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

Anchor Hanover Group (202231369)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231369

Anchor Hanover Group

9 April 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. poor staff conduct
    2. anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a studio flat in a block of flats for tenants over 55 years of age.
  2. On 5 January 2022, the landlord responded to a complaint from the resident that a staff member was having an affair with her neighbour that resided in the block. It said that this allegation had been investigated previously and there was no evidence to support the allegation. The resident raised a further complaint about ASB from the neighbour and staff conduct. On 2 February 2023, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It found no evidence of ASB, and no evidence of poor staff conduct.
  3. On 3 August 2023, a friend of the resident who also lives in the block raised a complaint with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to the resident as “resident A” and her friend as “resident B”. Resident B reported that the neighbour had been glaring at her resident A, and they both felt intimidated. Resident B also alleged that the neighbour was having an affair with a staff member, and as a result the staff member was treating her unfavourably. On 14 August 2023, resident A provided details of witnesses who could provide evidence of the alleged affair.
  4. On 18 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had contacted the witnesses and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship between the location manager and her neighbour. The landlord noted that it had now investigated this allegation on 4 occasions, and it would not reopen the investigation unless the resident could provide new evidence. It advised resident A that she was causing distress, and it would consider a repeat of the allegation as harassment. It said it would investigate the new allegations of ASB from the neighbour.
  5. On 8 September 2023, resident A and resident B escalated the complaint. They reported:
    1. further allegations of ASB from the neighbour including filthy looks and banging a chair in the communal area.
    2. that the landlord had not contacted the witnesses when investigating the alleged affair between the staff member and the neighbour.
    3. that the staff member was socialising with her neighbour that caused the ASB.
    4. the area manager and the staff member were friends and were not reporting the truth of what was happening at the block. 
  6. On 13 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that
    1. its investigation found no evidence to support the resident A’s allegations of ASB against the neighbour.
    2. it had investigated and contacted all witnesses about the alleged affair and found no evidence.
    3. it would investigate the new allegation that the staff member was socialising with her neighbour.
    4. the area manager and staff member were work colleagues and not friends and it refuted the resident’s claim that they were not telling the truth.
  7. When resident A brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB from her neighbour. She said that her neighbour had been having an affair with the landlord’s staff member and as such, the landlord had not provided a fair service when she reported ASB. As a resolution to the complaint, resident A wanted the landlord to deal with the ASB issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The landlord addressed its complaint responses to both resident A and resident B. While the landlord has treated this complaint as a joint complaint, we have only investigated the complaint from resident A. This is because resident A brought the complaint to the Ombudsman, and we have no confirmation that resident B gave authority for the Ombudsman to investigate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct

  1. Resident A has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. The landlord investigated the allegations of inappropriate staff conduct as part of a previous complaint investigation. The staff member’s manager interviewed resident A and the member of staff. The landlord met with resident A and advised her that it found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take in the circumstances.
  3. When resident A raised a further complaint that the landlord had not conducted a thorough investigation, it contacted resident A who provided details of witnesses that were not interviewed. The landlord reviewed its previous investigation and contacted the witnesses provided by the resident and found no new evidence to support the allegations. The landlord communicated its findings to resident A through its complaint responses. This was a proportionate investigation when the resident provided new witness details, and it appropriately communicated its findings with resident A.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to resident A’s reports of poor staff conduct. It appropriately investigated her concerns and communicated the outcome of the investigation.

 The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the matters reported amounted to ASB but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. Progressing all cases through the relevant aspects of its ASB procedure will enable a landlord to make an informed decision as to whether a reported issue amounts to ASB and if so, what action it should take in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord defines ASB as actions that cause nuisance, annoyance, or distress to others in a community. The landlord has an ASB policy which refers to neighbour disputes. The policy says that it will support residents to discuss the issues, create understanding and community cohesion. It says that the landlord will only take formal action if it is satisfied that evidence can demonstrate that ASB has occurred.
  3. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded to previous reports of ASB from resident A about the neighbour. When providing evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said that it had verbally offered mediation in the past, however, neither party was interested in this approach. It would be open to reoffering mediation to help improve the relationship between the parties. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
  4. When resident A raised a complaint, she reported new incidents of ASB from the neighbour which included laughing loudly in her company, banging bottles and a chair in the communal area, and filthy looks. Based on the evidence, the landlord spoke with the neighbour who denied the allegations. The landlord spoke with resident A and explained that there was no evidence to support the allegations of ASB. The landlord explained its position in its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Its investigation into the allegations of ASB was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. It contacted both parties involved and when it found no evidence to support the allegations of ASB, it advised resident A of its findings. This was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.