Anchor Hanover Group (202215085)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215085

Anchor Hanover Group

31 January 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports about the conduct of a member of staff;
2. concerns about how a member of staff responded to a medical emergency;
3. reports of residents’ dogs in communal areas without leads.
This report will also assess the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant in a one bedroom, general needs property, owned by the landlord. She moved into the property in October 2020.
On 26 November 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to ask for information about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and neighbour disputes and said she wanted to complaint about her estate manager. She said she did not want the estate manager to know about her enquiry at that time, and asked if the landlord could send the information to her friend’s email address. It is not clear from the records what further action the landlord took following this discussion.
On 9 December 2021, the estate manager attended a meeting with the resident in order to try and resolve the issues between them. The estate manager did not want a friend of the resident’s, who was also in attendance, to take notes of the meeting. The resident therefore suggested re-scheduling the meeting so the estate manager could bring a “witness”. Despite this, the evidence shows a meeting still took place between the estate manager, the resident and the resident’s friend.
On 17 December 2021, the resident contacted the customer relations team to raise further concerns about the estate manager. As she felt “anxious about recriminations” if she proceeded any further, she did not give the landlord her name or address. She advised it that she would decide whether or not she wanted to make a formal complaint and would contact it again once she had made a decision.
The resident called the landlord on 7 March 2022 to tell it that there had been a “further serious incident” and therefore she wished to proceed with a formal complaint against the estate manager. The resident emailed her stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 10 March 2022. This stated that:
1. On 28 October 2021, the estate manager failed to intervene in “bullying, intimidating and aggressive behaviour” directed towards her at a residents’ social group meeting;
2. On 9 December 2021, the estate manager refused to allow notes to be taken during a private meeting;
3. On 7 February 2022, the estate manager did not seek emergency medical attention for a resident who subsequently died;
4. The estate manager had shared confidential information about residents;
5. She felt very anxious about her “physical and emotional safety” and feared reprisals for reporting those events. She had already received threats and had been made to feel unwelcome and unsupported;
6. She could supply the landlord with details of witnesses and chronologies of events on request.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and a meeting was arranged for 22 April 2022 to discuss her concerns. During the meeting, the resident also raised concerns about residents allowing their dogs off the lead in communal areas. She had also provided the landlord with a document giving dates on which she had witnessed this. In the document, she reported that, on 10 July 2021, another resident had verbally abused her after she had told him that his dog should be on a lead.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 May 2022, which stated:
1. It had spoken to both the resident and the estate manager and had read the documents the resident had provided;
2. It was sorry that the resident “felt bullied and intimidated by the behaviour of the other residents” at the social group meeting. If she experienced similar behaviour in future, it asked her to contact its customer relations team;
3. The estate manager had felt “uncomfortable and intimidated” attending a meeting in the resident’s property with someone who was taking notes. This was not something it expected of her in her role and it respected her decision;
4. It had carried out an investigation around the circumstances leading to her neighbour’s death and was satisfied with the outcome. It stated that, if any further investigation was necessary, this would be carried out by social services or the police;
5. The estate manager had admitted that, “in hindsight” it may not have been appropriate for her to have shared her concerns about another resident. It stated that the estate manager would ensure she did not share any confidential information in future;
6. It was sorry the resident felt the need to avoid contact with other residents. It would be happy to facilitate mediation between the resident and estate manager to help rebuild her trust;
7. It had attached a copy of its help sheet regarding pets. The estate manager would ensure residents and visitors adhered to its guidelines;
The resident telephoned the landlord on 20 June 2022 and then wrote to it on 22 June 2022. She stated that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide a true reflection of her concerns and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction on 29 June 2022.It then wrote to her on 1 July 2022 to confirm that a meeting was booked to discuss why she remained unhappy with the outcome of her stage 1 complaint. It confirmed the meeting had been booked for 20 July 2022, which was “the first slot convenient to both” parties.
On 4 August 2022, following the meeting, the landlord sent her its stage 2 response. This stated:
1. In order to investigate her complaint, it had reviewed the information the resident had provided. It had also spoken to the estate manager, the community partnership manager for the region and looked at case notes and “local estate information”.
2. It had apologised in its stage 1 response that the resident had felt bullied and intimidated during the social group meeting, It acknowledged that no resident should feel this way and that it was a difficult meeting. To manage the “intense feelings” in the room, the estate manager had asked one resident to leave. Where there were meetings in future, it would be “useful to set ground rules about behaviour” to avoid this happening again.
3. It upheld what it had said in its stage 1 response with regard to the estate manager’s not wanting notes not to be taken during a private meeting. It acknowledged that the meeting should have been rearranged on mutually agreed terms in order to progress the resident’s concerns.
4. As the resident stated she did not trust the estate manager, the landlord had asked another manager to become her single point of contact and would provide her with their contact details.
5. It would, when the resident felt ready, arrange mediation to help rebuild the professional relationship between her and the estate manager.
6. The estate manager had shared information about her neighbour because she had understood the resident was her friend. While her motivation was to help, it acknowledged that her actions were inappropriate.
7. All staff complete mandatory training in information security and data protection, which included recognising and reporting data breaches. The estate manager was up to date on this training and would be very mindful in future.
8. The landlord would be providing professional boundary training with the estate manager and other staff.
9. During the meeting, the landlord had discussed its pet policy with the resident and assured her it would remind residents, in its newsletter, about their responsibilities when owning a pet.
10. The landlord had also mentioned that it was developing a “service offer”, which was in “draft format” and invited the resident to provide her feedback on it.
11. The estate manager had added a noticeboard near the rear exit of the building so the resident did not miss information because she did not feel comfortable accessing the communal area to see the main noticeboard.
On 18 August 2022 the landlord gave the resident the details for her new single point of contact.
The resident contacted the Service on 4 October 2022. She stated that she had no trust in the actions of the estate manager and was concerned for her safety and wellbeing. This was because she had failed to call an ambulance for her neighbour. She had also failed to stop residents from demonstrating “bullying, intimidating and aggressive behaviour” towards her during a meeting. She stated that she wanted an “independent and confidential canvassing of residents’ experiences” and their opinions on the management of the estate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint, the resident raised concern that the estate manager had shared with her confidential information about another resident. She considered this to be a data breach. The resident’s concerns about this are noted. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has the power to investigate such incidents and confirm whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns about a data breach, and the actions that it took in response, she should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly. Although we cannot conclude whether there was a data breach, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the concerns the resident had raised.

