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

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202230605)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230605

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

11 March 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Leaks, damp and mould in her home, together with the associated repairs.
    2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her upstairs neighbour.
  2. The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since February 2004. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident shares her home with her adult son. She has a range of health issues, including rheumatoid arthritis. The resident told her landlord that her son had brain surgery.
  2. The resident reported leaks affecting her home at various times in the years prior to her formal complaint. These included reports of uncontainable leaks into her home from the upstairs flat, blockages to the external drains causing flooding to the garden and external leaks caused by damaged downpipes and blocked guttering. On 12 December 2022 she reported a flood into her home from the upstairs flat.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 31 January 2023. In this she raised issues about the flooding to her home and incidents of ASB by her neighbour. She said that she had experienced continuing problems with her upstairs neighbour since moving to her flat. She said that her flat had been flooded on several occasions, and she believed that this was due to the deliberate actions of her neighbour. The most recent incident had been just before Christmas. This caused damage to her kitchen and some electrical items. It had also left her back bedroom wall constantly wet and affected by mould. She said her neighbour’s misuse of the drains had also caused flooding to the garden. She further reported that her neighbour had tampered with her electrics and her post, believing that they had tried to steal her identity. She also said that her neighbour had placed dog faeces outside her home and got others to constantly ring her doorbell.
  4. On 20 February 2023 the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint. It said it had spoken with her on 16 February 2023. It set out the detail of her complaint. It said that it had arranged for its repairs surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property. This would focus on the damaged ceiling, kitchen and other areas identified by the resident as being affected by mould growth. It had reviewed its previous records of ASB involving her and her neighbour. It explained that it could not act where the incidents were historic as it did not have evidence to support this. Its ASB officer would visit her to discuss her concerns. It said that it would complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with her. The landlord said that it would follow up in 2 weeks to check that the actions had been progressed. The letter also included information about how the resident may pursue a mutual exchange.
  5. The landlord opened an ASB case record on 16 February 2023. Its ASB officer visited the resident on 22 February 2023 to discuss her complaint against her neighbour. It also spoke with her about her formal complaint. It agreed to follow up the reported issues with her neighbour. Further, it was to request information from the police about an alleged assault, where she reported that her neighbour had pushed her from a ladder. It noted that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and its decision not to act against her neighbour. The landlord recorded that it spoke with her neighbour on 28 February 2023 about the allegations that it had received.
  6. It reviewed its ASB case on 6 March 2023. It recorded that the police could only provide disclosure for incidents that had occurred in the last 6-12 months, and it had no evidence of the issues reported. Further its repairs team could not confirm that the flooding from the neighbour’s property had been deliberate. The landlord spoke with the resident on 29 March 2023 about her request to escalate her complaint. It explained that it could not resolve issues of ASB through its complaints process and that it would not escalate her complaint. It noted that she said that, following the visit of its ASB officer, there had been no further incidents. The landlord told her to continue keep a record of and report any future incidents. It captured her wish to move due to the reported ASB. It made an internal referral for another officer to follow up with her.
  7. On 14 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor provided feedback following an inspection of the resident’s home. It found no evidence of water stains in the kitchen. It recorded that the paint to the bathroom ceiling was damaged and peeling. It said that this may have been due to either condensation or having been painted while the plaster was still damp. It found dampness in one of the bedrooms. It said that this was due to poor air circulation in the room and was not due to an external source of dampness. The landlord raised an order for repairs on 4 May 2023.
  8. Following contact from the resident and the intervention of the Service, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 14 July 2023. It set out the detail of her original complaint. It also noted that she had emailed it on 3 March 2023 to record her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She said that she was waiting for the landlord to act in response to her formal complaint, but it had not done so. She said that she wished to move as she felt that she could not live near her neighbour anymore. It apologised for the delay in replying to her. It said:              
    1. Its stage 1 reply had confirmed that the reported ASB was historic. It was extremely difficult to prove these due to a lack of evidence. Further it could not deal with reports of ASB through its complaints policy. It included the relevant section from its policy. It apologised that it had not made this clearer when it initially declined to escalate her complaint.
    2. Its ASB officer had visited the resident on 22 February 2023 to discuss her concerns. It had also provided information around mutual exchange. Its officer was continuing to work with her and would provide updates on any action it may take. It noted that she was unhappy that no action had been taken against her neighbour so far. It said that its ASB officer would continue to work with her, her neighbour, and the police to monitor the situation.
    3. It confirmed that it had received several reports of leaks which were being dealt with by its responsive repairs team.
    4. Its damp and mould contractor had visited the resident on 5 July 2023. A further visit had been arranged for 17 July 2023. It had asked that the scope of this inspection include her neighbour’s property. It said that if it could not carry this out on the same day it would arrange a separate appointment with her neighbour.
    5. It confirmed that its officers would continue to work with her to resolve the repairs to her home. It would also discuss her rehousing options with her and offer help should she wish to explore a mutual exchange.
    6. It had learnt from the resident’s complaint. It said that it should have been clearer in managing her expectations. It also found that its departments needed to work in a more co-ordinated way and that its communication needed to be both timely and precise.

