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

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202304248)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304248

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

14 February 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:
    1. Repairs to the balcony.
    2. The resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. He has lived at the property since January 2013. He has restricted mobility and associated vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of.
  2. On 21 July 2022 the resident reported a problem with the wooden decking on his balcony. The landlord sent its contractor on 21 July 2022, who were unable to move the resident’s plant pots. They took photos of the balcony and agreed to request additional resources to complete the repair from the landlord.
  3. The resident sought updates from the landlord and its contractor in August, September, and October 2022. On 9 November 2022 the landlord replied and arranged an inspection. It attended on 6 December 2022 to survey the balcony. It identified the required repairs and requested 2 people attend to also move the resident’s items from the balcony.
  4. The resident chased the landlord for updates in February 2023. He said that his walking stick fell through part of the balcony, causing him to lose his balance. He was able to stop himself falling, but highlighted the risks present in his emails to the landlord.
  5. The resident complained on 3 April 2023. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports and the lack of communication. He felt the landlord was not complying with its responsibilities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 April 2023. On 24 April 2023 the resident sought to escalate his complaint, stating that he had no response from the landlord and the repairs were outstanding.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response, the delay to the balcony repair, and its poor communication. It named an officer who would manage the repairs and speak to the resident on 23 May 2023. It shared details from its equality and diversity statement. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and set out the lessons learned from his complaint.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2023. He said his main concern was that the landlord failed to comply with his requests for reasonable adjustments. It had not sent 2 operatives to repair the balcony when asked. He reiterated his concerns that the landlord failed to comply with the Equality Act 2010.
  8. The landlord repaired the balcony in June 2023. The work was of poor quality and it returned to resolve these issues on 20 July 2023.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 August 2023. It said it had communicated with its contractor. It apologised for not following up on the repairs, meaning the resident had to report the quality issues to it. It apologised to the resident if it made him feel discriminated against and for the delays in its service and the impact this had. It increased its offer of compensation to £470, which comprised £450 for delays, distress, and inconvenience and £20 for a missed appointment. It agreed to contact the resident by 5 September 2023 to confirm if it would need to complete other balcony repairs and check the balcony fire rating concerns. It set out the lessons learned.
  10. In an email to the landlord on 20 October 2023, the resident said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. He said there were inaccuracies within the report and that it did not resolve his concerns regarding its failure to comply with his request for reasonable adjustments. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 3.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 3 response on 22 December 2023. It summarised the outcomes from its meeting with the resident. It provided a detailed response to the issues raised. It apologised for the impact and said its operative apologised in person at the hearing. It recognised that the service was unacceptable. All works to the property were complete. It reflected on its complaint handling delays and explained the improvements it made following his complaints. It thanked the resident for highlighting ways to improve how it handled reasonable adjustment requests. It did not accept that it or its contactors acted in a discriminatory manner or breached its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It re-offered the compensation from stage 2.
  12. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Requests for reasonable adjustments

  1. The landlord’s resident’s handbook says it will ensure that it responds sensitively to the needs of vulnerable residents. It will provide, where financially possible, extra services in response to those needs.
  2. The resident was clear throughout his communication with the landlord that he needed additional assistance for it to complete works to the balcony. Its contractor recognised the need for more resources in July 2022 so reasonably passed the works back to the landlord. His request for a second operative to move his pots from the balcony was not resource intensive. The landlord could have approved the additional resources as a request for a reasonable adjustment. However, the landlord took an unacceptable 5 months to agree the additional resources required with its contractor. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure to respond sensitively to the resident’s needs.
  3. Once the landlord inspected the balcony in December 2022, it promptly approved the request for additional resources. Despite the approval, it lacked proper oversight of the repair, causing delays which impacted the resident’s ability to enjoy his home. It should have acted with more urgency on reflection of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  4. The landlord failed to return the pots back to the original position, requiring the resident to seek help from a third party in July 2023. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response. Its decision to refer to its equality and diversity policy was inappropriate. The resident had raised specific concerns and points of learning that it did not address by sharing its existing policies. It did not address the failure to comply with his requests for reasonable adjustments again when completing the repair in July 2023.
  5. The landlord appropriately accepted the resident’s recommendations for improved equality and diversity standards at stage 3. It clearly demonstrated how it had learned from his complaints. It showed that it implemented new processes to ask residents about support required when recording repairs. It recognised that it had not done this with the resident and agreed to resolve this with it contractor. It was fair to set out its reasons why it believed that it had complied with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
  6. The landlord’s decision to share the lessons learned with its board was positive. It discussed ways to improve its service delivery and its contracts. It addressed the resident’s concern that it discriminated against him by not effectively prioritising his repairs. It said that the issue was not isolated and there were wider issues within its service. The wider problems within the landlord’s service are a mitigating factor, but do not account for the failure to properly record vulnerabilities or act with any urgency. It also did not resolve the resident’s main concern that it failed to treat his repair with any increased urgency (this is referred to in the balcony repair assessment below).
  7. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of requests for reasonable adjustments. Overall, the landlord’s apology and actions taken to improve its future service delivery at stage 3 were reasonable. Although it did not fully acknowledge all its failings, it demonstrated its intention to put things right for the resident. It took his concern that it did not comply with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 seriously and accepted his recommendations to improve its service for vulnerable residents. Its records show that it has taken steps to update its policy and procedures since the resident’s complaint. It introduced a vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustments policy in July 2024.

