Anchor Hanover Group (202004280)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004280

Anchor Hanover Group

16 June 2022

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 being bullied by another resident.

Background

2. At the time of the complaint the resident was a tenant of the landlord and lived in a studio flat in a retirement housing scheme. In the evidence, the resident’s building is described as having communal areas shared by other tenants, such as a communal lounge.
3. In December 2020 the resident was asked by the landlord to provide a statement about an incident he had witnessed between several of his fellow residents the day before. He provided the statement, and added that since a previous incident in November, one of the residents involved (‘the neighbour’) “‘sent me to Coventry’ after the incident of 18/11/20 – and I’m still there! It’s a particularly unpleasant thing to do.” It is assumed that his comment meant that the neighbour was ostracising the resident, i.e. not talking to him.,.
4. An internal email amongst the landlord’s officers in early August 2021 refers to the resident reporting that the neighbour was ignoring him despite his efforts to be polite, which the resident considered to be bullying and a hate crime. The impact being that the resident felt awkward to use communal areas while the neighbour was present.
5. Mediation was arranged for the resident and neighbour, coordinated by the landlord. It did not go ahead as an additional person had been invited, which the resident did not agree with. On 12 August the resident made what he called a “formal complaint” about the neighbour’s actions and behaviour. He gave no specific details of any bullying incidents, except for the incident in November 2020, and complained about the inappropriateness of the additional person invited to the mediation session by the landlord.
6. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with him, at which time he raised a recent incident where the resident said the neighbour had sworn at him.
7. On 21 August the resident sent the landlord a complaint about a letter he received in relation to his bullying allegations. The letter was sent by a staff member who the resident did not believe should be involved (this letter was not seen in the evidence).
8. The landlord addressed the resident’s email of 12 August 2021 using its complaints process, and sent its stage one complaint response on 7 September 2021. It said that it understood his complaint to be about the neighbour ignoring the resident, and the swearing incident. The landlord noted that there were conflicting accounts of what had led to the swearing incident in the communal lounge. It explained that the neighbour acknowledged swearing at the resident, and said it reminded the neighbour this was unacceptable. The landlord said it had considered the possibility of further mediation, but the neighbour had not agreed to this. It explained that it did not expect everybody at the scheme to “get on and be friends”, and asked that the resident not engage with or confront the neighbour.
9. The resident reported a further dispute to the landlord about the neighbour on 19 September 2021. This was following the neighbour objecting to receiving a group email sent by the resident. The landlord had subsequently asked the resident not to include the neighbour in future correspondence. The resident felt the landlord’s actions made it complicit in the bullying. He said his health and sleep had been affected as a result and requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss a resolution. The landlord decided to treat this as an escalation of the resident’s complaint.
10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 15 December 2021. It noted that it had hoped to meet with the resident, but the resident felt this was not necessary. The landlord said having reviewed the matter, it considered the issue to be a neighbour dispute. It explained that the neighbour had chosen to not communicate with the resident, and the landlord could not force him to.. It advised it did not believe its intervention in neighbour disputes was always necessary as it was better to allow people time to reflect and work matters out between themselves. The landlord acknowledged that its previous communications with the resident were heavy-handed, and apologised for that. It confirmed that its complaints process had been completed and included referral details for this Service.
11. Following communication with this Service, the landlord decided it missed an opportunity to offer the resident compensation. It wrote to him and offered compensation of £100, in light of its poor communication.. The resident did not accept this, and as an outcome he wanted the landlord to take further action to deal with bullying and reconsider its final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord has an antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy which refers to neighbour disputes. It says the landlord will only engage its ASB policy where it considers that ASB has occurred. It states that where neighbourly disputes do not involve ASB, residents are encouraged to resolve these matters between themselves if possible. The policy lists bullying as potentially being ASB, but in the context of intimidation or verbal abuse.
13. In response to the resident’s report to the landlord about what he saw as bullying by his neighbour it arranged mediation between the two. That was a reasonable response, as mediation is one of the actions suggested by its ASB policy, and it provided a potential opportunity for the two to discuss their situation and reach a resolution in a moderated and organised environment.
14. The resident complained to the landlord that it allowed the inclusion of an additional person, whom the resident considered inappropriate. The landlord did not respond to this point, which was a failing, as basic complaint handling calls for a complaint response to address (in some form) each of the issues of complaint raised. However, the resident did not raise the issue again in his subsequent complaint, indicating that the matter had been resolved for him. For the issue to be considered further in this investigation it would need to have been included in the resident’s escalated complaint.
15. In response to the swearing incident the landlord discussed the matter with both parties, and explained to the resident that the neighbour perceived what had happened differently. Nonetheless, the landlord warned the neighbour about his behaviour and its impact, which was a reasonable response because it made clear the boundaries of what behaviour was and was not acceptable for residents.
16. In one of the landlord’s discussions with the resident the resident clarified his complaint about the letter he received. In its final complaint response the landlord explained that it understood his concern to be that the letter was left at his flat while he was out, rather than being emailed to him or delivered to him in person, which he had said was the usual way. The landlord acknowledged that the letter should have been discussed with the resident prior to sending it. It apologised, and explained that the lessons learnt had been fed back to the staff involved. In the circumstances, the landlord’s acknowledgement that the issue could have been handled better, and its commitment to learning from it was reasonable, and a proportionate response to the resident’s concern. The resident’s overall concern, as reported to the landlord, was that the neighbour was ignoring and ostracising him. The landlord concluded that while the matter was clearly an issue of concern for the resident, it did not constitute ASB, and was more appropriately described as a neighbour dispute, which it would not usually become significantly involved with. The landlord’s decision was reasonable because it reflected the nature of the matter complained about (i.e. that the neighbour was not talking to the resident), and followed its ASB policy.
17. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response, how the actions or inactions of its staff may have contributed to the situation between the resident and his neighbour. Following its stage two response, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered a compensation award of £100 in light of its inappropriate communication.
18. The resident’s concerns and frustrations with his relationship with the neighbour are very clear from his correspondence. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence indicates there was any specific action available to the landlord to help resolve the situation, other that the steps it did take (i.e. suggesting mediation, and warning the neighbour following the swearing incident). The landlord clearly explained that it had concluded the matter was a neighbour dispute rather than ASB, and therefore not one it could assist further with. It acknowledged, apologised, and compensated for its own actions on some occasions giving the impression to the resident that it was acting inappropriately, and nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation suggests that the landlord’s overall handling and conclusions were unreasonable. Any specific faults in its handling of matters were appropriately remedied by the landlord in its final complaint response and after.
19. The resident explained, in his information to this Service, that he disagreed with the landlord describing the matter as a neighbour dispute, because he did not feel that he had done anything to warrant the neighbour’s behaviour. However, referring to the matter in this way is not uncommon when there is no ASB involved, and using the phrase in no way assigns responsibility to either or both parties involved. The landlord’s description was relevant and appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.