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

Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202311582)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311582

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

10 January 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:

a.     Reports of repairs to security gates.

b.     Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been the shared owner of the property, a 2-bedroom flat within a block, with the housing association landlord, since April 2020. From the public pavement there is an outer security gate to gain entry to the communal area, and there is an inner security gate to access the block where the property is located.
  2. Both gates repeatedly break, due to mechanical failures and deliberate damage. The resident first reported a breakdown in 2021 and the instances have continued to the present day. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023 regarding the landlord’s delay in fixing one of the gates which had “been going on for months.”
  3. Despite acknowledging the complaint and promising a written response within 10 working days, the landlord never provided a stage 1 response. The resident continuously raised concerns and requested updates from the landlord without receiving a response or meaningful information.
  4. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 14 February 2023. This was not formally acknowledged until 21 March 2023 and the resident received a response on 9 June 2023. The landlord stated that it was repairing and maintaining the gates but the repairs did not last due to deliberate damage being caused. It accepted that it had not complied with its complaints policy and had not provided sufficient communication or updates to the resident. It offered £60 compensation and gave her the option of escalating her complaint to stage 3, which would involve a review of stage 2.
  5. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She seeks a long term solution for the gates, rather than numerous temporary repairs, and she wants the landlord to communicate its plan to achieve this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to security gates

  1. The evidence shows a long history of repairs and repeated occasions of the gates breaking. When the resident made the stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023 she stated a lack of urgency by the landlord in the months prior regarding fixing one of them. She said that, as a result of the courtyard being insecure, 4 residents’ bikes had been stolen. She was aware the repair had been passed to the contractor but no progress had been made or updates given. She wanted the landlord to call her to discuss the matter.
  2. Repair records show the landlord raising requests with the contractor on 17 and 24 January 2023, with repairs subsequently being completed on 18 January and 23 February 2023, but this was not communicated to the resident.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 when she had not received a stage 1 response, advising that the property remained insecure due to the gate being broken again. She was understandably frustrated when the landlord responded the following day to say she could escalate her complaint if she wished, without offering any update on the gate.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord a further 8 times up to April 2023, each time requesting an update about the repairs and highlighting its lack of communication. While the landlord responded on 3 occasions, this was only to acknowledge the resident’s emails and it did not provide any meaningful update. This resulted in the resident feeling frustrated and unable to progress matters.
  5. The resident stated that the lack of security had resulted in anti-social behaviour (ASB), such as graffiti and thefts. On 18 April 2023, she informed the landlord that, in addition to the outstanding broken gate, another gate had jammed shut so she could not leave the property. The landlord correctly recognised this as a safety hazard and instructed the contractor to attend quickly and remain until it was fixed. The contractor provided the landlord with photos and videos of the gate working the following day after repairs had been carried out. The landlord took appropriate action in this case. The resident highlighted that a long term solution was needed as there were obvious defects with the mechanisms for the gates to continue breaking.
  6. On 5 June 2023, the resident sent an email and photos to the landlord reporting a broken emergency exit button for the gate. As well as the property being insecure, the lack of a functioning exit button was a safety risk. The landlord forwarded this to the contractor the same day and asked for emergency attendance. The landlord also requested advice from an engineer about how to strengthen/tamper proof the gates as there were ongoing issues with them being damaged. The landlord acted appropriately in this instance and showed it was seeking a solution to the ongoing problem. The contractor attended the same day and found there was a fault on the controller for the inner gate, which they fixed. It also temporarily fixed the emergency button, as the glass casing had been smashed, but said a new one was required.
  7. The resident chased the landlord 3 times over the following days, asking for an update. Although the landlord was taking steps to repair the gates, it failed to explain this to the resident. If it had done so, it could have alleviated stress and worry for the resident as she would be aware that efforts were being made to address the issue. By not being told anything, the resident felt ignored and as if the landlord was not doing anything.
  8. The landlord did reply on 8 June 2023, stating that it was trying to investigate what would stop repeated deliberate damage. It was aware this sounded vague, but the damage to the gates was persistent and therefore fixes did not last. The resident disagreed that deliberate damage was the issue and questioned the overall quality of the gates.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 June 2023 it stated that it had reviewed the repairs history and liaised with the contractor. It provided the resident with a list of works to show the repair dates and action taken. It said one of the gates was still broken and it was waiting for a further report and quote regarding its repair. It said it would continue to monitor the situation until remedied.
  10. The landlord said it had been in regular attendance at the property, along with the contractor, but the repairs were not lasting because of mechanical issues and ASB. It concluded that it had fulfilled its responsibility in maintaining the gates and it would continue to do so. It acknowledged that it had not communicated with the resident effectively or provided updates. It apologised for the poor communication and said it had failed its complaints policy and service standards. The landlord stated that it had learnt lessons about how it must update residents and have open communication, as well as the importance of passing on updates from contractors and following it complaints policy. It offered £60 compensation (£15 per month for the 4-month delay in response). It was positive the landlord had recognised its service failure and how it needed to improve.
  11. On 13 June 2023 the contractor sent the landlord an engineer report and a video of the gate working, as well as a quote for the glass cover of the emergency exit button. A temporary repair had been made and a new glass cover was needed. The landlord approved this and raised a new repair order on 20 June 2023. This shows action being taken but there was still a failure to communicate it to the resident, as she contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023 to request an update when it was still not fixed.
  12. The resident also stated that the compensation offered did not cover the time and effort she had put in to attempting to get the landlord to resolve the issue. She noted that communication had not improved and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman the same day. She said her desired outcome was a long term fix for the gates and the landlord to communicate with residents about the repair plans.
  13. Throughout this time, there was regular contact between the landlord and the contractor. The landlord made numerous requests to the contractor for repair updates and the contractor identified that, even though repairs were successfully completed, more fixes were required due to ongoing vandalism. In August 2023 the landlord requested a quote for CCTV installation in an attempt to address this cause, but the CCTV was not installed until November 2023. While the timescale of this may have been due to the contractor, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure prompt action. The landlord appeared to be taking steps to address the overall matters, but an approximate delay of 3 months for CCTV was not helpful.
  14. Internal communication from the landlord showed senior management accepted that if a more robust or higher quality system had been installed originally, it may have withstood such damage. However it admitted it was reluctant to look at a full replacement system but would consider upgrading key parts. It is understandable the landlord was mindful of the cost of a system replacement, but the fact the gates have continuously broken over such a long period suggests that is a valid option. While it is not expected that the landlord could have prevented all breakdowns, the resident understandably wants to understand what the landlord is doing as a long term solution. She clearly finds it unacceptable that the problem has been ongoing for as long as it has.
  15. Where individual repairs were needed, the landlord has acted, but there is evidence service failure due to delays and a failure to keep the resident informed. The resident feels individual fixes are pointless when there is no long term, more permanent plan. She has felt increasingly frustrated and the amount of times she has had cause to contact the landlord about the same issue demonstrates the time and inconvenience it has cost her.
  16. Due to not feeling that she was being taken seriously, the resident contacted the landlord’s CEO in December 2023 and January 2024 to complain about the lack of responsibility taken and the lack of regard for residents’ safety. Despite internal communication with senior management and the contractor, showing that the landlord did attempt to repair breakages as they arose, the problems continued into 2024. In February 2024, the gate jammed preventing exit, which was a safety risk. In March 2024, a part of the gate was snapped off and the control box was damaged. CCTV did not appear to be providing a deterrent.
  17. There was an incident on 11 August 2024 where the police attended because people behaving aggressively entered the property and caused damage. The resident feels there is a direct link between the broken gates and instances of crime and ASB. The day after this, a collection of residents sent a joint email to the landlord informing it of the incident, stating the “root cause is the inadequate maintenance of our security systems” as the gates are consistently failing.
  18. On 20 December 2024 the resident informed this Service that the issues are still very much ongoing and on that day the outer gate was working but the inner gate was broken again due to a mechanical failure. This investigation cannot specify the exact repairs or permanent fix that is required to resolve the constant breakdowns and it is acknowledged that the landlord has made efforts to repair individual damages.
  19. However there was service failure in how the landlord has communicated with the resident about the ongoing, long term issue despite promising to improve communication and transparency in the stage 2 response in June 2023. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to provide the resident with a written action plan, with timescales, regarding a solution for the gates.