Actions after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 to raise her concern about damp and mould at her home. An internal email to the landlord’s repairs team recorded that she said that she had a chest infection and that her son was awaiting an operation. She reported that its damp contractor had attended in July 2023 but had found the wall to still be wet. On 23 August 2023 its damp and mould contractor visited the resident’s home and reported that the bedroom wall was still wet.
  2. The resident contacted the Service on 4 September 2023 to confirm that she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She said that the damp and mould issues within her home remained outstanding. While the issues with ASB had been resolved she still wanted to be rehoused. She was unhappy that the landlord had suggested she consider a mutual exchange when the outstanding repairs meant that this was not possible. She wanted the landlord to help her with rehousing.
  3. The resident confirmed to us on 18 February 2025 that the issues with her neighbour had been resolved. She said that the landlord had undertaken repairs to her neighbour’s property and there had been no recent incidents of flooding. It had carried out works within her home, however there are still issues with the wall in her son’s bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that the issues of ASB caused by her neighbour and the water leaks into her home had been ongoing over an extended period. It is important that issues are brought to the attention of a landlord at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This gives the landlord a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. This investigation has focused on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint and the actions taken by the landlord to deal with the issues complained of.
  2. We acknowledge this was a difficult situation for the resident and recognise that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her significant distress. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord had taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB, damp and mould. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. We will consider if the landlord took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  3. As the repairs to address the damp and mould in the resident’s home continued beyond the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, these have been considered here as part of our assessment.
  4. It is acknowledged that as an outcome to her initial complaint the resident wanted the landlord to rehouse her. The Service is unable to make decisions that cover the allocation of a landlord’s properties or determine that an offer of accommodation should be made. The landlord’s properties can only be allocated through the application of the relevant policy and procedure. Should the resident still wish to pursue a move she should engage directly with her landlord for support and assistance with this process.

Leaks, damp and mould to her home, together with the associated repairs.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. 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 must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. The repair records provided by the landlord do not capture the details of the flood reported by the resident on 12 December 2022. This was captured within its contact records. From the evidence presented no immediate action was taken by the landlord in response to her report of a flood and no repair order was raised. In its complaint response the landlord said that it would arrange for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of her home. However, no evidence of this inspection has been provided. On 4 April 2023, an order was raised for “remedial works following flooding”.
  4. It is unclear what action was taken by the landlord prior to the 4 April 2023 or why it did not immediately complete the inspection arranged as an outcome to her complaint. The landlord’s repairs policy includes ‘serious water leak’ as an example of what it considers to be an emergency. It should respond to such repairs within 2 hours. Further, any follow on works should have been completed within its ‘normal repair’ target of 28 days. The landlord did not respond within its published timeframe, raising a repair order 4 months after the resident reported the flood. This was a failure by the landlord.
  5. It is noted that the landlord repair records show the date the repair was requested, a description of the repair and its target completion date. It then shows the status of each repair as either entered, open or completed. These do not capture the detail of the works carried out or if follow on works were needed. It would be reasonable for such detail to be recorded. Doing so would ensure that the landlord maintained an accurate audit trail of the works carried out at its properties. There is a lack of detail in the repair records provided and these do not show its response to the resident’s reports of flooding to her home. This reflects a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that its contractor had attended on 5 July 2023 to carry out a damp and mould treatment. A follow up inspection had been arranged for 17 July 2023. The landlord’s repair records capture a report of a leak from the upstairs flat on 11 July 2023. Its contractor is recorded to have said that it was unable to complete mould treatment as one wall in the bedroom was wet. It said that this was due to a leak from the neighbouring property. This was contrary to the earlier inspection which had noted that the dampness was due to a lack of ventilation within the bedroom. The landlord has provided no evidence of the inspections it carried out to the resident’s home. This is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping. It should ensure that it keeps a record of any inspections and surveys carried out to ensure that it has a clear and accurate record of the condition of its homes.
  7. Internal emails show that the landlord arranged for its contractor to return to complete the works to the resident’s home in August 2023. The resident contacted it on 23 August 2023 to report that the wall in the bedroom was still wet and as a result her son was sleeping on the sofa. She further contacted the landlord on 15 November 2023 as there was continued mould growth on the bedroom wall. The landlord has provided no evidence of the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports. An order was raised for plastering to a wall within the property on 9 December 2023. On 13 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that its workman had told her that the bedroom was uninhabitable. While this appears to have been referred on internally, there is no evidence of further action by the landlord. The resident is noted to have contacted the landlord again on 5 February and 15 April 2024. No record has been made of the landlord’s response to the resident’s contact. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
  8. A detailed repair order was raised on 17 May 2024. This noted that there was a moisture reading of 100% on the internal wall. It set out that works were to be done to find any pipe leak in the upstairs flat and to repair these. It also provided for works to remove the external render, repoint the brickwork and apply new render. Internal works were then to be carried out once these works were completed. These works are recorded as completed on 10 July 2024.
  9. There were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould that amounted to maladministration. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a timely response by landlords. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to promptly. The resident informed the landlord of the impact that the damp in the bedroom was having on her health and that her son was unable to use the room, leaving him sleeping on the sofa. The landlord did not respond appropriately in the circumstances.
  10. An award of compensation totalling £809.40 has been made in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. In calculating the compensation, the Service has considered that the resident was unable to use her bedroom due to dampness on the wall for a period of 15 months. This has been calculated from 14 April 2023, when its contractor recorded the room to be damp, to 10 July 2024, when it completed repairs. We have used the resident’s rent as a basis for this calculation. We have calculated the loss of amenity as 10% of the total rent.
  11. A further order has been made for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s home to ensure that the issues have now been resolved. In recent contact with the service the resident has said that the works were not fully completed and that she continues to experience issues in this room.

