Anchor Hanover Group (202301149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301149

Anchor Hanover Group

23 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of an energy rebate.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2012. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a managed scheme for elderly residents. The landlord is a housing association.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord’s scheme manager raised a concern with its energy broker about a forecasted increase in the cost of energy for the 2021–22 financial year. The testing contractor confirmed on 3 March 2022 that the scheme’s gas meter had a fault, which had resulted in an overcharge. On 12 May 2023, the energy broker told the landlord that it had received the credit from the supplier and had forwarded £16,865.37 to the landlord on 3 May 2022. The landlord wrote to all residents at the development on 13 March 2023. It said it had arranged to pay the energy rebate directly into residents’ rent accounts.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 March 2023. She said:
1. She had searched the landlord’s website for an email address that she could send her complaint to but had been unable to find one.
2. The landlord had transferred an energy refund payment to her rent account which it had been holding since 2019. She did not have the ability to access this account. She expected the landlord to transfer the money to her personal bank account immediately.
3. She felt the landlord had not handled the refund of the overpayment correctly. She was “disgusted how she had been treated”.
4. She believed she was overpaying for the gas she used.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. It said:
1. At a meeting with residents and in the written communication that followed, it had explained it had transferred the money to rent accounts as an avenue to then refund the money directly to residents’ bank accounts or via cheque.
2. It realised there had been some miscommunication around the process and timescales. This was due to the speed with which it was trying to process the payments. It recognised the process was not as smooth or as well communicated as it should have been and apologised for this.
3. During the meeting in December 2022, the residents had made clear that the refund was a priority for them. It had made every effort to process the refund as soon as possible.
4. It had informed its customer communication team of the difficulty the resident had faced in locating their contact details. The team would review the accessibility of the contact information.
5. It had agreed to meet the resident face–to–face and had waited for the return of the scheme manager as she had requested. When the manager returned, the resident said she no longer wanted a meeting, but did ask it to escalate her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 April 2023. She listed additional points she wanted it to address at stage 2 of her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord’s decision to place the refunded money into residents’ rent accounts was a time-wasting tactic, a misappropriation of money, and against the law.
2. The landlord had allowed the money to remain in its own account for 4 years accruing interest, instead of forwarding it to residents at the earliest opportunity.
3. Contact from the customer relations team was slow, unclear and unhelpful.
4. The landlord had been “lying about the situation in the face-to-face tenants meeting in December 2022”. The senior managers present at the meeting said they knew nothing about the refund.
5. The time the landlord had taken to refund the money was “ridiculous”.
6. She wanted the landlord to calculate the interest and pay it along with the compensation for the “unprofessional way tenants had been treated”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It said:
1. Its usual process was to issue refunds to customers’ rent accounts. This allowed it to review balances to determine if it could return credits to residents. The process was in line with its tenancy agreements, which required it to offset any credit against arrears before refunding back to customers.
2. This was the best way to ensure a resident received their credit back, either by reduced direct debit or by having a reduced month’s rent if sufficient credit was present. Where customers received their benefits directly, it “allows the local authority to reduce their income”.
3. Its energy team had reviewed the projected energy consumption, current energy costs and proposed budgets. The new charges seemed to be slightly less than what was set for the 2023-24 budget. It had asked its energy team to review the information. It would then explain any changes at the budget meeting with residents in May 2023.
4. It had received the refund from the energy supplier in May 2022. It would normally not refund credits until the end of the financial year to ensure it had recovered all parts of the service charge. This was so that it did not have to later bill residents for a credit that it should not have released. Because of the delays associated with the energy supplier, it had released the refund before the end of the financial year.
5. The information given by the staff at the meeting in December 2022 was based on what they understood at the time, and they had given it in good faith. It acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in internal communication. It was sorry for any confusion this had caused.
6. It had asked its energy team to ensure that the companies supplying its utilities provided it with timely and accurate billing going forward, and that reasonable timeframes were adhered to in contract/billing disputes and enquiries. This would reduce the time residents would have to wait for answers or a resolution.
7. It had released the credits as soon as it was able to, and had done so in line with its tenancy agreement. It therefore did not feel it was necessary to pay the resident compensation.

Events post internal complaints process

On 10 August 2023, the resident informed this Service that she had not received a response to her escalation request. On 30 August 2023, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 September 2023. It said it had sent her a stage 2 response on 21 April 2023 (as detailed in paragraph 8 above) but had not been aware she had not received it. It confirmed it had provided an email copy of the response on 14 August 2023 as soon as it became aware and responded to additional points she had raised in an email on 2 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the resident’s communications with the landlord and the Ombudsman, she alleged she felt the landlord had broken the law, misappropriated funds, and that it had given her false information. It is beyond our remit to make a legal finding of criminality. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be given and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this. Our investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident also alleged that the landlord discriminated against her because of her age. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication and response to the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable. This includes its response to her concerns about discrimination.
As previously mentioned, the resident said that she did not receive the landlord’s initial stage 2 response on 21 April 2023. In her continued communications she raised several other issues, including staff conduct and repairs. The landlord has informed this Service that neither of those points had previously been raised as part of the resident’s first complaint. It therefore opened a new stage 1 complaint so that both issues could be considered separately. The landlord’s suggestion was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). For this reason, neither staff conduct or repairs will form part of this investigation. The resident may choose to refer these matters to us for separate investigation once they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the energy rebate

