Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202220073)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220073

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

29 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the video intercom entry system in the resident’s building.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.
    3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s information management in respect of this complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a fourth-floor flat within a purpose-built block of similar properties. 
  2. The resident raised requests to the landlord to repair the video intercom system on 28 June and 14 July 2022, which it raised repair jobs for. He chased it for an update on 20 July 2022 and raised additional security concerns about the way contractors accessed the building. The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 24 July 2022, to which it promised it would update him by 29 July 2022 – there was no evidence of this update.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 6 September 2022, in which he relayed the above events, and highlighted that the video intercom was still not working. He wanted it to complete the repair immediately and give its assurances that it would complete future repairs promptly and communicate appropriately with residents.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 23 September 2022, in which it did not dispute his account of events. It acknowledged that it had not dealt with the repair promptly and that the performance of its contractor was “poor”. The landlord said it would address this with the contractor’s senior management and would seek regular updates on the intercom repair. It assured the resident that it was working to address security concerns on the resident’s estate by maintaining CCTV and promptly fixing vandalised door and gates. The landlord acknowledged its communication had been slow and it was working to improve this. It offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise his time and trouble in pursuing the landlord for repairs.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 October 2022 as he remained unhappy that the landlord had not said when it would repair the video intercom system. He also questioned the landlord’s response timeframes for its handling of complaints.
  6. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 16 December 2022, in which it said that its intercom contractor had attended on 7 December 2022 to inspect but had yet to provide a report on this. It proposed to arrange a visit by the intercom manufacturers by 31 December 2022, which it would update the resident about.
  7. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 February 2022. He remained dissatisfied as he was yet to receive any meaningful updates from the landlord since its final response, and the video intercom system remained faulty. To resolve his complaint, the resident wanted compensation and the landlord to complete the repair. On 19 February 2024, he told us that the intercom was still not working.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the video intercom entry system in the resident’s building

  1. The landlord’s residents’ handbook states that, when a property is part of a block, a service charge is usually payable for providing a door entry system, amongst other services. The landlord did not dispute its repairing obligation for the video intercom system. It, therefore, should have completed the repair to the intercom system in accordance with its policies.
  2. The residents’ handbook confirms that routine repairs – those which are not an immediate hazard or considered urgent – should be completed within 28 days. While the faulty video intercom system was undoubtedly an inconvenience, there was no evidence that this made the resident’s individual property insecure. Therefore, as there was no immediate hazard, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the repair of the video intercom system as a routine repair, in line with the residents’ handbook.
  3. It was not disputed that the resident first reported the video intercom system repair to the landlord on 28 June 2022, and that it raised a repair for this. It was also not disputed that the repair was not completed, and the video intercom was still faulty when it issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, on 16 December 2022. This was a period of just under six months and was significantly more than the 28 days specified for a routine repair in the residents’ handbook. The landlord therefore delayed unreasonably in its handling of the repair.
  4. The landlord failed to provide a reasonable explanation in either its stage 1 or final stage complaint responses for why the repair took so long. In its stage 1 response, it attributed the delay to the poor performance of its contractor and said it would address the issue with the contractor’s senior management. However, the landlord had overall responsibility for ensuring that repairs were completed promptly.
  5. A landlord would be expected to have procedures in place for monitoring the performance of its contractors and tracking the progress of repairs. When a contractor’s performance is poor and impacts residents, this reflects poor repair management by the landlord.
  6. This was demonstrated by the landlord failing to provide evidence to show how it had recorded the resident’s repair reports, how it tracked the repair and how it recorded the outcome of repairs. This indicated that the landlord had inadequate knowledge and information management procedures – this will be discussed further below.
  7. The landlord’s internal correspondence, on 5 October 2023, showed that it had only a single record of a repair request for the resident’s intercom. This was dated 22 February 2023 and was after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint. This correspondence also showed that it needed to ask the contractor to confirm:
    1. What work was undertaken.
    2. If the contractor had completed a follow-up visit.
    3. Whether the reason for the fault had been identified.
  8. The landlord’s repair log records the repair as complete on 13 September 2023; however, this does not provide any information on what work was done and whether the repair was completely resolved or not.
  9. The landlord’s internal correspondence, above, supported the resident’s report to the Ombudsman on 17 February 2023, that the repair was not completed. He also informed this Service on 19 February 2024 that the video intercom system remained faulty. There was no evidence that the landlord followed through with its proposal, in its final response, to liaise with the intercom manufacturer to remedy the repair.
  10. Despite 2 requests from the Ombudsman, the landlord has failed to provide an update on the current state of the repairs to the intercom. Therefore, it can only be assumed that the video intercom system remains unrepaired, and the landlord failed to complete the repair for 20 months. This amounts to maladministration.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that the resident had expended time and effort and had been inconvenienced in chasing updates for the work. It offered him £150 compensation for this. The landlord’s final complaint response offered no further compensation. This was a failure by the landlord to acknowledge that it had not done enough to remedy the intercom fault. It would have been appropriate for it to offer further compensation to recognise that the outstanding repair continued to cause distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  12. While the Ombudsman encourages landlords to attempt to put right any failings, in line with our dispute resolution principles, its offer of £150 compensation was not proportionate. Given the extensive delay, the landlord should pay compensation of £950 to the resident. This is £50 per month that the repair remained outstanding. The landlord will also be ordered to complete the repair.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaints procedure with an optional third stage. At stage 1 it should log the complaint within 2 days and provide a written response within 10 working days. At the final stage, the landlord should provide its written response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  2. The policy states that at either stage, if the landlord is unable to respond within the above timeframes, it should explain why to the resident and provide a new date for its response, which should not exceed a further 10 working days. These timeframes mirror those specified in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out best practice in complaint handling for landlords.
  3. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 6 September 2022 and the landlord responded to this on 23 September 2022. This was after 13 working days and was a slight delay, however, this was not significant and there was no evidence of significant detriment experienced by the resident because of this. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 October 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge this, and he chased it for a response on 28 November 2022.
  4. The resident sought advice from the Ombudsman, and on 4 December 2022, we asked the landlord to issue its final response to him by 9 December 2022. It provided an interim response to the resident on 9 December 2022, followed by its full final response on 16 December 2022.
  5. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation on 21 October 2022, and then took 41 working days to issue its final response to him. While the landlord did provide an interim response on 9 December 2022, this was still unreasonable. This was because the Ombudsman intervened and, in any event, this interim response was still 16 working days later than its timeframe for responding at the final stage.
  6. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles encourage learning from outcomes. The landlord’s final response did not address that it had delayed in acknowledging and issuing its final response to the resident. Nor did the landlord set out what it would do prevent such delays in future. This was inappropriate as this showed that it had not recognised its failure and would therefore be unable to learn from it.
  7. To recognise the inconvenience and expenditure of time and trouble by the resident in pursuing the complaint, the landlord should pay him compensation of £100.

