistake.
On 5 October 2023, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord. Following the call, the landlord sent the support worker an email (on the same date), which shows that it had discussed the resident’s request for a move due to circumstances surrounding her son. The landlord provided the support worker with advice on the options available to the resident, which was appropriate. However, given the context of the reasons why the resident wanted to move home, it would have been appropriate for it to contact the resident urgently, open an ASB case, and discuss her request for a move and any potential support needs. The landlord recognised this within its stage 1 response and appropriately apologised to the resident.
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a repair on 12 October 2023 to install bolts to the resident’s front and back doors. The evidence suggests that this was raised by the resident’s support worker during the call on 5 October 2023. The resident informed us in June 2025 that she had asked for this as an additional security measure. The repair records indicate that the work was completed on 8 March 2024. Given the nature of the resident’s concerns, we find the 5-month delay to install the bolts was inappropriate. It is noted that the resident told this Service that she installed the bolts herself (and was therefore out of pocket) as the landlord did not respond to her request. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to make any further assessment on this matter as they are 2 conflicting versions of events.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that the resident had contacted it on 2 further occasions on 26 October 2023 and 30 October 2023. Again, we have seen no documentary evidence of these telephone calls, which amounts to a further record keeping failure. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it regrettably failed to respond to her as the emails requesting a call back should have been sent to a shared inbox.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord completed a risk assessment, and the case was categorised as “high risk” ASB. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident via email to acknowledge her reports of ASB. However, this was a total of 35 working days from the date the resident had first reported the incident. This was an excessive delay and at odds with the timescales outlined in its ASB policy.
Within the landlord’s ASB acknowledgement email, it stated that it had contacted the resident “following her reports on 27 October 2023”. However, this was incorrect as she had first contacted it on 30 September 2023. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure that it checks its records and correspondence for accuracy before it issues responses.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will support ASB victims, take vulnerabilities into account, and be sympathetic in its approach. Within the landlord’s email on 2 November 2023, it acknowledged that the resident’s son was autistic. However, within the email (and notably throughout the full timeline of this case), we have seen no evidence that the landlord asked the resident how her son was recovering following the serious incident. Given the context of the case, we would expect the landlord to have been sympathetic to the resident’s situation and offer to visit her home. This is reflected in our spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, which highlights the effects of landlords taking a dismissive approach and displaying a lack of empathy towards residents.
The resident responded to the landlord on 6 November 2023. She provided it with a police crime reference number and the contact details of the youth and social workers who were supporting the family. The landlord did not respond to the resident until 16 working days later (on 28 November 2023), which was unreasonable.
Within the landlord’s email to the resident (on 28 November 2023), it informed her that it would make contact with her social worker and requested her to provide the details of the police officer dealing with the incident. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. The resident responded the same day and advised that she did not have the details of a specific police officer.
During the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation, it said within an internal email (on 30 August 2024) that it had emailed the resident’s support worker, but it had not received a reply from them. It also said that it had requested a police disclosure but had sent this to the incorrect safer neighbourhood team. However, we have seen no evidence of these emails, which is a record keeping failure in its handling of the case. Given the seriousness of the incident, it is our opinion that the landlord should have been more proactive in chasing up responses from both parties so that it had an independent assessment of the risk on the resident and her son. We find the landlord’s lack of initiative inappropriate. However, it is positive that it acknowledged these failings within its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s ASB process map states that after it completes an ASB risk assessment, it will contact the reporting party to agree an “action plan” and follow this up in writing. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed any action plans in this case. Had it done so, it could have regularly reviewed its progress against the action plan with the resident, which would have promoted transparency and given her reassurance that it was taking her reports of ASB seriously.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that for higher risk cases, it will contact the resident regularly and “more frequently than monthly”. In this case, the landlord failed to agree an “update schedule” (communication plan) with the resident. Its failure to do so caused inconsistent and irregular communication during its handling of the case.
Between 29 January 2024 and 8 March 2024, there were further issues with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The importance of effective communication and record keeping is again highlighted. This is because:
1. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that on 29 January 2024 it had attempted to contact the resident on “several occasions”. However, the resident disputed the landlord’s version of events within her escalation request. The landlord also did not provide us with any evidence of its attempted contact. In this instance we would expect to see telephone records or email trails to evidence the attempts made by the landlord. Without the documentary evidence to support the landlord’s claims, we cannot reasonably conclude that it attempted to contact the resident.
