Anchor Hanover Group (202119309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119309

Anchor Hanover Group

31 May 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

The resident complaints about the landlords handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy commenced 28 March 2021. The landlord is a housing association and the property is a studio within a sheltered accommodation scheme, which has a full-time warden.
The resident reports that she has severe disabilities which the landlord is aware of.

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s obligations

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 outlies that when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour, agencies must consider the effect that such behaviour has on victims and witnesses. It also states that agencies should recognise and consider the debilitating impact on that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on victims, more so over a period of time.
In section 3 of the tenancy agreement under nuisance, harassment, and anti-social behaviour it states residents should not harass, threaten, or use violence towards anyone in the local area, the landlord employees, contractors or agents, or anyone living in or visiting a home.
The landlord social behaviour procedure states that it will take a victim-centred approach to tackling anti-social behaviour. The landlord states if a resident report they are the victim of anti social behaviour it will record it and investigate.
The resident’s handbook states that the landlord will not tolerate any form of harassment and will investigate all reports, dealing with them promptly and sensitively.
The landlords has a two-stage complaint which states:
1. At stage one the landlord has 14 working days to investigate and respond to the customer directly from the date the complaint was logged.
2. At stage two the landlord states it will inform the resident of its decision within 14 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may pay compensation or good will, when it has, through its own actions or inactions, failed to deliver services of an acceptable standard.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 23 April 2021, to say other resident’s had spat on her and coughed in her face. The resident says this was a concern particularly, as it was during the covid-19 pandemic, and she has vulnerabilities.
The resident said the other resident’s were discriminating against her due to her disabilities and she was seeking legal action.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2021, to say she suffered a physical assault by another resident. The resident explained that a physical assault and verbal abuse took place in the residents’ washroom. She reported that she was abused for having a disability and mental health issues.
On the 10 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by email. The landlord said it had looked at the resident’s emails regarding the allegations made and was unable to investigate the issues as they were best placed with the police and social services. The landlord requested for authorisation from the resident to pass on her concerns to the departments. The landlord contacted the police to raise the resident’s allegations of anti-social behaviour.
The resident reported that the location manager had implied that the resident had paranoid schizophrenia and was abusive. She also reported that the location manager had given her studio door key to another resident. At this time, the resident said she did not want the landlord to investigate it as it was being considered by the police. The landlord called the resident on 13 May 2021, to discuss her allegations about the landlord’s location manager. The landlord and the resident mutually agreed that there should be no contact between the resident and the location manager.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 May 2021, to check on her safety and wellbeing. The notes of the call state the resident said she was fine. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord to request that morning wellbeing calls cease. The landlord confirmed that the resident would have to request this in writing.
On 25 and 26 May 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss her concerns but there was no answer. It attempted to call the resident on 27 May 2021, but the resident did not answer. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord to request the surnames of other resident’s to pass to the police as part of their investigation.
The landlord confirmed that once it received a letter from the resident dated 27 July 2021 detailing serious abuse she said was suffering, it attempted to speak to her over the phone. However, this was unsuccessful. The landlord said it reported the matter to the police and the local safeguarding team. The landlord explained that the local safeguarding team closed its case stating there was no case to answer.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord contacted the local authority to notify adult services that the resident has raised concerns about abuse from other resident’s. Also, abuse from the landlord’s location manager.
The resident in a letter to the landlord dated 27 July 2021 raised ongoing concerns about being the victim of abuse from other resident’s. The resident alleged that she had been verbally assaulted, physically assaulted on three occasions, and has had her personal data hacked. In addition, she had been victim to deceit and manipulation by the landlord’s location manager and that the manager had illegally passed her studio door key to other resident’s. The resident said she was looking into instructing a solicitor. The resident requested any further contact by the landlord be by email or letter.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 July 2021 via letter, to acknowledge her letter. In addition, it asked for the resident to discuss her concerns regarding anti social behaviour over the telephone or in person.
The police contacted the resident on 27 July 2021, to discuss her concerns. The police said it was unable to establish any evidence to substantiate the resident’s claims. Therefore, the police closed the case. The police advised the resident to get a webcam if finances permitted.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her allegations but did not get an answer.
The landlord contacted adult social services on 30 July 2021, to raise a safeguarding alert due to the seriousness of the allegations.
On 2 August 2021, the resident sent the landlord a copy of her letter dated 27 July 2021.
The resident in a call with the landlord on 4 August 2021 said she did not want to have a meeting with the landlord due to a high risk of collusion. The resident advised until her concerns had been investigated, she would no longer be paying rent. The resident said she felt people were accessing her home. Therefore, she changed her door lock. It is notable that from the information available to this Service there is no evidence that the landlord found this happened.
The resident in a letter dated 5 August 2021 reiterated the same concerns regarding anti-social behaviour as per her letter dated 27 July 2021.
Adult social services contacted the landlord on 11 August 2021 to confirm it had closed its safeguarding case as there was no concerns.
The landlord issued a letter 12 August 2021, to request for contact from the resident to discuss her allegations. On 17 August 2021 the police contacted the landlord and confirmed it had closed its case and no further action would be taken. On 19 August 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, but the resident said she did not want to discuss it.
The landlord went onto say the police had confirmed it had visited the resident on 19 August 2021 and subsequently, closed their case with no further action required.
The resident contacted her local MP on 1 September 2021 to request for the MP to support her complaint against the landlord.
The resident abandoned the property without any notice on 22 September 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 November 2021, detailing what action it had taken previously regarding her complaints about ASB. Also, to confirm the landlord had been unsuccessful in its attempts to contact the resident.
The landlord received contact from this Service on 24 November 2021, that the resident wishes to pursue her complaint. It attempted to contact the resident by telephone on 24 November 2021, but the line was unattainable.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 1 December 2021. In its response the landlord said:
1. It had attempted to contact the resident when it was aware of her complaints. The landlord said it was unable to get a response.
2. It reported the resident’s concerns to the police and the safeguarding team as it was concerned for the resident’s wellbeing.
3. It has since been made aware that the Wakefield safeguarding team closed the matter as no case to answer on 11 August 2021.
4. The police also closed the complaint on 18 August 2021.
5. The resident abandoned the property without notice on 22 September 2021.
The resident requested that the landlord provide a stage two response on 7 December 2021. The resident said she disagreed that the landlord found no case to answer. The resident reiterated her original complaint to the landlord that she had suffered physical and verbal abuse. Also, slander and that people had entered her property. The resident requested that the landlord provided a full response to her concerns.
On 23 February 2022, this Service contacted the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for a stage two requested on 7 December 2021.
On the 25 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed it was only aware of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two after contact from this Service. The landlord said it aimed to provide its stage two response within 14 days.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 March 2022 to request to arrange a telephone call or meeting to discuss the complaint. This was unsuccessful.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 4 April 2022. It advised that it contacted the resident on 2 March 2022 to establish more about the anti-social behaviour she had experienced. The landlord said as the resident did not respond to its last letter it had concluded its complaint process.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and.
3. Learn from outcomes.

