Anchor Hanover Group (202210360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210360

Anchor Hanover Group

18 April 2024

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy at the property which is a 1st floor studio flat. He has lived at the property since 2011. Whilst not specifically stated, it can reasonably be concluded from the description of the property in correspondence from the landlord that the property is what it classifies as a “retirement housing” scheme. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states as follows:
1. It defines ASB as “behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others”. It gives examples including rowdy behaviour and criminal behaviour.
2. Its retirement housing is multi-generational and diverse. This combined with the pressures of living in a communal setting can lead to disputes.
3. It aims to understand and resolve reports of ASB in a timely manner, applying an approach that allows for monitoring.
4. When ASB reports are received it will work to resolve the issue in a prompt and efficient manner.
5. Where possible it will take part in multi-agency partnerships such as the police and local safeguarding teams when responding to ASB incidents involving vulnerable people.
6. Once it receives a case of ASB it will acknowledge it within 1 working day.
7. The location manager will “use” the customer relations team to make an impartial investigation. Its aim is to support both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator of ASB in gathering evidence.
8. If a case of ASB is not resolved immediately, it may provide the reporting resident with an incident diary.
9. Where an investigation finds that there is a case to answer, it will take action proportionate to the ASB. This could include a warning letter.
10. It will only engage its ASB procedure where the customer relations team considers there to be ASB. Where neighbourly disputes do not involve ASB, residents are encouraged to resolve these between themselves if possible.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