2. On 16 February 2024, the landlord’s internal records stated that that the resident had not responded to its calls, letters and emails. As above, we have seen no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident since 28 November 2023.
3. The landlord’s internal records on 8 March 2024 stated that it sent an email to the resident asking her to make contact (as it was unable to reach her via telephone). However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this contact, which is a further record keeping failure.
It was positive that the landlord emailed the resident on 15 March 2024, asking her to get in touch to discuss the ASB. However, given the seriousness of the original reports of ASB, and the fact it had not heard from the resident for approximately 4 months, we find that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit the resident’s property in attempt to speak with her, or otherwise make additional efforts to contact her and check on her welfare. We have seen no documentary evidence to show that the resident responded to the landlord.
On 20 May 2024, the landlord’s internal records stated that it had attempted to contact the resident via telephone and email to discuss the case. Again, we have seen no direct documentary evidence of this, which is a further record keeping failure.
On 30 May 2024, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it wanted to discuss her case and asked her to get in touch. The resident responded the same day. She said that she was “shocked to get a reply, many months after the incident” and that she had called the housing officer’s number “several times” and left messages. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to make an assessment on this as we have not seen any documentary evidence to support her claims.
Within the resident’s email on 30 May 2024, she asked the landlord to confirm if it had contacted her social worker “like it had promised her” (on 28 November 2023). We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate and added to her concerns that it was not taking her reports seriously.
The evidence suggests that in July 2024, the management of the resident’s ASB case was transferred to a different housing officer. The landlord’s internal notes state that it called the resident on 16 July 2024 to discuss her case. During the call, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the case had been handled to date. The landlord stated that it would request a police disclosure and would contact her once it had “the necessary information”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord requested a police disclosure following this call. This was inappropriate.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 July 2024. During the call, the resident expressed her concerns about her safety and as such, requested a transfer to an alternative property. The landlord informed her that she would she need to apply for a transfer by completing the necessary forms for a priority move. The evidence suggests that the landlord sent the resident a form that it needed to complete, rather than the resident herself. This exacerbated the resident’s frustrations with the landlord. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident on 19 August 2024 for this error.
During the call on 31 July 2024, the resident informed the landlord that the police were unable to identify the perpetrators involved in the incident. The landlord said that it would obtain a police disclosure which would support her housing transfer. However, the landlord did not request this until 9 August 2024. This was inappropriate, as it was a further 8 working days, and a total of 178 working days since the landlord first informed the resident that it would request a police disclosure. The landlord received the police disclosure on 14 August 2024, which confirmed the concerning events that the resident had reported to the landlord in September 2023.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 31 July 2024, summarising their telephone conversation. It stated that following a “thorough investigation” into the incident, it was going to close her ASB case. We find the landlord’s comments misleading. This is because, based on the available evidence, the landlord had not taken any of the appropriate steps to gather evidence for this case, and it had not been “thorough” in its approach. It is noted that the landlord subsequently kept the ASB case open at the request of the resident (while her formal complaint remained ongoing and until she was offered a transfer to another property). The landlord closed the ASB case on 6 February 2025.
On 9 August 2024, the landlord emailed the resident’s support worker for further information about the incident involving her son. The support worker provided the landlord with an update on 16 August 2024. The information disclosed by the support worker was serious and confirmed that the resident’s son had several vulnerabilities. Had the landlord endeavoured to obtain this level of information earlier, it would have been able to take appropriate action to support the resident and her son.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (issued on 31 August 2024), it appropriately apologised to the resident for many of the ASB handing failures identified in this report.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that its complaints team is responsible for determining the amount of compensation that it offers. It also states that when determining the level of discretionary compensation, it will give careful consideration to the individual circumstances of the case. As we have not had sight of landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, we have considered our own remedies guidance when considering the appropriateness of its compensation offer. We find that, due to the severity of the ASB incident and the landlord’s lack of action in relation to the case, the landlord’s offer of £200 at stage 1 was disproportionately low. Additionally, while it is positive that the landlord increased its offer at stage 2, we also find its additional offer of £500 (total £700) low and not proportionate to the distressing circumstances in the case.