The tenancy agreement outlines the variable monthly service charges and rent, both of which must be paid on the first day of every month.
The landlord’s service charge policy explains how it administers the variable service charges:
1. It will set a budget before the start of each financial year with estimated costs of providing each service. The estimates will be based on its previous costs and reflect any anticipated increase or decrease.
2. It will share the budget with residents and, “where possible”, discuss the planned charges with them to consider their views.
3. After the end of each financial year, it will prepare final accounts of its actual expenditure on the services provided. It will share the final accounts with residents.
4. If it has spent less overall on providing services than its budget had anticipated, it will carry the surplus forward to the next year.
5. Similarly, if it has spent more overall than its budget had anticipated, it will carry the deficit forward to the next year.
The landlord’s budget statements indicate that its forecasts for future energy costs are based on the estimated usage from historical consumption and the estimated unit rate at which it purchases gas and electricity.
The resident has indicated in her correspondence that the landlord has been withholding the money associated with the overcharge of energy since 2019. The evidence does not support this view. The landlord initially contacted its energy broker on 25 February 2021 due to its concerns about the projected energy charges. Between 25 February 2021and 20 August 2022, it sent a further 8 emails to the energy broker pursuing answers. The landlord’s actions were appropriate. They show it had identified the issue and had been proactive in its pursuit of a resolution.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord’s scheme manager identified that there had been an increase in consumption in 2019, which coincided with the installation of a new gas meter. They queried whether the new meter could be the cause of the overcharge. While we have not had the opportunity to inspect the specific emails, the energy broker evidenced that the landlord had communicated with its energy supplier (in August/September 2022) requesting that the meter was tested to ensure it was accurate. The energy supplier told the landlord that it would make arrangements for an independent testing organisation to remove and test the meter. It also advised that the landlord would be liable for the costs if no fault was identified. The landlord requested a quote for the testing of the meter on 14 October 2021. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and indicated that it was taking the steps we would expect to determine the cause of the issue.
It is not clear from the evidence when the meter was removed. However, there are emails to show that the landlord pursued the testing company for the results on 16 and 22 February 2022. On 3 March 2023, it advised the energy broker that the results had been returned and that the meter was faulty. On 7 March 2023 it asked the energy broker to pursue the energy supplier for a refund of the overpayment. Between 7 March 2022 and 11 May 2022, the landlord sent a further 10 emails pursuing the refund. Again, the landlord’s actions are reasonable and illustrate that it was actively chasing the energy broker and gas supplier to recover the money.
On 12 May 2023, the energy broker told the landlord that it had refunded the money to it on 3 May 2022. Between the landlord’s first email to the energy broker on 25 February 2025 and it being notified it had received the credit, there is no evidence of communication with residents. The evidence does indicate that the scheme manager was communicating with the residents verbally, which was reasonable given it is managed accommodation. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had followed up with regular written updates to the residents as well as keeping contemporaneous records of verbal updates. Had it done so, it may have resolved some of the confusion around the issue as well as the frustration that the resident likely felt.
There is also no evidence that the landlord wrote to the residents to advise that the credit had been obtained. This was unreasonable. On 9 December 2022, a number of managers held an in–person budget meeting at the resident’s scheme. During the meeting, the residents asked about the energy repayment that was due and asked why the landlord had not repaid it. The managers on site said that they were unaware of the refund. Given they had come to talk about the budget, it was unreasonable and unhelpful that the managers were not aware of a key financial issue affecting residents. Failing to provide up–to–date information or be aware of the current situation undermined the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord’s processes.
It was not until 13 March 2023, 10 months after receiving the money back from the energy broker, that the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her of the refund. This was an unacceptable timeframe, which led to further deterioration in the landlord-tenant relationship. It is important for landlords to be mindful that, as they are spending residents’ money, those residents have the right to be informed and question what is being done with that money. There are of course legal obligations that must be complied with in the provision of information associated with service charges. However, in the spirit of transparency and openness, landlords should deal with such issues in a fair and reasonable manner and seek to provide information at the earliest opportunity. This would have been especially beneficial in this case.
In its letter on 13 March 2023, the landlord said that the money would be paid directly into residents’ rent accounts. It felt this was the quickest method and would avoid the necessity of mailing residents or residents having to cash cheques. It advised that residents could then decide whether they wanted to leave the money in their rent accounts or have it repaid by cheque or bank transfer. It also advised that those in rent arrears would not have the option of having the refund repaid to them. In such instances the refund would be used to offset any arrears. Given the demographic within the scheme, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the choice between a cheque or bank transfer. As the resident has pointed out, many of the occupants of the scheme were elderly and some ill. It therefore may have been challenging for a number of residents to attend a bank to cash a cheque.