Repairs to the balcony

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It must ensure the property remains fit for human habitation. It must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards.
  2. The risk of falling on level surfaces is a potential hazard proposed by the HHSRS. The landlord should conduct additional monitoring of properties where potential hazards exist. In this case, the landlord should have properly assessed the risks posed to the resident and acted accordingly.
  3. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report was reasonable. It attended to the repair on the same day and recognised that it required additional resources to complete the repair. However, there were then unacceptable delays to repair the balcony throughout the remainder of the timeline.
  4. The landlord provides a handbook to its residents that sets out timescales in which it expects to complete repairs. These range from 24 hours to 28 days depending on severity. The landlord failed to complete the repairs within these timescales. It took around 5 months to inspect the balcony from his initial report in July 2022. The records show he chased the landlord for updates on this repair in August, September, October, and November 2022 before it took any action. This was an unacceptable delay and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord did not keep a clear record of the inspection from December 2022. There is no evidence that shows how it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, or the impact the loss of use of the balcony had on him.
  6. The landlord’s handbook also says that, once an inspection is complete, it will authorise any works within 24 hours. When it inspected the flooring in December 2022, there was no record that it took any action to schedule the repair. This meant the resident took additional time and trouble chasing his repairs in February 2023. The resident had highlighted his vulnerabilities to the landlord throughout his correspondence. He explained how he used the balcony regularly. It should have acted sooner to repair the balcony and reduce the risks present to the resident.
  7. The failure continued following the resident’s report in February 2023. In his complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2023, he said that he nearly fell while using his balcony because the boards had rotted. He showed photos of the hole, comparing it with his walking stick. He said he was at increased risk of falling and set out the serious impact a fall could have had. The landlord did not respond to the resident until it issued its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. This was an unreasonable period of around 23 working days and 36 calendar days.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the health and safety concerns raised by the resident in its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. It appropriately apologised for the delay to repair the decking and its poor communication. It was reasonable to assign a named officer to oversee the completion of the repairs. However, its offer of £250 compensation did not fully reflect the detriment caused. It did fully address the risks raised by the resident. The resident expressed considerable concern over the risks to his wellbeing. There were delays to that point of around 10 months when he was not able to safely access his balcony.
  9. The resident reiterated the seriousness of the repair to the landlord in his escalation request on 18 May 2023. Despite this information, the landlord did not conduct any repair until 17 June 2023. This was around 1 month after the escalation request and 6 months after it inspected the balcony. These delays were unacceptable and a failing by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
  10. The contractor failed to repair the balcony properly on 17 June 2023. It used decking boards that were much too small for the purpose. The gaps it created between the boards was wide enough for the resident’s walking stick to fall between. This created a new risk of trips and falls to the resident.
  11. The resident highlighted these risks to the landlord on 19 June 2023, yet it took the landlord until 30 June 2023 to pass works back to its contractor. It then took a further 14 working days to return and complete the repair. When it did return, it did not move the resident’s pots back in accordance with his original request for assistance. In total, it took around 12 months to satisfactorily repair the balcony. This was unacceptable and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  12. While considering the landlord’s response to the failures identified, we reflect on the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This states that a landlord should use its complaint response to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord appropriately used its stage 2 response to apologise for the repair delays. It was fair to discuss the impact the restricted access to an outside space had on the resident. It recognised that it had resolved the repair. It appropriately provided a date by which it would return for a follow up inspection of the fire safety concerns highlighted during the repair.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time awarded compensation as a proportion of the net rent where a room was unusable. It would calculate the compensation as 10% of the net rent where a balcony is unusable for more than 72 hours due to repair works. If it considered the balcony was unusable from 22 July 2022 to 20 July 2023, this would be around £850. Due to a lack of available records from the landlord, the Ombudsman has been unable to decide the full period the balcony was unusable. It was clearly unsafe for the resident between April and July 2023 (once the resident’s stick fell through the balcony) and 10% of the rent due for that period would be around £200.
