Anchor Hanover Group (202231413)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231413

Anchor Hanover Group

28 March 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the warning letter of harassment sent to her.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the availability of the estate manager (EM).
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

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 this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s complaint about the allegations of harassment made against her by the landlord. The landlord provided an informal response to the complaint, but this Service has not been provided with evidence to show the resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage 2, or that it completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured periodic tenancy with the landlord which began on 22 March 2013. She lives in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association who provides housing and care for older people. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord employs an estate manager whose role it is to provide support to the residents that live on the estate, and oversee the day to running of the estate.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern terms of employment or other personnel issues, or the ending of a service tenancy following the ending of a contract of employment.
The Ombudsman notes there were references made about the terms of employment or conduct of the landlord’s staff in the resident’s complaint. In accordance with the scheme, this investigation will not include this aspect of the complaint as it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to decide upon. Any reference to the events associated with the matter will be for contextual purposes only.

Landlord obligations and procedural documents

The tenancy conditions set out that residents should speak to the estate manager (EM) at their location, as their first point of contact and the quickest way to put things right for them. It further states that there would be occasions when they may not be available due to training, but it has courses available online to reduce travel and time away from the location.
Residents will pay a monthly service charge to cover the cost of services provided at their location. This includes costs relating to the EM service, including salary and other associated costs. Part of the EM’s duties include:
1. Providing information, advice, and support throughout the resident’s tenancy.
2. The main link with the landlord’s property team and building contractors and to make sure residents are fully informed about the progress of any work.
3. Meeting with the resident regularly to discuss their needs.
4. Carrying out regular health and safety checks and ensuring the location is well-maintained.
5. To respond to all repair requests and deal with any building emergencies within their hours of work.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this is not possible, it will provide an explanation and a date by when the stage 1 response will be received. This will not be more than 10 working days in total without good reason unless a different timescale has been agreed with the resident and should not exceed 20 days.
It will make an offer of compensation or good will when it has failed to deliver services to an acceptable standard.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the EM on 20 December 2022, regarding an outstanding repair to the door entry system. She said she had tried to contact them by telephone, but she was unable to get through and had reported the repair to the contact centre. She reported that the delay in completing the repair was disrupting post-delivery and refuse collection.
The resident sent an email to the EM on 28 December 2022 regarding repairs to a gate. She mentioned that the operative who came to repair the gate was unable to contact them as they were off sick for 2 days. She mentioned that the notice board next to the gate had not been updated for a while.
The EM sent a notification to residents on 17 January 2023. They advised that they would be off work on 10 January 2023 as they were on a course. They also provided an update to residents on other matters.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2023. She complained that:
1. No action had been taken to repair the door and this was making it difficult for people to gain access.
2. The EM had not been on site and only worked a few hours during the day.
3. Residents had no one to go to for repair issues.
The landlord sent written acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint on 20 January 2023. It advised that one of its managers would contact her directly within 2 working days to discuss her concerns. It also advised that it aimed to investigate and resolve the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement letter.
The resident wrote to the EM on 2 February 2023 and asked her to put the dates she was off work on the notice board and to specify if she would be on sick leave or hospital appointments or training courses. She also asked for information about the gardeners as the area had not been tended for over 2 months.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 6 February 2023. It thanked the resident for their time on 23 January and 25 January 2023 when they discussed the complaint. It had concluded from their telephone discussion that:
1. She was seeking a greater understanding from its repairs team when reporting an issue.
2. She requested an increase in the EM’s hours allocated to their scheme and spent on site and a reduction in their absence for sickness and holidays.
3. It had met with the EM and reviewed their working pattern including all recorded absences and checked if there was any reduction to their allocated hours.