The landlord’s information management in respect of this complaint

  1. The information supplied by the landlord to the Ombudsman for this investigation raised the following concerns.
    1. Despite being asked to do so, the landlord did not provide comprehensive records of its repairs work. While it was not disputed that it raised repair jobs in response to the resident’s reports of the faulty intercom on 28 June and 14 July 2022, there was no record of what the landlord did or the outcome of these repairs. This meant that it was not possible to determine whether it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.
    2. The repair log the landlord provided to the Ombudsman detailed only 1 repair, which was dated after the final response, and was not consistent with the work proposed in its final response. Furthermore, this log records that this repair had a target date of 1 March 2023, yet was not recorded as complete until 13 September 2023 and no further details accompanied this.
    3. The landlord also did not provide any records of communication between itself and the resident about the repair. It was therefore not possible to conclude that it provided accurate information to him or managed his expectations about the likely resolution of the repair.
    4. When the Ombudsman requested records to enable the investigation of the complaint, the landlord’s internal correspondence showed that it needed to ask its contractor for details of the repairs. This indicated that its record keeping were inadequate and it did not have sufficient oversight of its contractor’s work.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management report confirms that poor knowledge and information management is directly linked to a poorer service for residents. This is particularly in the case of repairs and complaints handling, which is borne out by the findings of this investigation.
  3. The landlord’s failures in this complaint amount to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to review our findings in this case and use the above spotlight report to improve its approach. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor record keeping, it should pay him £200 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Handling of repairs to the communal intercom entry system in the resident’s building.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Information management in respect of this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1250. This is made up of:
      1. £950 for its handling of repairs to the video intercom entry system. This is inclusive of the £150 it had previously offered him.
      2. £100 compensation for its failures in the handling of his complaint.
      3. £200 compensation for its failures in record keeping.
    2. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Raise a repair to fix the video intercom system and provide the resident with the date of this.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks that it has complied with the above orders.
  2. Within 3 months, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Carry out a case review and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to improve its management of repairs, its record-keeping procedures, and its knowledge and information management.
    2. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 3 months that it has complied with this order.