Within an internal email dated 30 August 2024, the landlord accepted that it had “badly let down” the resident and “there were plenty of opportunities [throughout the case] for everyone involved to make things right.” Additionally, within both formal complaint process, the landlord explained to the resident that it had committed to improving its handling and oversight of its ASB cases. This approach aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles and shows that the landlord was learning from its complaints. The landlord’s commitments included providing training to all relevant staff, with the aim of ensuring that:
1. Risk assessments were thoroughly completed.
2. Home visits to high-risk ASB cases were completed within 5 days.
3. Agreed actions were completed.
4. The “Band A” housing application process was followed.
Overall, within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it failed to:
1. Complete a risk assessment within the timescales outlined in its ASB policy.
2. Agree an ASB action plan with the resident.
3. Liaise in a timely manner with other agencies such as the police and support workers.
4. Take into consideration the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities.
5. Communicate effectively and compassionately with the resident.
Taking all circumstances of the case into account, it is evident that the landlord’s significant failures had a detrimental impact on the resident. However, it is positive that the landlord made a considerable effort to put things right. Had it not done so, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
To conclude, as there is a disparity between the amount of compensation awarded and the level of redress that we consider is needed to put things right, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional amount of compensation that is proportionate to the failings identified in this report. We have applied our remedies guidance and taken into account the distress and inconvenience caused and the resident’s reduced enjoyment of her home during this period.
As mentioned earlier, the landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it applied the learning from the case to implement meaningful service improvements in its handling of ASB cases. As such, we have not made any further orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s ASB handling.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. The landlord’s complaints policy also adopts this definition and confirms that the landlord follows the Code in its approach to complaints.
On 16 July 2024, the landlord’s internal notes stated that during a telephone call with the resident, she “expressed significant dissatisfaction with the handling of her [ASB] case”. It is acknowledged that the resident informed the landlord she would forward copies of her unanswered emails to it. However, we find it inappropriate that the landlord failed to recognise her comments as dissatisfaction and confirm whether the resident wished to escalate the issue to a formal complaint.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At both stages, if an extension is required, the landlord will keep the complainant updated on progress at agreed regular intervals.
On 29 July 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. On 8 August 2024, the landlord’s housing manager informed the resident that it was looking into her concerns, but the complaints team would log the complaint and would contact her separately to discuss. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to formally acknowledge her complaint. This was at odds with its complaints policy, which states that it will provide a written acknowledgement of complaints within 5 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a complaint is about the behaviour of an individual staff member, it will ensure that person does not make the decision on the outcome of the complaint. On 8 August 2024, the housing officer who had been responsible for managing the resident’s ASB case contacted her, stating that they had “received [her] complaint regarding the lack of contact from [them]” and asking the resident to return their call. The resident responded the same day and said that as the complaint was about them, she would leave it to the landlord’s complaint team to deal with. Given that the resident’s complaint was primarily in relation to her perceived lack of action from the housing officer, we find it was inappropriate that they attempted to contact her about it during the formal complaint investigation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 August 2024. This was 25 working days from the date the resident made the complaint. Although this was not an excessive delay, we have seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about an extension. We therefore find that it acted unreasonably and at odds with its complaints policy. It was also inappropriate that the landlord did not apologise to the resident in its stage 1 response for the delay, and therefore failed to consider any compensation which she may have been due.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2024. She also requested an update from the landlord on her escalation request on 23 September 2024. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy states that if it declines a request to escalate to stage 2, it will provide the complainant with a written explanation of its reasoning for doing so.
In November 2024, the resident contacted our Service for assistance to obtain responses from the landlord and progress her complaint. This was an additional inconvenience and expenditure of her time and effort which should not have been necessary. We subsequently contacted the landlord on 21 January 2025 and requested it to provide a stage 2 response by 29 January 2025.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2025 to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. Given that we had instructed the landlord to provide a response by this date, we find its delay of 6 working days to contact the resident unreasonable. It is understood that both parties agreed that the deadline would be extended by a further 10 days and the landlord would visit the resident on 13 February 2025 to discuss the issues she had raised.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 February 2025. This meant it took a total of 106 working days (from the date the resident first requested to escalate her complaint) to provide a response. This was an excessive delay which surpassed the maximum timescales outlined in the Code as well as its own policy.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its complaint handling (aside from acknowledging that it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in September 2024). This meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation.
Overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 for its complaint handling (£50) was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
An additional order of compensation has been made, which is proportionate to the failings identified. As mentioned previously, the landlord’s compensation policy does not include a calculation matrix, so our order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with our own remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,350 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £1,200 for its handling of her reports of ASB. This includes the £700 offered at stages 1 and 2, plus an additional £500 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
  2. £150 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £50 offered at stage 2, plus an additional £100 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.