On 6 July 2022 the resident submitted a report of ASB to the landlord (which he referred to as a complaint) and stated as follows:
1. Following a meeting with residents, the landlord had agreed to return a recently moved bench to its original position at the front of the building.
2. He had subsequently seen another tenant (referred to in this report as tenant A) move the bench back. When he challenged tenant A about this, tenant A became verbally abusive and approached him in a threatening manner. When the resident tried to move the bench back, tenant A “grabbed” the bench and threw it to the ground.
3. Tenant A had a history of ASB and such behaviour was a breach of their tenancy.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord spoke to other residents of the scheme and took statements from them in respect of the incident.
In internal correspondence from 11 July 2022 the landlord noted that it had completed an initial risk assessment and impact assessment. It requested the matter be investigated and an action plan completed. On 15 July 2022 it noted that the action plan had been agreed to establish mutual respect among the resident and tenant A to ensure both parties were safe.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 July 2022 and advised it had not been able to contact him by telephone. It stated that it wanted to discuss the incident with him and that it relied upon the resident’s cooperation in the investigation. It contacted him again on 20 July 2022 and asked if he could share his version of events. The resident responded the same day and stated as follows:
1. He advised the landlord that he would not accept telephone communication. He would only accept written correspondence however if an email or letter was signed off to include personal pronouns, he would bock or reject it.
2. He had already outlined his version.
3. Due to the time since he submitted his complaint, he considered it to be at stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
4. Tenant A was violent and had been seen by another resident carrying a hammer and issuing “vague threats” whilst drunk. He had also been seen to fall down stairs.
5. In the last week tenant A had been heard yelling abusively at a neighbour and “violently expressing” his discontent at residents talking.
6. Tenant A’s conduct had escalated over the years due to the landlord’s repeated failure to take effective action. Tenant A represented a real threat to residents’ safety. Nothing other than eviction would solve the issue.
On 21 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had spoken to tenant A. They had advised that the bench had been moved to under their window making it difficult to sleep. They had tried to move the bench and had been confronted by the resident. There was subsequently an exchange of words between them.
That same day (21 July 2022) the landlord advised the resident that the investigation was ongoing. It advised him to try to avoid interaction with tenant A.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had agreed to move the bench to a “neutral position” away from tenant A’s window.
The landlord noted internally on 3 August 2022 that it had liaised with the police in respect of the matter and that it would issue a warning letter to the resident and tenant A. This letter was issued on 4 August 2022 and stated as follows:
1. It had investigated both sides of the matter. In future, they should not confront or engage with the other party.
2. It would monitor the matter and advised the parties to contact the police with neighbourhood disputes.
3. The complaint had been closed.
On 8 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He rejected the response.
2. It had trivialised the incident which was “irresponsible and highly inappropriate”.
3. Tenant A was a serious and ongoing threat to the emotional and physical wellbeing of residents.
4. The landlord’s attempt to deflect the blame onto him demonstrated its unwillingness to accept responsibility.
5. As the matter was a complaint, it should be addressed at stage 2.
6. The landlord had a contractual obligation to ensure his safety and a common law duty of care. If the situation escalated, he would consider the landlord to be criminally negligent.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 August 2022 and stated that the landlord had failed to follow its complaints process and had closed his complaint. That same day he submitted a complaint to the landlord in respect of it having closed his complaint.
This Service advised the resident on 16 August 2022 that incidents of ASB would not be considered within a landlord’s formal complaints procedure, and would instead be dealt with under an ASB procedure. It advised that the resident could raise a complaint if he did not feel the landlord had responded appropriately to his report of ASB. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord that same day. He stated that the warning would not be effective and that eviction of tenant A was the only solution.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 August 2022. It advised that the complaint from 6 July 2022 had been dealt with as a report of ASB under its ASB procedure.
On 19 August 2022 the resident added to his complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord’s correspondence had suggested that he was equally culpable along with tenant A in respect of the incident. He rejected this.
2. As the incident had taken place in a communal area, he regarded the landlord as liable for physical or emotional damage that he had suffered.
3. His warning letter should be withdrawn and the landlord should apologise for having issued it. He stated the warning letter was “evidencing discriminatory conduct” by the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 25 August 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The investigation had been carried out by a nominated local manager for fairness and an unbiased conclusion. They, with the schemes local manager, had visited the property and had spoken to residents about the incident. They had also worked closely with the police to ascertain whether a criminal offence had been committed.
2. The police and its investigating office had found no evidence of criminal behaviour and the police advised it was an altercation. As a result, a warning letter was sent to both parties and the ASB case was closed.
3. As part of the recommendations from the investigation, the bench had been placed at a neutral location.
4. It advised that the resident could submit reports of any further incidents and that the case could be re-opened but this would require cooperation from the resident which may include a face-to-face interview.
5. It provided escalation information.
On 14 September 2022 the resident advised that he had not had a response to his complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case.
The following day (15 September 2022) the resident reported further ASB from Tenant A on behalf of another resident. He stated that his report was a stage 1 complaint. He had been informed that tenant A had been banging on the ceiling, swearing and threatening to come down to the communal lounge.
On 17 September 2022 the resident contacted this Service and stated that the landlord had not responded to his complaints.
The landlord re-sent the stage 1 response (from 25 August 2022) to the resident on 26 September 2022.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB report on behalf of another resident (from 15 September 2022) and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the report.
2. The allegation would be investigated. It enclosed an ASB help sheet which explained how it managed such reports.
3. It attached an incident diary for the resident to record any future incidents of ASB. It asked him to complete this to aid its investigation.
4. It advised that it may be unable to disclose specific details about any actions it may take but stated that it took as such ASB complaints seriously.
On 5 October 2022 the resident reiterated that the landlord had not responded to his complaint about the handling of the ASB from 16 August 2022.
On 11 October 2022 the resident reported further ASB from Tenant A on behalf of another resident. He stated that tenant A had been seen shouting at another tenant and at a contractor.
On 13 October 2022 the police advised the resident and the landlord that it had spoken to tenant A and he had denied allegations and had advised that other residents were “picking” on him. It noted some vulnerabilities for tenant A and advised that it would monitor the block and “step up patrols”.
On 18 October 2022 this Service asked the landlord to provide a copy of its stage 1 response to the resident by 1 November 2022.
On 21 October 2022 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It had responded to his complaint (of 16 August 2022) on 25 August 2022. It had re-sent this to the resident on 26 September 2022. It enclosed another copy of the response.
2. It noted that the resident had stated he had blocked emails from its customer relations team. To ensure communications were received in the future it would send all communication via the postal service.
On 17 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and stated as follows:
1. There had been “persistent offending” by tenant A over at least 12 years. His behaviour therefore warranted a more ‘serious’ response.
2. The investigation carried out by a nominated local manager could not be said to be fair or unbiased. He had no trust in the impartiality of the investigation and would not “consider for a moment” a face-to face meeting with the landlord.
3. The landlord had repeatedly shown a “complete lack of interest” in his welfare and had persistently failed to abide by the terms of the tenancy agreement relating to ASB. It had disregarded its common law duty of care and its actions would amount to criminal negligence.
4. He stated that in the circumstances he should not be required to escalate his complaint to stage 2 and he requested the landlord to refer the matter to this Service.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It had taken the ASB report seriously and the investigation had been thorough. It had included it taking statements from both parties and witnesses. The police had advised there was no further action required at the time. Having concluded the investigation, it considered it proportionate and reasonable to issue both parties with warning letters. This warning letter would not be retracted.
2. Should there be potential criminal behaviour, it would always suggest that the police be contacted. It would continue to monitor the situation and should there be further incidents, it would take appropriate action.
3. The staff member who had undertaken the investigation was independent. It considered this was a fair approach to dealing with the ASB reports.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had declined any face-to-face meetings however it offered a meeting with its new Area Manager to discuss the resident’s concerns.
On 5 March 2023 the resident emailed the police on behalf of another resident and copied the landlord in. He stated that tenant A had complained about noise from a Christmas party. On another occasion he had turned Christmas tree lights off and had been verbally abusive to a tenant who approached him about his actions. He reiterated that tenant A should be evicted.
The police advised the landlord on 7 March 2023 that it had arranged to meet with the residents.
On 10 March 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He stated as follows:
1. ASB had been ongoing for around 12 years.
2. The landlord had given tenant A a warning but had not implemented other more stringent measures. The landlord was in breach of its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement and had failed in its common law duty of care.
3. The landlord had refused to rescind his warning letter. He stated his demand for it to do so remained.
4. The review had been carried out by landlord employee so was not independent or unbiased.
5. The landlord had not followed its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident has referred to ASB having occurred for around 12 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, will only focus on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint (August 2022).
The landlord issued its stage 2 response in December 2022. The resident subsequently raised concerns about tenant A in March 2023. However, in the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about this more recent concern and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if he is dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.

