Anchor Hanover Group (202012089)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012089

Anchor Hanover Group

3 September 2021

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 response to the resident’s dispute about the allegation that he had been rude and aggressive towards staff.

Background and summary of events

2. The landlord provides residential and care homes and is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of the block. The tenancy began in November 2018 and includes a support element.
3. On 17 June 2020 the resident and landlord’s scheme manager, who was new in post, had a discussion about various housing issues (eg the window cleaning services). There was an incident of alleged anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’), described by the landlord as rude and aggressive behaviour by the resident towards the scheme manager. The resident has disputed this and denied the allegation.
4. On the same day (17 June 2020), the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that he had met the manager that day, the manager could not answer the resident’s question about window cleaning and service charges. The resident requested that there be no allegation of ASB (against him), as he was merely asking a question (about why the windows were not being washed when he pays for this service). The resident queried the level of service received under the manager for the past eight weeks.
5. The evidence seen shows the landlord’s ASB action plan in June 2020 in response to the incident which includes logging and beginning the ASB investigation and notes about witness statements.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 18 June 2020 and said it would be in touch. On 19 June 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response. As part of the response, the landlord outlined its normal process for introducing residents to the new staff and the new scheme manager’s start date (6 April). The landlord explained that the scheme manager had called residents to introduce himself but that the resident advised that he did not wish for the staff member to make further calls to him. It also explained that following this, the manager was on site for one of the first times in June and that this followed the Covid-19 interruptions of services, including the work from home guidance.
7. In respect of the alleged ASB incident, the landlord’s stage one response stated “I am advised (and it was witnessed) that you were extremely rude and aggressive towards him. This matter has been logged as alleged anti-social behaviour and will be investigated by the Area Manager. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that we operate a zero tolerance approach to the abuse of staff and are treating this incident with the significance it warrants”.
8. The landlord also responded to the resident’s window cleaning query; the staff had been furloughed and it had not provided the usual monthly cleaning service. It said residents had not been invoiced and this would be reflected in the service charge. It also explained that since the old scheme manager had left there was still the services of a scheme manager available, though at different hours and it explained the cost reasoning behind this as well as stating that “any variance in the cost…will be reflected in your year-end accounts”. It provided the contact details if the resident remained dissatisfied.
9. On the same day (19 June 2020), the regional manager contacted the resident in writing. The landlord outlined the timeline of the new scheme manager’s time in post and his actions taken in response to the resident’s request (that he was not to call the resident again via the warden system after he initially did so). The landlord went on to provide a list of responses to various points which the resident had asked about. The landlord iterated its stage one response about the window cleaning services (that these will not be charged to residents whilst the cleaning service had not been attended).
10. The resident escalated the complaint on 24 June 2020 for the matter relating to the alleged ASB.
11. The resident disputed that he was rude or aggressive, stating that “this is completely untrue”, he denied the allegation and said he could not have such an allegation being said about him with no evidence. He disagreed with the investigation by an area manager (as set out in stage one) and instead said this would require someone senior and mature to intervene. On 29 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again and disputed the ASB, stating that this seemed to be the default position any time someone “with substance” challenged or queried the service and standards.
12. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 June 2020 and explained that it would review the complaint and respond within 14 days. On 3 July 2020 the resident made further contact about the allegations and said he had no option but to seek legal advice. On 8 July 2020 the landlord considered internally the points the resident raised regarding his complaint.
13. On 16 July 2020 the landlord issued a stage two final response. It covered several points regarding separate issues.
14. In relation to the complaint which the resident escalated to the Ombudsman about the report of ASB against him, the landlord said that the complaint about his behaviour towards staff was under investigation and it would not be appropriate to comment until that process was complete.
15. It considered that all of the resident’s concerns were addressed and it had acted fairly, with impartiality and within the normal framework. It outlined the preferred contact methods (to be directed to the customer relations team). It concluded by stating that the resident has the right to ask for an independent review of the complaint, by the Designated Person or Housing Ombudsman.
16. After the conclusion of the complaint process, on 22 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about his continued dissatisfaction. The resident explained that:
    1. He had this “unevidenced allegation” hanging over him for months.
    2. There was no investigation or follow up and this caused him stress, strain and anxiety.
    3. He requested for the landlord either prove its allegation or withdraw this with a full apology and in which case the resident said he retained the right to a defamation and compensation.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on the same day and explained that it would respond in due course. The evidence seen shows that the landlord asked for this to be logged and a response to be sent.
18. On 25 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident:
    1. It apologised for the time taken to conclude the investigation into the alleged ASB. It explained this was due to the pandemic’s impact on the business and the witness being undecided in making a formal statement.
    2. The ASB was logged and was closed.
    3. It reiterated a previous communication that it had sent to the resident which was that it operates a zero tolerance approach to abuse and if there were further reports of ASB then it would re-open the case.
    4. It invited the resident to contact it if he wanted to discuss any aspect of the response.
19. The resident and landlord exchanged further correspondence in October 2020. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his concern over the allegation, the lack of contact to the resident during the investigation (such as to carry out an interview) and the fairness of the investigation. The landlord upheld its previous decision and explained that the complaint and case was closed. The landlord confirmed that its letter of 25 September 2020 outlined its conclusion of the investigation into the alleged ASB and it was satisfied that the investigation was “robustly completed, and witness statements obtained which confirmed the allegations made by (member of staff)”. It iterated its advice that the complaint was closed and the previous advice on where to direct contact about further issues or unanswered questions.
20. Following further exchanges of correspondence in November 2020 about the management of contact and the resident’s repeated concerns about the complaint, the landlord offered an explanation to the resident about its ASB investigation (which had since closed). It explained that normally, it would speak to all the parties when investigating an allegation of ASB, however, in this instance the report was made by staff and witnessed. It explained that it considered due to previous and current behaviour towards staff it was not appropriate or necessary to discuss this with the resident.
21. In January 2021 the resident outlined his outstanding concerns to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
    1. The resident complained that he never had sight of the landlord’s evidence (a contractor’s statement) and instead heard this himself from the contractor, who had reportedly said that the resident had not shouted, raised his hand, sworn or threatened.
    2. The resident disputed that he was rude or aggressive to the landlord’s staff and was dissatisfied that the landlord continued to uphold the allegation without contacting him for his version of events. The resident explained that he was a victim of the landlord’s intimidation.
    3. The resident said that at no stage did the landlord’s staff contact the resident to discuss the original complaint made against him. There was no opportunity to hear his side or take his plea, and the landlord acted unilaterally. The resident disputed once more that he had been rude or aggressive towards the landlord’s staff.
22. In August 2021 the resident stated that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate and rule on his original complaint against the landlord.