The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint

  1. The stage 1 complaint was made on 26 January 2023 and acknowledged on 31 January 2023, with the landlord stating it had been assigned to a staff member and a full written response would be provided by 14 February 2023. When the resident had not received a response by that date, she emailed to request an escalation.
  2. The landlord responded stating the complaint could be escalated, however this was without it issuing a stage 1 response. Not only did the landlord fail to provide a stage 1 response at all, it did not escalate the matter within the required timescales despite numerous requests from the resident. The stage 2 complaint was formally acknowledged on 21 March 2023 and a response was provided on 9 June 2023.
  3. The fact that the landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response at all was a failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (sections 1.37 to 1.45). This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord’s policy states a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days of the complaint. In this case, the resident was not provided with a response until 79 working days later. This alone would have presented a service failure but as it was an extension of the poor complaint handling already evidenced above, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the formal complaint overall.
  5. The £60 compensation offered does not accurately reflect the time, stress and effort given by the resident in chasing the landlord for responses and it is not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such a finding. An award of £200 compensation is considered more appropriate to reflect the level of stress, time and inconvenience the resident has evidently endured.
  6. The Code states that a landlord’s complaint handling process should not have more than 2 stages. In this case, the landlord signposted the resident to stage 3. While the landlord did advise that this would not restrict the option of taking it to the Ombudsman, it does not adhere to the Code and can present confusion to residents.
  7. The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. As this investigation has identified a failure in compliance, it will be referred to the Ombudsman’s duty to monitor team who will follow up with the landlord to ensure its policy and process is compliant with the Code. There is, therefore, no separate order made in that regard.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the security gates.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to provide an action plan of what is being done to manage the functionality of the security gates long term, with associated timescales.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The £60 offered during the complaints process can be deducted from this sum if already paid.