The conduct of a member of staff

The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and upset the resident has experienced as a result of her interactions with other residents and a member of staff. However, when considering complaints relating to staff conduct, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether or not there has been poor conduct. Neither are we able to consider whether or not an employee has followed their terms of employment, or other personnel issues. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the resident’s reports and if it took proportionate action.
The records indicate that the landlord interviewed the estate manager as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 investigations, which was appropriate. One of the resident’s complaints related to a meeting in which other residents were present. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have asked the resident if it could speak to other residents who were at the meeting. This would have helped to form a more holistic, and balanced, view of what had happened. However, in her complaint, the resident had told the landlord she was “very anxious” about her “physical and emotional safety, particularly fearing reprisals for reporting these events”. It is understandable therefore that the landlord had not considered speaking to other residents, especially as this could have made the situation worse for the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord had expressed appropriate empathy in its response and apologised for the impact the meeting had had on the resident. It offered positive solutions in order to help restore her trust. This included a recommendation that ground rules were set in future meetings to ensure expected behaviours were followed. It assured her its community partnership manager would monitor the estate and offer support to make sure all events were open and inclusive to everybody. In addition, the landlord showed sensitivity towards the resident’s decision to avoid the other residents. It installed an additional noticeboard at the building’s rear entrance to ensure she did not miss any information that was advertised on the main noticeboard. This demonstrates that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances.
It is clear from the records that the relationship between the resident and estate manager had broken down. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer mediation as a possible way of resolving the situation. Given the difficult situation, and the impact this was having on the resident, it was also reasonable for the landlord to appoint a different member of staff to manage her tenancy. It is positive to note that it appointed and provided details of the new single point of contact within 2 weeks of issuing its stage 2 complaint. This demonstrates that the landlord was taking a customer focused approach.
It is not disputed that the estate manager had shared with the resident personal details about her neighbour. The evidence shows that the landlord took steps to address this. It had discussed the matter with the estate manager and confirmed that, as a result of its findings, the manager and other staff would be attending professional boundary training. It acknowledged that all employees attended mandatory data protection training, and that the estate manager had completed this and would “be very mindful” in future not to disclose third party information. It also offered to raise a data breach alert, in line with its policies and procedures, and asked the resident for further details if she wished to take this forward. The evidence shows that the landlord had taken reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct and inappropriate information sharing.

How a member of staff responded to a medical emergency

The Ombudsman notes the distressing circumstances around the medical emergency and how upsetting this would have been for the resident. However, we cannot consider whether the member of staff acted appropriately or if the death of the other resident could reasonably have been avoided. As stated above, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were reasonable and proportionate.
The evidence shows that the landlord interviewed the site manager as part of its investigation into the incident, which was appropriate. It is also noted that the landlord correctly liaised with the local authority’s adult safeguarding team. Although the landlord stated in its complaint response that the site manager’s account differed from the resident’s version of events, the Ombudsman cannot comment on any discrepancies between the statements of those who were present. However, the landlord acted appropriately when it advised the resident that, if further investigation was warranted, it would be carried out by the police or social services. This was a reasonable response as the police and/or social services would be best placed to investigate whether a death could reasonably have been avoided, or if the landlord had failed in its duties to that individual.
While the resident had expressed concern about the events that had transpired, the evidence shows that the landlord undertook a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the matter. It follows that there was no failing in how it responded to the resident’s concerns.

