Anchor Hanover Group (202210139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210139

Anchor Hanover Group

5 October 2023

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. The resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   2. Its decision to let a property to the alleged perpetrator.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident was the secure tenant of a first floor one-bedroom flat, let to him in September 2021. He moved out of the property in February 2023 having made reports of ASB against his downstairs neighbour.
3. On 10 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord stating that the neighbour had attended his property in a drunken state. He added that the man had been verbally abusive and had made comments designed to physically intimidate him. He was left in fear of an assault. The landlord advised the resident to report the matter to the police. It then made contact with the neighbour and sent a letter advising the neighbour to stay away from the resident. It also sent the same letter to the resident advising him to keep his distance from the neighbour.
4. The resident was unhappy with this development. He considered the landlord was “impugning his character”. He felt he could prove what had happened and that he was not the aggressor. Between April 2022 and October 2022 the resident made a further four reports of overhearing bad language from the neighbour – although it was not directed at him.
5. The resident requested that his initial report of 10 March 2022 be treated as “a complaint.” On 19 March 2022, after receiving the landlord’s letter, the resident stated that he wanted his complaint to be escalated to a residents’ panel. The landlord offered its apologies in respect of the letter agreeing that, with hindsight, its tone had been inappropriate given the neighbour had been the one to approach the resident and not the other way around.
6. The resident then expanded on his complaint, asserting that the neighbour should never had been offered a tenancy by the landlord in the first place. He argued that had he been refused then the incident would never have occurred. The landlord responded that it could not share any information with the resident regarding its decision making process due to data protection/confidentiality reasons. Finally, the resident escalated his complaint to an independent customer complaints panel, which concluded that the landlord had acted reasonably and appropriately.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this service for investigation. By way of resolution he wants financial redress to compensate him for the inconvenience of living with this neighbour. He has suggested that a full rent rebate should be given from 10 March 2022 onwards.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report of anti-social behaviour.

8. The landlord’s approach to handling reports of ASB is set out in its “Anti Social Behaviour Helpsheet”. This defines ASB as “behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others” and confirms that “intimidation, bullying or verbal abuse” is included in that definition. The landlord commits to supporting both alleged victim and perpetrator and to ensure investigations are impartial.
9. The landlord confirms that it will liaise with other agencies, such as the police and if its investigation finds there is “a case to answer” it will take action proportionate to the behaviour complained of. This includes sending warning letters and organizing acceptable behaviour contracts. Possession proceedings can also be considered.
10. In terms of timescale, the landlord commits to acknowledging receipt of reports within one working day and carrying out an investigation within two weeks, although it notes that subsequent action “may take much longer”.
11. In this case the resident emailed the landlord within 30 minutes of the incident on Thursday, 10 March 2022. He also spoke to its customer relations team by telephone and was advised to report the matter to the police, which he did.
12. The landlord then referred the matter to its estates manager who spoke with the resident the following day, that is on the Friday. The landlord therefore acknowledged the report within one working day which was appropriate to its policy.
13. The landlord then had up to two weeks to investigate. It asked the resident to provide a written statement which, again, he complied with straightaway. On the following Monday, 14 March 2022 the landlord spoke with the neighbour. He admitted a “heated discussion” had taken place but denied threatening the resident.
14. The landlord concluded the police needed to handle what amounted to allegations of criminal behaviour from there. Its policy allows for the involvement of other agencies and, again, this was appropriate.
15. The landlord emailed the resident on that Monday, 14 March 2022 asking if there had been any further problems and confirming the area manager would be advised of these developments. The resident confirmed that nothing further had happened. The landlord demonstrated concern for the resident’s wellbeing by taking this action.
16. By Friday, 18 March 2022, just over one week after the incident, the landlord had concluded its own investigation and determined there were no witnesses and it was one resident’s word against another’s. It therefore sent a letter to both sides. This stated as follows:

“We cannot expect everybody to get on and be friends with each other, however, we do not expect this behaviour from either party to continue. We therefore respectfully ask that in future you do not confront or otherwise engage with the other neighbour in question. We will also be issuing a similar letter to the other party involved advising them of the same and requesting the same co-operation from them”.

17. The letter confirmed that the landlord would monitor the situation but the report itself was now being treated as closed. It provided contact details for further assistance.
18. Given the lack of independent evidence and the involvement of the police, the landlord’s assessment that it had taken all proportionate steps to handle the situation was a reasonable one. It was also appropriate to its policy.
19. The resident has questioned whether the landlord’s decision to issue him with a letter was reasonable. He points to the fact the neighbour approached him/his property. He considers that that fact, along with his word of what happened, proves who was to blame on “the balance of probabilities” – a legal term meaning it is more likely than not or to put it another way, it is 51% or more certain.
20. The landlord responded that it was hampered in its investigation by the lack of witnesses and whilst the tone/wording of the letter could have been better (for which it apologised), it was still reasonable that it had sent it to both sides.
21. The landlord’s policy requires it to be impartial in its investigations. It does not automatically assume that the resident making the report of ASB is the victim of it. Typically, such an approach will be adopted by landlords because (a) malicious allegations can be made (there is no suggestion that was the case here) and (b) sometimes alleged perpetrators can be vulnerable people themselves. Their behaviour can reflect difficulties they are experiencing – for example with mental health, addictions, or financial pressures. It was reasonable that the landlord took a neutral tone.
22. Following this initial report, the resident made four further reports of overhearing the neighbour swearing, shouting or being abusive. These were in April, May, September, and October 2022. These incidents were not, however, specifically directed at the resident and were not in his presence. One was directed at a fellow resident and another at a tradesman working in his neighbour’s property. The landlord acknowledged these reports. Whilst it has produced evidence from which it can be noted that it was taking action against this neighbour, it did not actively disclose or discuss its steps with this resident. Given the fact that the behaviour was directed elsewhere, and owing to data protection requirements, the landlord’s approach was reasonable.
23. In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable and appropriate. It was understandable that it sent a letter to both sides relating to the 10 March 2022 incident. It is important to note that that letter appears to have had the desired effect as far as this resident is concerned in that there is no suggestion the neighbour approached him again after it was sent. Whilst the landlord accepts the wording of the letter might have been better, this was not so significant as to constitute a service failing and the landlord apologised and offered reassurance in any event.
24. Finally, for the sake of completeness, given no finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report, no remedy can be offered – for example by way of a rent rebate/reduction, which had been requested by the resident.