Assessment and findings

23. The tenancy agreement requires for the resident “not to intimidate or act (or threaten to act) aggressively or violently towards any of our tenants, agents, employees or contractors”. The landlord’s inappropriate behaviour guidance states that the landlord will decide if action needs to be taken in line with Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) policies and procedure. The landlord has cited its “zero tolerance” approach to abuse of staff to the resident in its communications.
24. The original report of the alleged ASB has not been seen, instead the resident and landlord have both referred to the interaction between the resident and the new housing scheme manager on 17 June 2020. The resident emailed the landlord that same day and requested that it not say his behaviour was ASB, the landlord’s records refer to the resident’s reported behaviour and that this was witnessed. It is therefore not disputed that an incident took place, the outstanding dispute is whether this was ASB or not.
25. The Ombudsman cannot determine if the disputed allegation (that the resident was rude and aggressive) is true or false, and therefore whether this was ASB or not. Instead, the Ombudsman has considered if the landlord has handled the resident’s complaint about the allegation reasonably and appropriately with reference to the expectations of the parties under the tenancy agreement and relevant guidance.
26. In line with the expectation of tenants under the tenancy agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an investigation once it was aware of a report of aggressive behaviour. The evidence seen shows that it logged an ASB case and recorded that there were several witness statements in June 2020. It then closed the case three months later in September 2020. It apologised and explained the delay to the resident. No formal action was taken. There is very limited evidence into the landlord’s investigation and its use of evidence, including its decision to close the case with no formal action. Based on the available evidence, it was not unreasonable or inappropriate for the landlord to take the reports about the resident’s behaviour seriously enough to take the initial steps to investigate it, regardless of the resident’s view about his behaviour. Accordingly, there is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in its investigation, especially as the case was subsequently closed without any formal tenancy action being taken.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s dispute about the allegation that he had been rude and aggressive towards staff.

Reasons

28. The Ombudsman has not investigated if the allegation against the resident was true or not, it has considered if the landlord acted reasonably in response to this. The expectations of the resident are set out in the tenancy agreement. It was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to investigate its staff’s report of ASB from a tenant, in this case it closed the case with no formal action taken. It is noted that the resident explained that the allegation was unfounded and the investigation unfair. However, there is no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.