Response to the resident’s report of ASB

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether tenant A, or the resident, is responsible for ASB. This investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances. The landlord must consider its obligation as a landlord to treat allegations from all its residents in a consistent and evidence-led way. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against tenant A.
Following the resident’s ASB report on 6 July 2022 of being involved with an altercation with tenant A, the landlord took the following action:
1. It allocated the investigation to a different local manager.
2. It spoke to other residents of the scheme and took statements from them in respect of the incident.
3. It completed an initial risk assessment, impact assessment and action plan. It noted that its aim in doing so was to establish mutual respect among the resident and tenant A and to ensure both parties were safe.
4. It attempted to contact the resident to discuss the matter by telephone and email.
5. Whilst the investigation was ongoing, it advised the resident to avoid interaction with tenant A.
6. It spoke to tenant A who accepted that there had been an exchange of words between them and the resident.
7. It took action to resolve the cause of the altercation and moved the bench.
8. It liaised with the police to determine if there had been any criminal behaviour.
9. It issued both parties with a warning letter.
It is noted that the landlord’s ASB policy states that it will acknowledge the report of ASB within 1 working day. No written evidence has been seen of it having done so, however it is noted that the landlord had tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident to discuss the matter.
The subsequent actions taken by the landlord (outlined above) were in line with its ASB policy and demonstrated that the landlord had taken an unbiased approach and had sought to understand the views of both parties. It carried out a risk assessment, investigated the matter, worked with the police and concluded its investigation in line with its findings. In addition it kept the resident updated and managed his expectations. It took such steps prior to deciding to issue the warning letters, which it did as a result of its investigation. Whilst this Service cannot assess what happened during the incident, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on police advice that the incident was an altercation and did not involve criminal behaviour. As such, the warning letters to each party were appropriate in the circumstances as the landlord had made an informed decision based upon the evidence it had obtained whilst progressing the case through its ASB procedure.
Following further reports of ASB which the resident had submitted on behalf of other residents, the landlord advised him to record future incidents in an incident diary and provided this to him. This was reasonable and was in line with its ASB procedure.
Within its review of its handling of the ASB report at stage 2, the landlord offered for its new area manager to meet with the resident to discuss his concerns. This offer was reasonable and appropriate as away to try to manage the ongoing residents’ relationships within the scheme.
In summary, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy in responding to the incident. It demonstrated that it had undertaken a fair and unbiased investigation into the incident and took the representations of both parties into account. It acted reasonably in tasking an independent manager to conduct the review and appropriately liaised with the police. Its outcome of the investigation, namely moving the bench and issuing both parties with a warning, was a reasonable approach to try to prevent such instances occurring in the future. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to ASB.

Complaint handling

It must be noted that there is a difference between raising a formal complaint and reporting an incident of ASB. In this case on 16 August 2022, the resident reported an ASB incident. The landlord is not expected to raise this as a complaint as it needs the opportunity to respond to the incident as an ASB case before being able to investigate its response and the handling of the reported ASB.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint submitted on 19 August 2022 within 5 working days (25 August 2022). This was within the timeframe of 10 working days as set out in its complaints policy. It is noted that the resident advised the landlord at the bottom of the majority of his emails, that he had blocked email addresses from the landlord if they included staff members personal pronouns. Given that all of the resident’s communication with the landlord throughout the events had been via email, it was reasonable for the landlord to send the stage 1 response via email. When the resident advised that he had not received it, it re-sent the response on a further 2 occasions (26 September and 21 October 2022).
The resident indicated his disagreement with the stage 1 response on 17 November 2022 and the landlord appropriately considered this to be an escalation request. It subsequently responded at stage 2 on 15 December 2022. This was within the 20 working day timeframe as outlined in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaint responses were provided in line with its complaints policy and addressed the issues raised within the resident’s complaint. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the report of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handing.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the report of ASB in in with its ASB policy. It appropriately considered the reports from both parties, spoke to independent witnesses and liaised with the police prior to reaching its decision.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint and did so in line with its complaints policy.