The resident complaints about the landlords handling of reports of anti–social behaviour.

ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident reports that she suffered verbal and physical abuse by neighbours. Further, the resident said her neighbours were discriminatory over her disabilities. Additionally, that the landlord’s location manager also verbally abused her and discriminated against her. Also, the location manager breached her security by supplying a neighbour with her flat key.
Following reports, it is necessary for the landlord to consider and respond to these in accordance with its ASB policies. The landlord’s own ASB policy states that it will acknowledge reported cases in one working day.
It is notable however, that the landlord’s own ASB policy does not stipulate any other timescales for how it responds to ASB. This Service would expect that landlords have agreed service level agreements in place to responding to ASB. This should include how it deals with high-risk incidents such as hate crime, violence, and arson. In the cases of high-risk incidents, this Service and best practice would expect to see published timescales to respond to high risk and other incidents of ASB.
This Service can see that the resident first reported ASB to the landlord on 23 April 2021, stating that neighbours had spat on her and coughed in her face which was alarming due to Covid-19. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2021 to report that she had been physically assaulted by another neighbour.
As such, the landlord should have classed this as a high-risk incident. With this in mind, this Service would have expected the landlord to provide a response within 24 hours.
In this case, the landlord responded on 10 May 2021. In its response, the landlord confirmed that due to the severity of the ASB reports about the neighbours the complaint would be best placed with the police. Particularly, as the resident reported a physical assault which is inherently, a criminal offence. As such, the landlord should have taken steps at this stage to assess the risk to the resident. Also, the landlord should have considered if any adjustments were required based upon the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The records show that the landlord contacted the resident on 13 May 2021 to discuss her allegations against the landlord’s location manager. In conclusion to the call, the resident withdrew the allegations. The resident also requested that the landlord ceases to investigate the matters as she preferred the police to investigate. The landlord advised the resident to come back to it should she wish to pursue it with them. At this time, it was appropriate for the landlord to listen and respect the resident’s wishes for the resident to pursue matters with the police.
From the evidence provided to this Service it is clear that the landlord completed an action plan following the resident initial reports of ASB. This Service can also see that the landlord took some steps to manage the resident’s complaint about ASB in that it referred her concerns to the police. Additionally, to the local adult safeguarding team.
There is no indication in the records that the landlord completed a risk assessment to assess whether adjustments or additional support needed to be put in place for the victim. According to the ASB policies and procedures, this would have been a standard approach for the landlord to take. This is not in line with what this Service would expect or reasonable based on policy and procedure.
It is notable that following the resident’s initial complaints about ASB in April 2021, that the resident requested to withdraw her complaint. The resident cited that she wanted the police to investigate the matters. Therefore, this Service would not have expected the landlord to continue to pursue this against the resident’s wishes.
The records show that the resident raised further complaints about being the victim of ASB on 27 July 2021. The resident said she had verbally and physically assaulted by other resident’s. Additionally, her personal data had been hacked. The resident requested contact by email or letter form.
At this time, the landlord was proactive in its response as it contacted the resident the same day to acknowledge her complaint. The landlord logged the case as a safeguarding one. The landlord also requested for the resident to contact to discuss her concern over the telephone or in person. The landlord also contacted the resident by telephone on 29 July 2021, to discuss her concerns but did not get an answer.
The landlord also signposted the complaint to adult safeguarding as the resident is a vulnerable adult. This was subsequently closed by adult social services on 11 August 2021 due to no viable evidence.
From the evidence supplied to this Service, we can see that the resident spoke with the landlord on 4 August 2021. The resident declined any meetings and was clear that she felt the landlord and its staff were all in collusion.
The records following this call show that the landlord contacted the resident a further two times on 12 August 2021 and 19 August 2021. The records show the resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2021 to request that her ASB complaint is closed. In its contact with the resident on 19 August 2021 the resident was clear that she was not willing to discuss the complaint.
In terms of what this Service would expect it is reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification on ASB matters. This includes the resident providing information on dates and times of incidents and who was involved. The records show that the landlord attempted to arrange a meeting on 4 August 2021 to discuss the resident’s concerns, but the resident declined to attend. The landlord also sent the resident a letter dated 12 August 2021,but the resident did not respond.
