Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202303959)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303959

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

25 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:
1. Repairs to the drainage in the wet room.
2. Repairs to the garden paving slabs and a retaining wall.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 2–bedroom house under an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident is disabled.
On 7 December 2022, the resident verbally complained to the landlord about an outstanding sewage smell in her wet room and her garden paving slabs and retaining wall. She said that she had her garden slabbed over but the slabs had risen and were now uneven. She believed that this was because the retaining wall was not strong enough. The resident also advised that she had a survey completed in the summer, but nothing had been done since, and she was concerned about her health and safety. The resident also complained about the landlord’s contractor, saying she was unhappy with the time they were taking to complete repairs, and the standard of the repairs once they were completed. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day and advised her that she should expect contact by telephone. It confirmed that it would provide the resident with a written response within 10 working days.
The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2022 and a further response was issued on 9 January 2023. Both responses contained the same information. However, the resident contacted the Service in May 2023, as she had not received any response to her complaint. We then contacted the landlord to chase a response. The resident advised us that she received the stage 1 response dated 16 December 2023 in July 2023. In its response, the landlord confirmed that:
1. although the paving slabs were previously repaired, they would be looked at again due to the health and safety concerns of the resident.
2. The landlord also confirmed that its surveyor attended the property on 18 November 2022 and agreed that sewage was escaping from waste pipe. The contractor was to attend again soon to repair the issue.
3. The landlord advised the resident that, in order for the repair work to happen, her flooring would require taking up and work would be intrusive.
4. It also acknowledged the poor communication regarding the complaint and advised the resident that it would introduce a customer relations management system.
By May 2023, the resident advised the Service that, although she had to purchase her own paving slabs for the landlord to fit them, the same issue reoccurred again. The resident also advised that she was sleeping in a recliner chair downstairs due to the smell in the property. She said it smelled like raw sewage and she was unable to use the garden as the slabs moved again. The resident said she felt “dirty” because of the sewage smell and “hated” eating her dinner in the kitchen, as the smell of raw sewage was “overpowering”. She said that, when she left her property, she did not want to return. The landlord confirmed that a works order was raised with its contractor on 27 April 2023 to repair the resident’s wet room. However, by 2 May 2023, the resident contacted the Service to report her unhappiness with the repairs. She said that the surveyor explained that the pipes were not big enough to take the sewage away and therefore the problem still continued.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and agreed a repair date for her wet room. The works would be done from the kitchen ceiling rather than taking up the wet room floor. The landlord then visited the resident on 21 June 2023 to oversee the start of the works to the wet room. It was decided that the contractor would not need to go through the kitchen ceiling, as they could access the waste pipes though the downstairs shower room. It also confirmed that it would be installing a waste with a non-return valve, which would stop any smells from going into the shower room waste. At this point, the resident told the landlord that she would be making another complaint as she believed the contractor did not complete the repair work quickly enough. The landlord confirmed that the repairs were completed on 26 June 2023. The works included renewing the waste pipes and trap, mould washing the affected areas, renewing the plasterboard, and redecorating.
On 27 July 2023, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property. The contractor made allegations about the resident’s behaviour towards them and their work. The resident also removed temporary covers placed in the garden by the contractor. The contractor said that they would therefore not attend the property again. On 4 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident about this and she told the landlord that she was frustrated that nobody got back to her with regard to the several repair issues she had raised. The landlord said that after discussing the reports, the resident admitted to some but not all of the behaviour alleged by the contractor.
The landlord arranged to visit the resident again on 11 August 2023 with its surveyor to inspect the area and arrange for works to be carried out in the garden to remedy any trip hazard. By 25 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord complaining about the landlord missing 2 appointments and nobody calling her. The landlord advised her that other properties have had the same issue and all residents would be updated in due course. As the resident’s paving and wall repairs were still outstanding, she escalated her complaint over the telephone in September 2023. By November 2023, the resident had still not received a response from the landlord so again the Service had to intervene after asking it to issue a stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. We chased the landlord for a response, issuing a final notice on 21 November 2023. We gave the landlord until 28 November 2023 to provide a response.
The landlord still had not provided its stage 2 response, so the Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order to the landlord on 31 January 2024. The Order set out that it must provide a response to the resident’s complaint no later than 7 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024 (sent to the Service on 7 February 2024):
1. It apologised for the delay in responding and acknowledged the resident’s complaints with her wet room, paving slabs, and retaining wall.
2. It confirmed that the wet room repairs were completed on 26 June 2023.
3. The landlord said that, as the paving slabs were laid privately, these were considered the resident’s responsibility, however it offered to re-lay the faulty slabs. The landlord said the resident declined the offer as she wanted the whole garden repaved.
4. It confirmed a temporary fix was put in place using plastic road-plate type covers laid over the faulty area, however the landlord advised that it was yet to make a decision as to a permanent fix.
5. With regard to the retaining wall, the landlord said a structural survey was done in November 2023 and no subsidence was detected at that stage. Surveys were also conducted on 3 neighbouring houses, with no major structural defects found to the retaining wall or the garden. It asked the Contract Manager to revisit the survey and consider what the next steps would be with regard to that issue.
6. The landlord also apologised for its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of the time taken to resolve this matter and the inconvenience caused.
The resident complained to the Service that, while her wet room was repaired, there was movement in her garden again after previously being fixed by the landlord, its temporary covers were a trip hazard, and it would only replace some of the slabs when all needed replacing due to the retaining wall. She described previously tripping over the slabs and being injured and was unhappy with its compensation offer due to the effect of her case on her as a disabled person, including having to sleep downstairs for months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that she has previously been injured by tripping over slabs in her garden, which is very concerning, especially because she is disabled. However, this is not within the scope of this investigation to consider because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability for personal injuries in the way a court or insurer might. This is in line with the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints concerning matters it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.