4. The door had since been repaired but it acknowledged that it can be frustrating for residents when repairs are needed on site.
5. There was no reduction in the EM’s allocated hours at the estate and it remained 20 hours (Monday to Thursday, 7:30am to 2:30pm). Their hours include time allocated on another estate so they would only be at the resident’s estate for 3 to 4 days per week.
6. As discussed, all residents contribute to the EM’s hours through the service charge and as the budget had been set for 2023-24 it was unlikely there would be any change to the current level of support. If there was a consensus from most residents that they would like an increase to the EM support on site this would have to go through a consultation process.
7. It had found no evidence of any irregularities regarding the EM absences, and it had found no unrecorded absence in December 2022 as stated during their call.
8. For the occasions where the EM is not onsite, they provide a 24-hour, 7 day a week on call system.
9. As a result of her complaint, it would ask the EM to share the repair priorities, timescales and managing expectations poster with residents to help manage expectations.
10. If she felt it would be beneficial, it could arrange a joint meeting her and the EM.
The EM wrote to the resident on 7 February 2023 and advised that she would always put the dates in the newsletter and update any changes on her office door and the notice boards. She also provided information on the date the gardeners would be on site.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 16 February 2023. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns from the telephone call as below:
1. She did not request an increase in the EM hours, but she would like them to be available for the hours they are employed for.
2. The EM had not been in since the stage 1 response as she said her car had broken down.
3. She was not happy that the landlord referred to her as being harsh when she asked if the EM would get paid for taking their mother to the hospital.
4. If the residents are paying for services, then the EM should not be caring for their mother and working there.
5. She was unhappy that the EM took some days off sick in December 2022 and the contractors always mentioned that they were not always available.
The landlord sent the resident a warning letter dated 17 February 2023 advising her against harassment and intimidation of its staff.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 February 2023. It said it would aim to respond within 20 working days.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord around 22 February 2023. She expressed concerns about the letter sent to the resident. She said the reports made against the resident were unsubstantiated as she has the right to keep a record of the times the EM is available. She said the resident had not pressurised other residents to monitor the EM attendance but did suggest to the landlord to look into their attendance on the estate. She was concerned that the landlord had said it would keep the letter on her tenancy record thereby causing the resident great distress. She demanded a retraction of the letter and an apology for the allegations.
The landlord wrote to the resident and her daughter on 1 March 2023. It said:
1. It was a difficult message to give but it had reached a point where it needed to let the resident know of its concern as its staff member was feeling harassed and intimidated.
2. It would not share confidential information about its staff members reasons for absence.
3. Whilst it is not ideal, there are situations where staff deal with personal matters within work time. The EM manager will manage any absences in an appropriate way.
4. There are many elements to the EM role which are always not all visible to residents and it is not appropriate for them to feel that they are being monitored by residents.
The resident wrote to the EM on 1 March 2023 and queried an earlier notice received from them that the tree surgeons would be on site on 27 February 2023, but had still not visited and no one had updated her. She also said she had not yet received the newsletter for March from the EM.
The EM responded on 2 March 2023 that they would be posting the newsletter that day. They also provided an update on the tree surgeons.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 7 March 2023. A summary of the response is provided below:
1. It was satisfied with the responses previously sent to the resident.
2. The EM contract was 30 hours per week and the service charge at the estate is charged for 25 hours of the location manager costs and 5 hours are charged to another estate.
3. There will be some weeks when the EM will be away from the estate for less than 5 hours and others where she is away for more depending on the tasks that are required however across the year it expects this to even out.
4. The role of the EM is flexible and not desk based, so many tasks can be completed using technology, but it does mean that they will not always be in the estate office.
5. The EM may be in other properties, attending training or meetings related to the residents or visiting the other estate.
6. The EM manager had checked and is confident that there are no anomalies in their attendance at work.
7. Its staff were entitled to take leave which in most cases is paid but there are cases where unpaid leave is agreed depending on the circumstances.
8. There are also occasions when they may be unwell or have medical appointments but it was unable to share this information with residents.
9. It assured her that it has an absence management procedure and takes appropriate action as an employer.
10. It will ensure residents are aware of any absences and let them know of any cover arrangements.

