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

Anchor Hanover Group (202318755)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318755

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Licensing of parking bays.
    2. Response to his concerns about alterations to the layout of a car park.
    3. Recovery of the costs of a new door entry system through service charges.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife are the leaseholders of the property. They purchased the lease on 23 August 2021. The property is a first floor flat within a retirement community. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and manages it directly.
  2. On 23 May 2022, the resident and his wife wrote to the landlord. They raised concerns that the landlord was “renting” spaces in the building’s car park to some residents under a license agreement. They claimed there was no provision for this within their lease. The resident and his wife said that they understood that other residents had “commandeered” spaces within the car park without such licensing agreements. They asked the landlord to review the parking situation at the development. They also noted that parking spaces at the front of the building had been changed from their original positions shown on the lease plan.
  3. The resident and his wife emailed the landlord on 9 September 2022. They said that:
    1. The landlord’s issuing of licenses for parking spaces was a breach of the lease. The terms of the lease gave them a right to use common parts of the estate, including any parking bays.
    2. The landlord should therefore revoke any license agreements with immediate effect and restore the entire car park to ‘first come first served basis’.
    3. The layout of the front car park was not in accordance with the lease. The landlord should restore it to its original design.
    4. They believed the landlord should meet the costs of the new door entry system which it had recently installed. They felt this was an ‘improvement’, rather than a ‘repair or maintenance item’ which the development’s sinking fund was meant to cover.
  4. The landlord recorded the email as a complaint. On 23 September 2022, it sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
    1. The lease did allow for it to use parking licenses. Therefore, it would not be revoking the existing licenses.
    2. It was, however, phasing out the use of licenses and not issuing any new ones.
    3. The front car park had been changed from the original plan. However, there was still the same number of spaces available.
    4. It believed the layout may have been altered due to one of the original spaces blocking a fire exit.
    5. The resident’s lease allowed it to charge for “works for the improvement of the estate”. Therefore, the cost of the door entry system had been rightly allocated to the service charge funds.
  5. The resident says that he phoned the landlord on 29 September 2022 and expressed his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. The landlord has not provided any record of this phone call.
  6. On 19 November 2022, the resident and his wife wrote to the landlord. They said that “we are not satisfied with your stage 1 response and request that you review/escalate the complaint accordingly”. They said that:
    1. They felt the landlord had misinterpreted the lease and was in breach of it by using parking licenses.
    2. The front car park spaces had originally been moved professionally, which they accepted the landlord’s explanation for. However, since then they had been moved again to create diagonal, uneven spaces which appeared to not have been professionally marked out. They believed a resident may have done this.
    3. It was not ‘a given’ that the landlord recovers costs from the residents on every occasion. It had not consulted with residents about the nature or cost of the new door entry system, and they believed it had only obtained one quote for this. Due to this they felt leaseholders should not be expected to meet the costs through their service charge.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised it had not logged the resident and his wife’s stage 2 complaint properly and its response had been delayed as a result.
    2. It disagreed with their interpretation of the lease and was satisfied it had not breached it by licensing parking spaces.
    3. It had checked its records which showed only 1 resident held a parking license. It was making enquiries with other residents who claimed to have licenses, so it could resolve the situation.
    4. It could find no evidence to confirm or deny” that a resident had remarked the front car park. But that this would be “highly unusual”.
    5. There were 3 parking spaces available for use in the front car park, as per the original plan. Due to this, it did not believe it would deliver value for money for it to remark these.
    6. The cost of the new door entry system was below the threshold at which it was required to consult with residents. The contractor that had carried out the works was one of its approved contractors.

Events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. On 24 March 2023, the resident and his wife contacted the landlord to say they had not received its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord found it had misspelt the resident’s email address when sending this and resent it.
  2. On 4 May 2023, the landlord sent the resident and his wife a ‘further stage 2 complaint response’. It said it was still working to identify residents who claimed to have a parking license but remained satisfied that these were in keeping with the terms of the lease.
  3. The landlord wrote to all residents of the building on 17 July 2023. It said that it had only identified 1 resident who held a parking license, and so all other spaces would now operate on a ‘first come first served basis’.
  4. The resident referred the complaint to us on 25 August 2023. On 3 November 2023, he told us he wanted the landlord to:
    1. Revoke the 1 remaining parking license, which they still felt was in breach of the lease.
    2. Take steps to correct the front car park, which they believed had been ‘reconfigured’ by a resident.
    3. Meet the costs of the new door entry system, as it had failed to seek leaseholders agreement to these and had only obtained 1 quote for the works.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says that we may not consider complaints where we feel it would be “quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the following element of the complaint falls outside of our jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42.f.:
    1. Licensing of parking bays
  3. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s licensing of parking bays hinges upon the 2 parties differing interpretations of the lease. Leasehold disputes of the nature are best decided by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The landlord appropriately signposted the resident and his wife to the FTT in its stage 2 complaint response. Should they wish to pursue this matter further, the resident may wish to consider making an application to the FTT.