Repairs to the drainage in the wet room

The landlords repair priorities state that urgent repairs are to be completed within 5 working days and are considered ‘priority 2’. Repairs such as minor plumbing leaks/defects, blocked drains, sinks, basins, bath, and WC are to be treated as urgent repairs. The resident complained about her wet room on 7 December 2022. The condition of the wet room was causing a sewage smell throughout the upstairs of her property. Despite the urgency of the issue, the resident reported it remained outstanding. This is particularly concerning because the landlord was aware the resident was disabled. During this time, the resident explained she had to sleep downstairs in a recliner chair due to the smell, she also said that daily living was challenging because the smell was so overpowering.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that a surveyor had previously attended the resident’s property on 18 November 2022 and also agreed that sewage was escaping from the waste pipe. It advised that a contractor would be sent soon to repair the issue. This gave the resident a reasonable expectation that the matter would be addressed quickly. However, despite this assurance, the repair to the wet room took place 97 working days later on 27 April 2023 and this appeared to not be completed to a satisfactory standard. A surveyor was described by the resident as having confirmed the pipework installed was not adequate to carry waste away effectively. This would likely have contributed to the ongoing sewage smell and drainage issues. This also suggests that the repairs were not only delayed but also failed to address the root cause of the problem, leaving the resident to live in unacceptable living conditions for an extended period.
A further repair to the wet room was not completed until 136 working days after the stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2023.This prolonged delay was unacceptable given the nature of the problem and the fact it was affecting the resident’s living conditions. The landlord’s failure to follow though on its commitment contributed to the residents loss of trust and extended period of discomfort within her property. The handling of the wet room repairs was not in line with its own repair priorities, which state that urgent repairs should be completed within 5 working days. The issue continued for over 4 months before any repairs were carried out and, as those repairs were not sufficient, the resident had to wait until another 2 months later for further repairs to be carried out. The long delay demonstrates a failure to meet the standards set out in the landlord’s policy, resulting in maladministration by the landlord and an avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £400 compensation for the effect on her of having to live with the outstanding repairs to the drainage in the wet room for over 6 months. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been recommended to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation its repair priorities’ timescales to make sure they complete timely repairs within its published timescales.