Summary of actions post complaint process

The resident contacted another manager on 25 June 2023 and reported a fault with the communal aerial.
The EM contacted the resident on 26 June 2023 and updated her on a repair related matter.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 5 July 2023, and it advised her to raise any repair related enquiries directly with the EM to avoid any delays.
On 1 August 2023, the resident raised further enquiries about her television license with the manager. The manager responded that her enquiry had been passed to the EM to look into.
On 16 September 2023, the resident advised the landlord that she was afraid to contact the EM or her manager due to their accusations of harassment against her.
The landlord responded to the resident on 26 September 2023 and advised that it had reviewed the letter and spoken to the manager who also apologised for the tone as it was not their intention to frighten her. It said the manager had offered to meet with her so that they could try to re-establish the relationship so that she would feel comfortable raising local issues with the EM.
The landlord provided a copy of its newsletter dated October 2023. It contained the EM hours of contact, dates they were offsite, and alternative contact details.
The landlord sent the resident a redaction of harassment letter on 18 December 2023, and it apologised for any distress it had caused.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the availability of the local estate manager.

The Ombudsman is unable to make findings as to the conduct of the landlord’s employee, however our role is to assess the way in which the landlord has responded to a resident’s report.
As a tenant who contributes towards the services she receives on the estate, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident is entitled to request information relating to the availability, frequency, and effectiveness of the service. The resident is therefore within her rights to make enquiries about the hours of attendance of the EM. However, this Service notes that some of the enquiries raised by the resident (particularly in the stage 2 complaint) pertained to the EM’s terms of employment, sickness absence records and whether they would be paid for days they were not in office. The landlord’s response was therefore appropriate and reasonable in advising her that this information was confidential.
It assured the resident that it had investigated her concerns about the EM not attending the offices regularly and concluded that there were no unrecorded absences. This said, it advised the resident that it has an absence management procedure and would take appropriate action where needed.
Further to this, the landlord took steps to manage the resident’s expectations. It provided an explanation about the estate manager’s role, their working hours and clarified that there may be occasions where they would work offsite and not be visibly available in the office. It also provided the resident alternative ways of making contact when the EM was not available. It advised the resident that it will ensure that residents are made aware of any absences in the future and of any cover arrangements.
In view of the above, the landlord has responded accordingly to the concerns raised by the resident. This Service has therefore, not found any evidence of maladministration in how it dealt with the resident’s reports about the availability of the local estate manager.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy recognises a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. It welcomes complaints from anyone, or the representative of anyone, who is affected by the services it provides including their family members.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord around 22 February 2023, regarding the warning letter sent to her mother on 17 February 2023. This was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction and a request for the landlord to retract the letter. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not treat this submission, on behalf of the resident, as a formal complaint in adherence with its complaints policy. It is noted that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and provided a written response, but it failed to offer her the chance to escalate the complaint to the next stage of its complaints process. It also did not address the resident’s request for a retraction of the letter and an apology. This further prevented this Service from investigating this aspect of her complaint as it had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In response to our request for information, the landlord informed this Service that the complaint was raised by the resident’s daughter and the resident had not made any reference to the warning letter in her initial complaint. The landlord appeared not to be familiar with its own complaints policy, in that it would accept complaints made on behalf of the residents by their relatives. It said it had dealt with the matters separately, but this does not explain why it failed to address the matter under its complaint process.
Failure to address the resident’s complaint under its complaints process amounts to maladministration. This would have caused the resident frustration and time and trouble.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord apologised to the resident and redacted the letter in December 2023 but this was several months after the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the warning letter of harassment sent to her is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the availability of the local estate manager (EM).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded accordingly to the resident’s enquiry regarding the EM’s working hours. It offered a detailed explanation about their work pattern and managed her expectations in terms of their availability and visibility. It advised her that it could not share confidential information about its employees terms of employment.
The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint about a warning letter issued to her in accordance with its complaints policy. This prevented the Ombudsman from investigating the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failure identified in its handling of the complaint.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £300 for the distress and time and trouble to the resident due to its handling of the complaint.
3. Share this report with the relevant staff to ensure that they familiarise themselves with its complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code with a view to improving complaint responses.