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

Anchor Hanover Group (202315871)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315871

Anchor Hanover Group

23 June 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 response to reports of poor workmanship by its contractors.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the ground floor of a retirement housing block. The resident bought and moved to the property on 15 July 2022.
  2. On 1 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord as she was experiencing problems with the shower. The landlord said that as it was an electric shower it was the responsibility of the resident to repair. It suggested she check if there was a warranty in place and offered its further help as needed. On 14 September 2022 the landlord raised a works order following a report of a noisy water tank at the resident’s property. Its contractor attended on 16 September 2022 and put in a new thermostat. The contractor told the landlord that it was likely that it needed to install a new pump. On 19 September 2022 the resident reported that she had no water to her shower, it having cut off mid shower. The contractor attended on 21 September 2022 to install a new pump.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 March 2023. In this she raised her concern about the maintenance of the communal garden, cleaning of the communal areas and reported a broken gate. Further she said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s current contractor. She said that he had failed to deliver a repair within the landlord’s published time scale. She also said that having completed a repair he had left her with “additional problems”. She highlighted a repair to her bathroom. She said that the shower sealant had come away and that the contractor had left her with a “silver plate instead of the nice wall tiles I started with”. She asked the landlord to tell her how she could get these items fixed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2023. The local estate manager provided this. It responded to the points raised about the cleaning and grounds maintenance. It addressed her comments about the contractor who had attended her home and her wish that he carry out no future works on her behalf. It said that it was unaware that the contractor had installed a plate into the shower and asked the resident if he had sought her permission. It said that it would arrange for a different contractor to attend to the issues in the shower. The letter further explained the landlord’s plan to introduce a national contract intended to improve its repairs service. It noted that the transition to this new contract would take time.
  5. On 29 March 2023 the resident replied to the landlord expressing her unhappiness and feeling that she had made a mistake in buying her property. In response to the question raised by the landlord in its stage 1 reply, she said that the contractor had taken no care in her home and not told her of damage to her tiles or that he was installing a metal plate. She said that her shower tray now dipped, had moved and that the sealant had come off. This was due to the contractor standing in the shower while carrying out the repair. She said that she did not believe that she should be liable for these repairs. The landlord responded directly to the resident and offered to visit her at home. It further explained that it had a new contractor and would let the resident know when it could carry out the repairs.
  6. The landlord obtained 2 quotes for the works to the resident’s bathroom in April 2023. It approved a quote and raised a works order on 2 May 2023. This was to refit the shower tray and install new tiling behind the shower. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 June 2023 as the issues highlighted in her complaint remained outstanding. She wrote again on 25 June 2023. The landlord’s area manager replied to her on 28 June 2023. In this it said that its contractor would carry out the works to her bathroom on 3 July 2023.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2023 asking it to escalate her complaint. She said that it had still not resolved the issues around the communal gardening and cleaning. She said that the repairs to her bathroom had been done the previous week, but that the site manager had not contacted her to check that it had been done to her satisfaction. She believed that this was unprofessional. She further said that she believed that the landlord had used substandard tradespeople, did not believe that its residents deserved an excellent service and that there was a “blatant disregard for older residents on the estate”.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 20 July 2023. It apologised that she was unhappy with its earlier complaint response. It further confirmed that it had spoken with her about her complaint on 18 July 2023. It noted the detail of her complaint. In its reply to her complaint about the poor workmanship of its contractors it said:
    1. It had carried out a repair to the hot water tank in her property. A few weeks after this she had lost hot water to her shower. Its contractor had recommended that it should install a pump. This was the responsibility of the resident not the landlord and it should have told her this. It did not do so and raised an order for its contractor to install the pump.
    2. To install the new pump its contractor had to disturb her tiling and had covered this with a metal plate. The estate manager had agreed that this was unsightly and raised an order for an alternative contractor to make good the tiling. It had reviewed the photographs provided by the resident and agreed that these works were not up to its expected standard.
    3. It was sorry that this had been a drawn out issue.
    4. It acknowledged that it had compounded the problem by not being clear about repair responsibilities in the first instance. It understood that she felt that the water tank had affected the shower, and that the landlord should take responsibility for this repair. Her lease did not cover this, and the landlord could not recover the costs of the works it had carried out in her property.
    5. It would arrange for the contractor to return and redo the tiling. It understood her reluctance to allow the contractor to return. It said that it had to give it the opportunity to rectify the problem.
    6. It offered her £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused.