Residents allowing dogs in communal areas without leads

The tenancy agreement states that residents must keep any pets living at or visiting their home or any communal areas under control. They must ensure that their pets do not damage their home or other property that belongs to the landlord, or cause a nuisance or annoyance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
The landlord’s Being Neighbourly help sheet states that dog owners should not let their dogs run loose around the estate. The landlord’s Pet Care Request Form allows residents to keep dogs on the condition that they are walked away from the location and kept on a lead at all times within the communal parts of the location and the grounds. In addition, residents must not allow their pet to wander corridors or hallways within the building.
The landlord acted appropriately when it advised the resident in its stage 1 response that the estate manager would ensure residents adhered to its guidelines on owning pets. In addition, its stage 2 response stated that it would remind residents in its newsletters about their responsibilities when owning pets. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to advise residents how they could report future instances where the guidelines were not being followed. The landlord could also have provided residents in the estate with details of any steps it would take if any individuals continued to let their dogs off the lead in communal areas, including any possible action for breach of tenancy. This would have given the resident some reassurance that the rules around pet ownership were being properly monitored and enforced. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord takes these steps and ensures residents are reminded of their obligations around owning pets.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage process. It states that it will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 1 working day and contact the resident by telephone, or in person, within 2 working days of the acknowledgement date. The landlord’s timescale for responding to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints is “14 calendar days”. It refers to stage 2 as a ‘review’ and explained that it is not a re-investigation of the issue but a “review of how well the case was investigated”. If the landlord requires more time to complete its response, it will agree an extension with the resident and confirm a revised timeframe.
The resident raised her complaint on 10 March 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 May 2022. This meant it took the landlord 42 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It is acknowledged that the landlord was trying to follow good practice by meeting with the resident in order to gain further clarification of her concerns. However, it took the landlord a further 14 working days after the meeting to issue its stage 1 response. As the resident had already given it details of her complaint over the telephone, and provided it with written details, it would have been reasonable to have provided a written response in a more timely manner. The resident would then have had an opportunity to have any outstanding issues considered at stage 2.
There is no evidence to show the landlord sent any updates, explained and apologised for the delays or made any attempt to agree a new timescale. That the complaint handling was unnecessarily prolonged, and the landlord departed from its policy, was a failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 June 2022 and the landlord sent a formal acknowledgement on 29 June 2022. It is unclear why it delayed acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Although the delay was not excessive, the landlord departed from its policy of acknowledging complaints within 1 working day. However, there is evidence it had contacted the resident by telephone within 2 days of sending the acknowledgement.
It took a month for the landlord to meet with the resident following her escalation request. However, the evidence shows that this was due to difficulties in the resident and landlord finding a mutually convenient time. It is recognised that meetings can sometimes be difficult to arrange around working patterns, and residents’ day to day lives. This is particularly applicable when making arrangements for more than 2 attendees, as in this case. It was appropriate that the landlord ensured the meeting was arranged quickly and that it wrote to the resident on 1 July 2022 to confirm the date.
The evidence shows that the stage 2 response was an accurate reflection of the meeting and covered the concerns that had been discussed. However, in her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that she had received “threats”. In a separate document, the resident had also reported that she had been subjected to verbal abuse from another resident. It is unclear why the landlord did not address these matters in its response
There is no evidence that it had tried to seek further clarification of the threats or who they were coming from. It is clear from the resident’s communication that she was feeling anxious and vulnerable. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its antisocial behaviour process. It could have offered for her to complete diary sheets, and explained to her what steps it could take if she continued to receive threats or abuse. Given the resident was communicating her emotional stress, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered referral to appropriate support services. That the landlord did not consider or follow up on the resident’s reports of threats and abuse was a failing. The cumulative impact on the resident from this and the poor complaint handling amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about how staff responded to a medical emergency.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about residents’ dogs in communal areas without leads.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took proportionate action in response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct. It offered reasonable solutions such as offering mediation and providing staff training.
The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation in response to the resident’s reports, and provided appropriate advice with regard to the agencies that would be best placed to conduct further enquiries.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports that dogs were being allowed in communal areas without leads. It agreed to remind residents in its newsletters about its pet policy and obligations around owning dogs.
The landlord’s complaint handling was excessively protracted and it departed from its policy by failing to agree new timescales with the resident. In addition, it failed to follow up on the resident’s reports of receiving threats and verbal abuse.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £200 for its poor complaint handling;
2. Provide, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in the report;
3. Contact the resident to check whether she has received any further threats or abuse. If so, to support her to access its antisocial behaviour process and discuss any appropriate support it could offer or refer her to. The landlord to update the Ombudsman once it had taken these actions.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord to advise residents on the estate, within 8 weeks of this determination, how they can report future instances of dogs being let off the lead in communal areas. It should provide with details of any steps it can take, in line with its policies and procedures, if residents continued to ignore the terms of their tenancy and the landlord’s guidelines for owning pets.