Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Anchor Hanover Group (202223058)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223058

Anchor Hanover Group

25 February 2025


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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak at her property.
    2. Staff conduct concerns.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant with the resident until early May 2023.
  2. The resident reported a property leak on 16 December 2022. The evidence shows the landlord stopped the leak the next day and arranged for the resident’s property to be cleared of water and damaged items in the following week.
  3. On 22 December 2022 the resident complained about the way one of the landlord’s officers had spoken to her. On 24 December she added to her complaint concerns about the handling of the leak. She said it had not been prioritised correctly and the delayed response led to avoidable property damage. She also said a plumber at a visit on 21 December 2022 made inappropriate remarks to her. She wanted the landlord to replace her damaged carpet.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2023. It said its officer had been unaware of the distress he had caused the resident but apologised if he had caused offence. It confirmed it asked its contractors to investigate the incident with the plumber. It confirmed it was the resident’s responsibility to replace her carpet using her contents insurance. Nonetheless, it apologised for the stress and upset caused and offered to pay £250 compensation, any added electric costs for the dehumidifier, and a £250 insurance excess.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 29 January 2023. As well as repeating her original concerns, she said she had to wait 3 weeks for a dehumidifier and the landlord’s decant offer had been limited to 2 days. She said the £250 offer was unacceptable and did not reflect the impact on her. The landlord subsequently increased its compensation to £850, comprised of £250 for the insurance excess, £100 for energy costs, and increased compensation of £500.
  6. The resident initially accepted the increased compensation, but on 13 March 2023, she asked again for her complaint to be escalated. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had not been able to verify her complaint about its officer due to a lack of evidence. It said it was willing to re-investigate if she provided further evidence.
  7. After the involvement of the Service, on 21 August 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 2 response addressing the resident’s outstanding escalation complaints. It said its contractor had not identified inappropriate behaviour by its plumber but would not send him to the property again. It acknowledged delays with resolving the leak along with its supply of a dehumidifier, which it said was due to a supply issue. It noted the resident had refused its temporary housing offer. The landlord apologised for delays and the impact on her and offered a further £100.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 August 2023 and is seeking additional compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a report of a leak at the property