Alterations to car park

  1. The resident’s lease includes a plan of the property. The ground floor plan shows 3 labelled spaces in the area referred to by the resident, and in this report, as the ‘front car park’. The spaces run parallel to the nearby road.
  2. Pictures provided by the resident for this investigation show that the layout of the front car park has since changed. It now consists of 4 diagonal parking spaces facing onto the road. The landlord has not disputed this, but says the changes were made many years ago and that it does not have any record of the reasons why. The purpose of this investigation is therefore to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
  3. In their original complaint, the resident and his wife asked that the landlord restore the front car park to its original layout, as per the lease plan. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord pointed out that one of the spaces on the lease plan blocked a fire exit from the building. It suggested that this was likely the reason the parking layout had been changed.
  4. The resident and his wife accepted this explanation when escalating their complaint to stage 2. However, they raised concerns about the “unprofessional way” in which the parking spaces had been lined out and the differing sizes of the spaces. They said it was evident from older markings that the spaces had at one time been perpendicular to the road, before being repainted diagonally – they suspected by a resident. They asked the landlord to restore the perpendicular spaces.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had “no evidence to confirm or deny” that a resident had altered the parking spaces but that this would be “highly unusual”. The landlord said that as there were still 3 spaces were available in keeping with the original plans, it would not represent ‘best value’ for it to use the building’s sinking fund to repaint the lines.
  6. When deciding whether the landlord’s position was reasonable, we must consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In particular, whether the current layout of the front car park can be said to cause detriment to the resident and his wife.
  7. Contrary to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, there are in fact 4 spaces available in the front car park with its current layout. This exceeds the 3 marked bays featured on the lease plan. At the time of this investigation, satellite imagery from Google maps shows 4 cars parked within these spaces. Whilst we do not dispute that the spaces are of varying size, this appears to be due to them being diagonal spaces lined out within a rectangular plot of land.
  8. The landlord has told us that it feels the current parking spaces “are fit for purpose, create increased capacity and allow for safe egress from the building”. It has said that the lines will be repainted when this becomes due within its planned works programme. Based upon the evidence available we find this to be a reasonable position.
  9. In summary, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation that the front car park was likely amended due to fire safety. There is no evidence that the current layout causes a reduction in the number of spaces available, or significant detriment to the resident and his wife. The landlord’s position that the spaces were fit for purpose and relining them would not represent best value use of the sinking fund was reasonable. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Recovery of costs of door entry system

  1. The resident and his wife originally complained that they believed the landlord was not entitled to recover the costs of the door entry system from the service charge sinking fund. This was due to it being an ‘improvement’ rather than a ‘repair or maintenance item’.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the lease had a clause allowing it to charge for “works for the improvement of the estate”. In their letter of 19 November 2022, the resident and his wife accepted the presence of this clause and so the landlord’s right to charge for the works does not appear to be in dispute.
  3. Instead, the resident and his wife argued that the landlord had failed to properly consult with residents before accepting its contractors quote. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out when a landlord must consult with residents about major works. It requires that a landlord consult with all residents if the works will cost any one resident more than £250.
  4. The landlord had originally intended to fully replace the doors to the building with automatic doors. It says it begun a section 20 consultation with residents about this in 2021, during which some objected to the costs involved. Because of this, the landlord chose instead to install a new door entry system as a cheaper alternative.
  5. The total cost of the works was £7,435.06. The landlord has advised that “the costs of the work was under the section 20 threshold. Therefore, there is no requirement to consult further with residents or seek alternative quotes.” The landlord has provided a copy of the building’s accounts which support this – showing a cost per property of £200.95 for the works.
  6. Whilst the landlord explained this to the resident and his wife in its stage 2 complaint response, it is unclear whether it communicated this to all residents at the time it made the decision. We have made a recommendation about this below.
  7. The resident and his wife also expressed concern that the landlord had only obtained a single quote for the works. They claimed this had been from a contractor nominated by a resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that the contractor used was one of its approved contractors (having already been subject to a procurement process). As the threshold for consultation under section 20 had not been reached, there was no requirement for the landlord to source multiple quotes.
  8. In summary, the cost of the new door entry system did not reach the threshold to require the landlord to consult with residents or obtain multiple quotes. The landlord was entitled to use its approved contractor to carry out the works and reclaim the costs from the building’s sinking fund. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident and his wife made their stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2022. This was 10 working days later, which is the timeframe its complaint policy allows.
  2. The resident said that he phoned the landlord on 29 September 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. Whilst the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s version of events, there is no documentary evidence of this call to establish its content and whether it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the complaint at that time.
  3. It is clear, however, that the resident and his wife’s letter of 19 November 2022 was a request to escalate their complaint. The statement “we are not satisfied with your Stage 1 response and request that you review/escalate the Complaint accordingly” is unambiguous. The landlord acknowledged this in an internal email on 2 March 2023 when it said that “I’ve had a look at the letter and, with hindsightwe should have made the decision for us and escalated.
  4. Instead, the landlord passed the letter to its stage 1 complaint handler and asked if they wished to issue a further response. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”. The landlord failed to do this.
  5. It was not until 27 February 2023, when the resident and his wife asked about their stage 2 complaint response, that the landlord recognised this failure. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023. This was 74 working days after the resident and his wife’s request to escalate their complaint on 19 November 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler did provide a response to the escalation request on 18 January 2023. Whilst this was outside of the complaints process, it provided much of the information which featured in the landlord’s eventual stage 2 response. We have considered this as a mitigating factor.
  7. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in the stage 2 response but made no offer of compensation for this. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider paying compensation for “failure to provide a service in line with our internal published standards”. Its failure to meet the timescale for a stage 2 response in its complaints policy can reasonably be said to represent this. Particularly given the length of delay. Due to this we make a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s licensing of parking bays is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about alterations to the layout of a car park.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s recovery of the costs of a new door entry system through service charges.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the order to us.

 Recommendation

  1. We recommend that the landlord take steps to ensure it appropriately updates residents subject to a section 20 consultation should it decide to carry out alternative works which fall below the threshold for consultation.