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

Anchor Hanover Group (202202623)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202623

Anchor Hanover Group

15 September 2022


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 the resident’s request for the lock to be reinstated on the back gate of the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is in a block of flats with a communal area. The communal area has two entrances which provide access to the flats, and a gate dividing the property which is known as the ‘back gate’.
  2. During a residents’ meeting on 17 February 2022, the landlord advised that the back gate would no longer be lockable due to the potential risk that emergency services would be unable to access the property or that residents may receive delayed care if emergency services went to the incorrect entrance. Concerns were raised during the meeting about anti-social behaviour if there was no lock. The landlord advised that the risk of emergency services not having access would take precedent.
  3. Following the meeting, the resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2022 to raise concerns relating to the back gate remaining unlocked. He advised that the gate being unlocked may provide safety risks for residents who have ‘French doors’, and that, previously, emergency services have had no issues gaining access. The landlord responded advising it would not be altering its decision but would put up CCTV notices in order to deter any ASB from occurring. The landlord also warned the resident to be mindful of his behaviour towards members of staff following a report about his behaviour. The resident was dissatisfied with the warning and advised the landlord that his behaviour had been acceptable.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his request for the lock to be reinstated on the back gate and raised a complaint. He expressed concerns that the landlord had not considered the opinion of the residents, and that emergency services had confirmed during a phone call with him that there had been no previous issues regarding access to the property, and that they had taken note of the two differing entrances.
  5. In the landlord’s response, it advised that it would seek written reassurance from the emergency services that this was the case before making a final decision. It advised that there would be reviews in April and August 2022 relating to the decision to remove the lock and advised that any changes would not affect the resident’s service charges.
  6. Following the stage two response, the resident provided evidence of written confirmation that emergency services had experienced no delays and were aware of the separate entrances, and the resident also provided a residents’ petition which had been signed in dissatisfaction that the lock had been removed. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service on 09 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a residents’ meeting on 17 February 2022 to discuss the changes being implemented at the property. The resident raised concerns following the meeting and the landlord responded within an appropriate timeframe. The landlord advised the resident that it would not be altering its decision due to health and safety risks. This was reasonable as the landlord has a duty of care to the residents of the property, and ultimately the gate (and any lock) is the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. However, the landlord should have properly investigated the risks and gained appropriate evidence in order to be able to suitably justify the changes being made. The resident regularly advised the landlord that throughout his tenancy, there had been no delays caused by the gate being locked and therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to properly address the resident’s concerns.
  3. In the stage two response, the landlord advised the resident that it would seek written reassurance from the emergency services before making an ultimate decision. The landlord then failed to provide evidence of it communicating with the emergency services as promised. This set unreasonable expectations for the resident, and suggested the landlord was not following a fair (evidenced based) process.
  4. When this Service asked the landlord for copies of the written communication with the emergency services, it advised that it never stated that it would seek written reassurance. This is evidence of poor record-keeping from the landlord, as it was unaware what had been said to the resident in its final response.
  5.  Whilst addressing the resident’s concerns about the changes to the gate, the landlord also informally addressed the resident’s behaviour towards a staff member by email, and advised the resident that the staff member was considering leaving. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to address any behavioural concerns in a more formal way, such as with a separate letter and process. It would also be reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure that all internal communication discussing residents remains professional in order to manage behavioural situations effectively.
  6.  Ultimately, the gate is the landlord’s responsibility and within its role to manage. Therefore it is the landlord’s decision whether the gate remains lockable. Nevertheless, the landlord should have made evidence-based decisions, and provided adequate reasoning, particularly considering the contrary evidence provided by the resident.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s request for the lock to be reinstated on the back gate of the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks:
    1. To pay the resident £100.00 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inadequate explanation of the proposed changes.
    2. To review its decision to remove the lock, including securing written advice from the relevant emergency services as it previously offered. The outcome, reasoning and evidence of this review should be shared with the residents.