  15. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests levels of redress depending on the impact on the resident and the circumstances of the failure. Compensation of £100-£600 is reasonable where the landlord acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. The landlord’s offer of £450 for the delays, time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience was within this bracket. Its offer of £20 for a missed appointment was acceptable.
  16. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered compensation for the loss of the balcony in accordance with its compensation policy. It did not fully address the communication failures that led to the delays in completing the repair. It did not address whether it had appropriately assessed the risks present to the resident and how it would prevent a repeat of the failed repair attempt from June 2023.
  17. The landlord failed to maintain the commitments set out in its stage 2 response. It did not return to complete a further inspection of the balcony by 5 September 2023. The poor communication continued and the resident had to make further requests for updates on his repair on 11 September 2023. He escalated his complaint further on 20 October 2023.
  18. The landlord used its stage 3 response to explain how it had improved its management of the repairs contractor. However, it did not effectively resolve the resident’s substantive complaints. It did not consider the failure to return and inspect the balcony for the reported fire safety concerns. It did not put things right in the circumstances.
  19. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony. It sought to put things right by offering a reasonable amount of compensation for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience at stage 2. However, it did not fully address the failure to conduct repairs. It did not keep accurate records of its inspections or establish whether it appropriately assessed the risks to the resident in December 2022.
  20. There were delays handing works to its contractors and a failure to manage the contract. It did not ensure the appropriate resources were available to complete the repair in a timely manner and failed to maintain the commitments set out in its stage 2 response and reinspect the balcony. The landlord should inspect the balcony and consider if there are any risks present in accordance with HHSRS. It should pay the resident £670 compensation. This is reflective of the £470 offered at stage 2, plus £200 for the loss of use of the balcony for 3 months.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. In this case, the landlord appears to have considered its position following the resident’s referral of his complaint to stage 3. Although it was positive in this case to reflect on its overall handling of the resident’s concerns, the landlord failed to effectively put things right at stage 2.
  2. Additionally, the records show that the resident had to seek updates from the landlord between October and December 2023 before the stage 3 meeting. The resident asked the landlord to escalate to stage 3 on 11 October 2023. When he received no response, he had to take additional time and trouble seeking the help of the Ombudsman on 20 October 2023.
  3. The landlord said that it would provide an information pack to the resident ahead of the stage 3 meeting on 14 December 2023. The records show that this did not happen and it caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. He told the landlord that he was frustrated by the poor communication, causing him a lack of faith in its ability to resolve his complaint.
  4. The landlord’s final response to its complaint handling failings earlier in its process was reasonable. It appropriately apologised for its poor complaint handling at stage 1. However, it did not fully address the resident’s time and trouble pursuing his complaints. It did not put things right for its lack of communication with the resident when escalating his complaints. The landlord did not reflect on its lack of response to the resident between October and December 2023.
  5. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Its 3-stage procedure at the time was unduly long. There was evidence of poor communication, contributing to the resident’s time and trouble throughout the timeline. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £720 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £670 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
      2. £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the balcony, inclusive of a fire rating of the balcony area. It should provide a copy of the inspection report and its plan to resolve any outstanding repairs to the resident and Ombudsman within 2 weeks of inspection.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.