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will maintain the structure of the property including water pipes. It states its tenants should insure their contents against loss or damage through their own insurance policies. The landlord’s housing handbook says it will provide a “responsive and effective repairs service to ensure a “comfortable and safe” home. It sets out its repair priorities from emergency repairs, such as structure repairs causing flood damage, within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 14 days.
  2. The resident complained on 24 and 31 December 2022 that there had been delays resolving the leak caused by a burst pipe from her neighbour’s property. The leak caused damage to her belongings, including her carpet. The records show she first reported a radiator leak on the morning of 16 December 2022 and after the source of the leak was identified, the neighbour’s water supply was turned off in the evening of 17 December 2022. During the week of 19 December 2022, the landlord arranged a water suction, electric safety checks and a clean up service including the removal of damaged items. A dehumidifier was provided on 5 January 2023.
  3. The leak was significant and so it was appropriate for the landlord to treat it as an emergency with a 24-hour target. However, its contractors attended the property outside that target. The resident reported the leak on the morning of 16 December 2022 and was put to the time and trouble of chasing it on the following morning. Its contractors visited later in the day on 17 December over 4 hours after its emergency target. The leak was eventually stopped later that evening, delayed by the fact it was coming from the neighbouring property and the occupant was away. It is not apparent if an earlier response by the contractors might have reduced the time taken to stop the leak, but it is clear the initial response was late.
  4. Prior to its stage 1 complaint response of 18 January 2023 the landlord visited the resident on 5 January 2023. The visit notes set out a discussion about her complaints and its responses. It states that by the end of the week of 19 December 2022, her property had been made safe. In response to her concerns about the damp carpet it had arranged for a dehumidifier, which had been provisionally booked for 30 December 2022 but due to a shortage was not delivered until early January 2023. It also confirmed the resident had declined offers of temporary housing for a week or until her carpets dried out. The stage 1 response confirmed the information in its 30 December 2022 letter and the visit. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused and offered to pay the resident’s additional electric costs for running the dehumidifier as well as the £250 insurance excess and £250 for the impact on her.
  5. The landlord’s follow up actions after resolving the leak, including the water suction and clearance, were thorough and timely. Though the carpet was still damp, the landlord took appropriate steps to make the resident’s home “comfortable and safe”. The offer of alternative housing and the eventual delivery of a dehumidifier showed a responsive and empathetic approach. It however responded to the initial report of the leak outside its emergency timeframe of 24 hours. The resident was put to the inconvenience of chasing the landlord outside that 24 hour period. This was unreasonable.
  6. The resident complained the landlord was responsible for replacing her carpets and she should not have to do so by making an insurance claim. In an email on 30 December 2022 the landlord informed her that she was responsible for replacing her own carpet. The resident’s tenancy agreement is clear around her being responsible for her contents. The landlord reminded her of this as early as 30 December 2022 and at the 5 January 2023 visit. This, including its offer to pay her excess, was appropriate.
  7. Following a discussion on 15 February 2023, the landlord increased its compensation for inconvenience to £500 and confirmed it would pay £100 towards the dehumidifier running costs. Along with the excess payment, the total payment of £850 paid to the resident was reasonable.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 March 2023 saying she felt that her complaint had “not been met”. She did not provide any new details. The landlord issued two stage 2 responses. Its initial response of 22 May 2023 failed to address the leak. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states a landlord must address all points raised. Its failure to do so was a breach of the Code and was unreasonable. Its second stage 2 complaint response of 21 August 2023, set out a detailed time lime of events. It apologised for the delays and recognised the impact of these on the resident. It also offered an additional £100. The response was a further acceptance of its failings in its initial repairs response and was reasonable.
  9. In an internal email in January 2023, the landlord identified ways in which it could improve its response to similar leak reports in future. It said it would send all its contractors its out of hours procedure around access and improve carpark signage to show the on-call intercom location for emergencies. This was appropriate and demonstrated an appropriate approach to using complaints to provide better services.
  10. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. In this case the landlord has appropriately apologised for its delayed response to the leak and the impact on the resident, made service improvements, and offered a total of £950 compensation. Its apology and compensation offer were in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. It was proportionate to the distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling concerns around staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s housing handbook says it will work to a “high professional standard”. The landlord says it expects its contactors to “respect” its residents and any concerns should be reported to it.
  2. The resident’s complaints of staff conducted concerned alleged behaviour by one of the landlord’s officers and by a contractor. The 2 incidents took place at separate times on the week of 19 December 2022.
  3. The resident complained on 22 December 2022 that the landlord’s officer had been “misogynistic and rude”. In an email on 24 December, she said he shouted and had been abusive. There are no records of the discussion between the resident and its officer. During a home visit on 5 January 2023, the landlord obtained further information about the resident’s concerns.
  4. In its responses to the resident’s complaint about the officer, the landlord explained it had discussed the matter with him, and he had apologised for any offence he had caused. In the absence of any supporting evidence or other witnesses (the resident had said a manager had been present, but she had not been able to provide their name) there is nothing more the landlord could reasonably have done. Nonetheless, it demonstrated good practice and empathy by offering to revisit the issue if the resident was able to provide further information.
  5. After the water suction was carried out at the resident’s home on 21 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say the contractor’s operative had made rude and inappropriate comments causing her to feel shaken and scared.
  6. In its complaint response the landlord explained it had asked its contractors to investigate the matter. The evidence shows the contractors did so and advised the landlord of their findings. They said the operative denied making inappropriate comments but confirmed he would not be sent to the resident’s property again. There is no evidence of the landlord communicating this outcome to her complaint until its stage 2 response on 21 August 2023.
  7. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s allegations about its officer and its contractor’s operative. While it should have updated the resident about the outcome of its contractor’s enquiries earlier, there is no clear impact given the operative was not sent to her home again and as she had moved out of the property by early May 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct concerns.