Its decision to let a property to the alleged perpetrator.

25. The resident maintains that if the neighbour had not been allocated his tenancy, the incident he complained of would not have happened. He considers that the landlord failed to carry out “due diligence” before agreeing the neighbour could have the tenancy in January 2022. He argues that the neighbour had been accused of a sexual assault when visiting the property before he started living there and the landlord should have taken this into account. He also states that the neighbour did not live at his property for a qualifying period before the tenant (his relative) died – and should not have been allocated it under succession provisions.
26. The landlord responded that it could not discuss its decision-making process for another tenant with the resident. The situation was discussed in a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 6 April 2022 at which point the issue was raised. The landlord could not disclose what information it had (or had not) obtained prior to allocation. This was because it owed the neighbour a duty of confidentiality and had to comply with data protection regulations.
27. The landlord’s approach was reasonable and fair. Indeed, had the landlord divulged personal information about the neighbour, it would be open to criticism. Had the landlord discussed the private details of the resident’s background and tenancy with a third party he would have cause to complain. No service failing has been identified in the way the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries on this issue.

The resident’s complaint.

28. The landlord handles complaints in accordance with its Complaints Policy. It operates a two-stage procedure and sets out a timescale for responses. Complaints are logged and acknowledged within two working days; a stage 1 decision is given in 14 calendar days from receipt; and a stage 2 reply within 14 calendar days from request. Finally, the landlord notes that if the resident remains dissatisfied they can contact this service and/or refer their complaint to an independent customer complaints panel made up other tenants.
29. When the resident reported the incident of 10 March 2022 he described it as a complaint. He repeated this the following day in an email to the landlord. There is no evidence, however, that the landlord treated it as such – sending out an acknowledgement and offering to investigate its actions. It is reasonable to conclude this was because it had, at that stage, not taken any actions to be investigated as the incident had only just happened. It treated the communication as a report, notwithstanding the resident’s choice of wording, and this was reasonable in the circumstances. The necessity to invoke its formal complaints procedure was not apparent when this was the first it was hearing of this incident.
30. Once the resident received the landlord’s letter (which is discussed above) he emailed it on 19 March 2022 saying he wanted to take his complaint to the next stage and that he wanted a panel to investigate.
31. By this time the landlord had taken some action and it was reasonable that it should take this communication as an expression of dissatisfaction with its handling of the situation – that is a ‘complaint’. It did not confirm this to the resident but on 29 March 2022, some seven working days later, it provided a response from its area manager. Owing to the fact it had not taken the report as a complaint, it took the scope of the issue to be about the letter it had sent – rather than about its handling of the behaviour itself. This was a logical progression given the initial “complaint” was reasonably taken as a report instead. The landlord explained the reasoning behind the letter, and reassured the resident that his character was not in question.
32. Whilst the timing of this response was as envisaged in the landlord’s policy, it had failed to acknowledge the complaint and this response did not set out that it was a stage 1 response. Neither did it advise the resident of what action he could take in terms of escalation if he remained dissatisfied. The landlord had failed to follow its own procedure which was inappropriate in the circumstances.
33. On 31 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord stating that he was not satisfied and asking for a panel to be convened. The following day the landlord arranged a face to face meeting to discuss the situation. This took place on 6 April 2022 when no resolution was agreed and an escalation to the second stage of the landlord’s procedure was arranged.  A stage 2 response was not, however, given until 5 May 2022 which was outside the 14 day time limit set out in the policy. This was inappropriate.
34. On 16 May 2022 the resident asked for the panel review to go ahead. The landlord’s policy does not set out any timescale for this. Its internal procedure had been concluded with the stage 2 response. The panel was set to go ahead on 1 July 2022 but was delayed due to a health issue. The resident was not advised of this and did not find out about it until 21 September 2022 when he learned that his matter had been overlooked when the panel’s caseload was rescheduled. Ultimately, it took place on 12 October 2022. The panel supported the landlord’s approach to the case but compensation of £100 was offered to reflect the panel’s delay in considering the case.
35. In conclusion, there were failings in the landlord’s application of its internal complaints procedure. It might reasonably have acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and offered some compensation to reflect the impact on the resident. An order for the payment of £100 has been made below.
36. There was also a delay in the panel being convened, although this was handled independently by the chair who made their own offer of compensation and which is separate to the landlord’s internal procedure. For the sake of completeness the sum offered appears fair in the circumstances but will not be included in an order below as it relates to an independent process.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of anti-social behaviour.
    2. Its decision to let a property to the alleged perpetrator.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £100 for its complaint handling.
40. It should confirm with this service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.