ASB from her upstairs neighbour

  1. The resident reported the behaviour of her neighbour through her complaint to the landlord dated 31 January 2023. She said that she believed her neighbour had deliberately flooded her home. She also reported other incidents of antisocial behaviour that had occurred since she moved to her home. The landlord reviewed its records in responding to her complaint and concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence to pursue historical reports of ASB. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It said that it only had 2 previously recorded reports of ASB from 2018 and 2019. Given the time that had elapsed it did not have the evidence to support further action against her neighbour.
  2. It is important that landlords set clear expectations as to what they can and cannot do when dealing with reports of ASB. The incidents reported by the resident were serious and understandably distressing to the resident. However, these had occurred over a period of 18 years from when she first moved into her home and no detailed evidence was presented to support that these issues remained ongoing.
  3. The landlord recognised the distress caused to the resident and appropriately arranged for its ASB officer to visit the resident. Following an initial telephone call on 16 February 2023 the officer visited the resident on 22 February 2023. The landlord opened an ASB case record and captured the detail of its meeting with the resident. It noted several historical incidents, including a report that the neighbour had pushed the resident from a ladder. It correctly completed a risk assessment. It sought evidence from the police on this issue but noted that they could only provide information on issues that had occurred within the last 12 months. It noted that it did not have any substantial evidence to support the complaint made against the neighbour, however it took steps to collate the evidence available. The landlord also contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the complaint with them.
  4. Its ASB case records also captures details around the resident’s complaint, her dissatisfaction and an overlap in the record about the ongoing repairs to her home following the damage caused by repeated leaks. This leads to a lack of clarity in its record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must keep a full record of a resident’s complaint. It further specifies what should be included. The landlord should therefore have recorded the communication with the resident about her complaint separate to that about her reports of ASB.
  5. The landlord did explain to the resident that it could not act on historic instances of ASB. It appropriately pulled together information on her earlier reports and sought information from the police. None of this was conclusive to enable the landlord to take formal action. It told the resident her to keep clear records of future incidents on which it could act. Further, its repairs service confirmed that there was no evidence that the floods that had occurred were deliberate. The landlord initially closed its ASB case in April 2023. This was reopened in July 2023 following further reports from the resident. It then monitored the case over a period of 3 months before closing it in October 2023. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its own policy on managing ASB.

Record keeping

  1. As identified in the sections above there was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping about the resident’s report of leaks into her home and the inspections that it undertook. There is a lack of clarity in its records of how it progressed repairs and what steps in had in place to ensure that these were carried out to provide an effective solution. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. It has been noted that a wider order under 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme was made in February 2024 (case reference 202210842). As the events contained within this report predate this order, we recommend that the landlord reviews its position and ensures that the outcomes it identified as part of this review are effectively embedded.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould to her home, together with the associated repairs.  
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.  

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,159.40. This is broken down as follows:
      1. £809.40 for loss of amenity in being unable to use her bedroom over an extended period.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident through the ongoing issues with damp in her home.
    3. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the resident’s home to ensure that the issues with leaks, damp and mould have now been resolved. The landlord should provide the Service with a copy of its inspection report as evidence of compliance. Any identified reports should be scheduled by the landlord and the resident advised as to when these will be completed.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is asked to review its record keeping. It should ensure that it continues to embed the outcomes identified in response to the wider order made in February 2024.