It is this Service’s view that the landlord showed willingness to establish the resident’s issues. As such, the landlord carried out reasonable and proportionate steps to address the ASB.
It is important to note that following the resident’s request for only contact to be made by letter or email, the landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone. Despite the resident’s requests, the landlord contracted her by phone on 4 August 2021 and 19 August 2021.
The landlord’s failure to adopt the resident’s expressed preferred method of communication was unreasonable. There is no evidence on the landlord’s records to suggest why it was unable to communicate the same matters in writing. As such, the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments taking into account the resident’s preferred method of communication.
Although the landlord was proactive in its response to the resident’s ASB complaints raised in July 2021, this case also demonstrates areas where the landlord needs to improve its service. This Service has found that no evidence that the landlord produced various key ASB documents.
This includes that the landlord did not make a formal risk assessment of the ASB, and no action plan was sent to the resident. This Service notes that there was no evidence that any interviews took place with either the resident or the neighbours. However, this Service does however note that the landlord may not have completed the above documents if it needed to speak to the resident to clarify her ASB concerns. As such, it is not unreasonable that the landlord did not complete all the expected documents due to this.
Overall, the landlord failed to correctly follow its ASB procedures and in its communication methods. This is a service failure and may have caused the resident additional distress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complained to the landlord via this Service on 19 November 2021. Eight working days later the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 1 December 2021. This is in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy to respond within 14 working days.
In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it is recommended that a landlord’s provide its stage one response within ten working days from receipt of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s own complaint policy to respond within 14 days is out of line with our code.
On 7 December 2021, the resident requested for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two. As the resident did not receive a response, she contacted this Service. Subsequently, this Service contacted the landlord on 23 February 2022 to request that it provide its stage two response. This would have caused frustration for the resident, as well as time and trouble chasing it up.
The records show that the landlord contacted the resident on 2 March 2022 to find out what the resident was dissatisfied about. Also, to establish what ASB the resident was experiencing. However, the landlord was unsuccessful in its attempts to contact the resident. Taking this into account, the landlord took reasonable steps to try and contact the resident.
It is notable that the landlord’s own complaint policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within two working days. As such, it took the landlord three months to acknowledge the resident’s stage two request. Therefore, this is not reasonable and is out of line with its own complaint policy.
Just under four months after the resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to stage two it provided its response on 4 April 2022. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy to provide a stage two complaint response within 14 working days. However, this Service acknowledges that the landlord attempted to engage with the resident to understand her complaint. It is reasonable that the landlord may not have had enough information to investigate. Therefore, this delayed the investigation.
In the circumstances, there is a service failure in the landlord not acknowledging the resident’s request to provide a stage two in a timely way. The landlord has not apologised for this in its stage two response. Therefore, the landlord has not put things right and compensation is appropriate for the evidenced service failure and frustration caused to the resident as a result.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by landlords for its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by landlord for its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s ASB complaints was not appropriate. Its response to the residents subsequent ASB complaints was appropriate. Overall, the landlord failed to document key elements of its ASB procedures, including producing a risk assessment or a clear action plan. Additionally, the landlord did not have service level agreements in place.
There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging its stage two complaint response. The landlord has not acknowledged the delay or offered redress for the delay. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £200 made up of:
  1. The £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s action in response to the resident’s initial ASB complaints.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord should review and update its ASB policy, if it has not already done so, especially with regards to its case review process and procedure. This includes the landlord making risk assessments, having clear action plans, and adhering to service level agreements in how it responds to complaints about ASB.
2. Review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
3. The landlord should ensure it adheres to the resident’s preferred method of communication.