Repairs to the garden paving slabs and a retaining wall

The landlord’s repair priorities identify repairs to external walls, brickwork, slates/tiles, and paths as ‘priority 3’. These repairs have a completion time of 28 working days. The resident also complained to the landlord about her paving slabs and retaining wall on 7 December 2022, however despite a surveyor attending her property on 18 November 2022, no further work was arranged at that time.
The landlord’s 16 December 2022 stage 1 response said that the paving slabs that were repaired in the resident’s garden were done by its planned maintenance team. However, it agreed that it would raise the resident’s concerns with that team and make them aware that they would need to go back to the property and inspect the slabs. This was because the resident remained unhappy with the works and had additional health and safety concerns.
We cannot see from the evidence that anything further was done to address the paving repairs until the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to inspect this on 27 July 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 August 2023 about the contractor’s allegations about the resident’s behaviour. This was followed up by a letter from the landlord to the resident on 4 August 2023 explaining the allegations. The resident explained that she was frustrated due to the lengthy lack of communication regarding the paving and the retaining wall. She added that, as a person with a disability, she had been injured as a result of the uneven slabs.
The landlord had a duty under the resident’s tenancy agreement to repair and maintain the structure, including pathways, steps, or other means of access and their health and safety, of the resident’s property. This should have become even more of a priority once the landlord was told the disabled resident was injured. While we understand that alleged abusive behaviour by either party is not tolerated, this should not affect the main issue of making sure the resident has a safe property to live in.
Given the landlord’s initial failure to follow up after the resident’s complaint in December 2022 and the absence of a documented inspection before the contractor’s July 2023 visit, the landlord did not show that the matter was handled in a timely or appropriate manner. This is particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerability as a disabled person, and the risk of injury she reported from the uneven slabs.
The resident escalated her complaint in September 2023, as the paving and retaining wall had still not been repaired and she was unable to use her garden. On 11 October 2023, the resident discussed the covers that were installed in her garden. Although we have not seen the evidence of this work, the resident said it presented a trip hazard. The landlord correctly identified this as a ‘priority 1’, which its repairs priorities categorise as repairs for defects that put health and safety at risk and are treated as an emergency due within 24 hours. It therefore requested a contractor’s emergency attendance on 11 October 2023 to make sure the covers were safely secured to allow safe access for the resident. Although it was reasonable to make the area safe by mitigating the immediate risk presented, it did not resolve the underlying issue and so this alone was ultimately inadequate to permanently address this.
In response to this, the landlord’s contractor attended on the same day within its repairs priorities 24-hour emergency repair timescale and alleged to it that the resident removed the covers herself and placed them to the side of her garden. The contractor advised her not to interfere with the covers, as they were put in place as a temporary resolution until the wider issue with the paving in other nearby properties were resolved. The landlord subsequently requested a survey to assess the paving on 3 November 2023, however from the evidence supplied we cannot see confirmation that this was followed up at the time, other than the resident telling it she had a dispute with a surveyor on 6 November 2023.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for, among other things, keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This reflects its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Although the landlord installed the covers in the garden, this was alleged to have unintentionally presented a health and safety risk which the resident felt she had to remove. The landlord was therefore alleged by the resident to not be acting in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and the Act. However, in the absence of any expert or other evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractor’s assessment of the condition of the covers in the garden in response to the resident’s concerns about these.
The resident received a response to her complaint escalation on 6 February 2024. In its response, the landlord advised that it would not carry out a full repair to the paving slabs because they were not originally installed by the landlord. It stated that it would only replace the damaged slabs as necessary, but it did not commit to a permanent resolution to the issue. The landlord also referred to a structural survey in November 2023 with regard to the retaining wall at the resident’s and 3 neighbouring properties. This was said by the landlord to have shown no evidence of subsidence or major structural defects. It said, however, that the survey would be revisited and further steps would be determined after this.
The lack of a clear decision or timeframe for a long-term fix for the paving slabs, despite the ongoing concerns from the resident and the landlord’s own previous expectations, demonstrated poor communications and delays in resolving this safety–related issue. The landlord’s approach was therefore not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and to put things right and this resulted in maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £350 compensation for the effect on her of continuing to have to live without a permanent fix to the garden paving slabs. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident. The landlord has also been ordered to arrange for a comprehensive survey of and an action plan for a permanent fix to the garden paving to be carried out, and to provide copies of these to us and to the resident.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practice in relation to its communication, record keeping, and handling of health and safety issues for planned works. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider orders and so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process, and its complaints procedure says it is to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of a complaint being raised, and to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 December 2022. Therefore, the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response no later than 21 December 2022 under its complaints procedure. The landlord’s response was dated 16 December 2022, however the resident explained she did not receive this response until July 2023. This was a delay of almost 7 months. While we acknowledge the date of the stage 1 response, the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and the fact that she relied on communication via the post or telephone. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange follow up calls at regular intervals to make sure the resident received its response. The delay in the resident receiving the response was therefore not appropriate, as it fell outside of the procedure’s 10 working days.
The resident said she escalated her complaint to stage 2 verbally over the telephone sometime in September 2023, which the landlord recorded it received but did not record the date that this was made. Therefore, the landlord should have provided its final response no later than the end of November 2023. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response within a reasonable timeframe. As a result, the resident contacted the Service for assistance. We sent several requests to the landlord, including on 13 September 2023 and a final notice on 21 November 2023 requesting a response. Despite these efforts, the landlord did not issue the required response. Therefore, the Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order on 31 January 2024, due to the landlord’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Code. The actions of the landlord showed poor complaint management and a lack of commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns in a timely and transparent manner.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024 which was around 5 months after the escalation. This delay was excessive, there was no reasonable explanation as to why the delay took so long, and there was a failure to provide the resident with regular updates. Such a long delay would have caused unnecessary frustration for the resident. It also reduced the opportunity for a timely resolution of the complaint. This was extremely important given the disabilities of the resident. The landlord’s actions represented a significant failure in the complaint handling process and fell extremely short of the Ombudsman’s expectations for fair and effective service delivery.
We acknowledge the landlord’s stage 2 response’s apology and offer of £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of the time taken and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation up to this amount to recognise failures resulting in delays in getting matters resolved. However, taking into consideration the overall actions of the landlord in its complaint handling, we have made a finding of maladministration for this below. This is because its compensation offer was not proportionate to recognise the extent of its complaint handling delays or the resident’s resulting difficulties in getting matters resolved.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £150 additional compensation for its poor complaint handling, plus the £100 it previously offered her for this if it has not already been paid. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practice in relation to its complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider orders and so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the drainage in the wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden paving slabs and a retaining wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 total compensation, which is broken down into:
  1. £400 for its handling of repairs to the drainage in the wet room.
  2. £350 compensation for its handling of reports of repairs to the garden paving slabs and retaining wall.
  3. £150 compensation for its handling of the associated complaint.
  4. £100 compensation it previously offered for its poor complaint handling if this has not already been paid.
3. Arrange for a comprehensive survey of and an action plan for a permanent fix to the garden paving to be carried out. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey along with an action plan.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation its repair priorities’ timescales to make sure they complete timely repairs within its published timescales.