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident replied to the landlord on 23 July 2023 and asked that her complaint remain open until the repairs were complete. She asked for information about her repairing responsibilities. Further she asked the landlord to confirm that if needed it would replace the water tank. She confirmed that she wanted to be present when the landlord carried out the repairs to her bathroom and that she wanted it to inspect the work once complete. She accepted its offer of compensation, although she believed this was too small.
  2. On 26 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It acknowledged that the lease can be difficult to interpret and confusing as to responsibility for repairs. It included a list of the items that were the landlord’s responsibility. Further it highlighted its responsibility for water pipes but not showers, baths, sinks and toilets as these are fixtures and fittings. It confirmed that should it require replacing, it would fit a new water tank. It noted the resident’s comment that she had only lost hot water to the shower following works to the tank and confirmed that it would not recharge the resident for the installation of the pump. It responded further to the other elements of her complaint. It confirmed that it would arrange for its contractor to return to redo the tiling and would pay her the offered £50.
  3. The landlord’s contractor reattended in August 2023 to remedy the work done previously, as agreed in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. Following a discussion with the resident and the estate manager about damage to the bathroom sink the contractor declined to finish the works. The contractor denied responsibility for the damage to the sink. The landlord said that it could not pursue a claim against the contractor as the resident did not see him cause the damage.
  4. The landlord obtained new quotes for a different contractor for the works to the resident’s bathroom. It received 2 quotes, accepting the lower of these and approved the works, raising an order on 31 October 2023.
  5. The resident contacted this service on 14 January 2024. She said that she wished us to investigate her complaint about the poor workmanship of the landlord’s contractors.
  6. The landlord confirmed that its contractor attended on 29 January 2024 to carry out works to “rake out existing grout and regrout tiles in the shower cubicle. Cut out the silicone and apply new. Chop out and replace 1 damaged tile”.
  7. In contact with us the resident has confirmed that she is still unhappy with the outcome of the works carried out on behalf of the landlord. Further she said that the original problem with the water tank has returned.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease is the primary document that sets out the obligation of both the landlord and resident in repairing the property. These are covered under sections 4 and 5 of the lease.
  2. Point 4.4 says that it is the responsibility of the leaseholder to keep the interior and the fixtures and fittings in good repair and decorative order.
  3. Point 5.1.a sets out the landlord’s responsibility for the main structure, roof, foundations and exterior of the block. It is responsible for “gas and water pipes, drains, electric cables and wires in under or upon the dwelling”. Point 5.1.c sets out that within the property it must maintain and keep in good order … the heating installation in the property; external doors, windows and the glass within them, locks handles and catches; water taps and electrical switches, batten holders and power points.
  4. When investigating a case, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The resident, as a leaseholder, has responsibility for the maintenance of her bathroom and the fixtures and fittings within it. The landlord has a responsibility for the water tank. The landlord attended the resident’s property to repair the water tank on 16 September 2022. Following a report that the resident’s shower had stopped working and acting on the recommendation of its contractor, the landlord installed a pump on 21 September 2022. From the photographic evidence provided the contractor also changed the resident’s shower. This work affected the tiling within the shower cubicle and the contractor installed a metal plate over the area. It is unclear if the change to the shower was needed to allow for the installation of the pump. These works were outside of the landlord’s responsibilities within the terms of the lease. There is no evidence that the resident raised her concerns about the quality of the work undertaken until she submitted her formal complaint to the landlord on 21 March 2023.
  6. Having received the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord took a positive approach to resolving the issues the resident raised. It arranged for a different contractor to attend and address the issues she reported within her shower. This was an attempt by the landlord to put things right for the resident and was positive in the spirit of dispute resolution. These works however fell short of the resident’s expectations. When she escalated her complaint in July 2023, she reported that the contractor had completed the works on 3 July 2023. She expressed her dissatisfaction that the estate manager had not inspected the works. She provided photographs as part of her stage 2 complaint. The landlord reviewed these and agreed that the work completed was not of the standard it expected. It agreed that it would arrange for the contractor to return to remedy the issues. It was right that the landlord tried to put right the issue for the resident. There was however a lack of clear oversight of its contractor.
  7. Having agreed to carry out works in the resident’s home, the landlord should have maintained oversight of the works and carried out an inspection when these were complete. This could have mitigated against the resident’s feeling of dissatisfaction and may have assured the quality of the work. This was a failure in its management of the outcome to the resident’s complaint.
  8. The landlord’s records show that there was a further dispute with the contractor about damage to the resident’s sink and it declined to finish the repairs. The landlord did not consider this as part of her formal complaint as the damage occurred after the conclusion of the stage 2. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this as a new complaint within its complaint process. It is recommended that the landlord should look again at this issue and provide the resident with a formal complaint response. It should note its responsibility for the actions of its contractors.
  9. To complete the works agreed through its complaint responses the landlord arranged for a third contractor to provide it with a quote. The initial quote included retiling the shower area. At the request of the landlord the contractor provided a revised quote based on using the existing tiles and regrouting these. It is appropriate that the landlord took steps to limit the scope of the works as these sat outside its responsibilities under the terms of the lease. There was however a failure to effectively communicate with and manage the resident’s expectations. Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord set out responsibilities for repairs. However, it said that it would arrange for the “contractor to return and redo the tiling”. While it appears that the landlord did tell the resident that it had not accepted the higher quote, it is understandable that the resident was unhappy with this. She is still unhappy with the outcome of the works to her home.
  10. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations as to what it would do. It would have been appropriate for it to attend with the contractor and agree a clear specification with the resident of the works it would agree to. It should then have carried out an inspection following completion of the works to ensure her satisfaction. It is recognised that the landlord acted initially to put things right for the resident, its failure to maintain an oversight of its contractor and agree with the resident a clear scope of works led to a poor outcome. This was a service failure.
  11. The landlord should now contact the resident and arrange for an inspection to revisit the works that it carried out. This is to enable it to identify failures in the standard of works carried out by its contractors. It should agree with the resident the action it will now take to put this right.
  12. Through its complaint process the landlord offered the resident £50 “as a gesture of goodwill”. Having considered the length of time over which the issue was outstanding, and the failures set out in the report an order for an added amount of compensation has been made. This is in line with this services guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of poor workmanship by its contractors.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the poor standard of repairs carried out within her home. This is in addition to the landlord’s offered £50.
    3. The landlord should contact the resident and arrange for an inspection by a suitably qualified person to revisit the works that it carried out. If as an outcome of this inspection, it agrees further works with the resident, the scope of these should be captured within a time specific action plan. It should share this with us and the resident. Alternatively, if it agrees an offer of compensation to enable the resident to arrange for the works to be done, it should evidence this.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should look again at the resident’s report that the landlord’s contractor caused damage to her bathroom sink. This should be considered through the landlord’s complaint process and should acknowledge its responsibility for the actions of its contractors.