However, the landlord’s reasoning surrounding the necessity to transfer the money into the resident’s rent account first was inconsistent and confusing. In an email on 16 March 2023, it said paying the money into the rent accounts was the “simplest and most efficient way to avoid the complications that can occur when sending cheques”. On 23 March 2023 it said that it had been incorrect: the refund could not remain in residents’ rent accounts and would have to be transferred out by either a cheque or bank transfer. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it was normal to issue refunds to residents’ rent accounts. It said this was “in line with our tenancy agreement where it states that we should offset any credit with arrears first before sending credits back to customers”. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include such a clause. It is also not in the landlord’s service charge policy, or the service charge leaflet provided to us for this investigation. It is therefore unclear where this information came from.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord went on to state that transferring to a rent account “is the best way to ensure the customer gets their credit back either by reduced direct debit/credit or having a reduced month’s rent if they had sufficient credit”. We disagree with this statement. The best way to ensure a resident receives a refund is to transfer it to their personal bank account. The landlord also said, “Where customers have any benefits sent direct to customers it allows the local authority to reduce their income too.” This was unclear and not relevant to the resident. She was not in receipt of benefits and was not in arrears. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have checked this and then to have transferred the money to her personal bank account as opposed to her rent account. The landlord’s messaging was delayed, unclear and inconsistent, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident also complained about the overall delay in receiving the refund. The landlord advised that it normally only credited refunds at the end of the financial year after reconciling accounts. Again, while this may be correct, it is not mentioned in the landlord’s service charge procedure or information leaflet. Where a landlord is advising it is following practice, it should be able to point to a specific policy or procedure. In this case it has not provided the evidence to demonstrate this, which is concerning.
In summary, when the landlord first realised it was overcharged, it pursued the matter in the way we would have expected. However, its communication with the resident about the matter was delayed, inconsistent, and in some instances unclear. The communication was also not supported by the policies or procedures provided to this Service. The landlord’s actions caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience and affected her confidence in its processes. For the reasons above, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the energy rebate.
We have also made an award of £200 compensation to be paid. We acknowledge that the resident requested compensation of £2,000. However, that amount is not considered to align with the detriment in the case. In the absence of a tariff in the landlord’s compensation policy, our award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints procedure. It committed to acknowledging stage 1 complaints within 1 working day and providing a response within 14 calendar days. There is no indication in the procedure that stage 2 requests will receive an acknowledgement. The landlord states that stage 2 complaint investigations will be undertaken by a senior manager and responded to within 14 calendar days.
The resident made her complaint on 16 March 2023. The landlord sent an email the same day responding to each of her complaint points. The landlord’s policy says it will contact a resident within 2 working days via telephone or face-to-face. If the complaint can be resolved through this conversation, it says it will inform the customer relations team which will log the information and send a summary to the customer. The member of staff responding on 16 March 2023 did not follow this process. The records show that the complaint was not logged and that the resident did not receive a stage 1 acknowledgement. The email that was sent did not indicate that it was a complaint response. The process followed was confusing for the resident.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord asked if the resident would be happy for her complaint to be closed. It advised of a forthcoming meeting and said the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was dissatisfied with the outcome. The resident responded the next day and told the landlord she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not respond, which was unreasonable and frustrating for the resident.
This caused the resident to expend avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response. She again asked it to escalate her complaint on 6 April 2022. The landlord issued a stage 1 response the same day. It did not explain why it was issuing a stage 1 response and not the stage 2 response that the resident expected. The landlord did not follow the requirements of its complaints procedure, which caused confusion for the resident. It also exceeded its response target by 8 days, which was an unnecessary delay.
The resident added further points to her escalation request on 10 April 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement via post, which the resident received on 13 April 2023. On 15 April 2023 she told it she had previously asked for all contact to be via email rather than post. This was a reasonable request, which the landlord should have adhered to. Not doing so was frustrating for the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. The resident disputes she received the response. On 24 April 2023, she wrote to the landlord stating that she was dissatisfied with the way it had handled her complaint. She said that it had written to her via post despite her previously asking for email communication only. Upon receiving the resident’s communication, the landlord forwarded it to the author of the stage 2 response. It said, “I don’t believe the resident has received her stage 2 response before sending this email.” However, there is no evidence that it followed up on the resident’s email. It would have been reasonable for it to have asked her if she had received the response, to have let her know that it had been sent, or to have simply emailed it to her as she had requested.
The landlord informed us that it had originally posted the stage 2 response and not used email as requested. This was a failure to abide by a reasonable request that caused frustration and delay for the resident, as well as further loss of confidence in the complaints process.
After being contacted by the resident on 10 August 2023, we wrote to the landlord on 30 August 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 2 response. It responded to the resident and this Service on 5 September 2023. It said that it emailed the resident a copy of the original stage 2 response on 14 August 2023 as soon as it was aware she had not received it. In the same email it also addressed her complaint points regarding misappropriation of funds, age discrimination and repairs, which the resident said the landlord had not previously addressed.
This email response on 5 September 2023 appears to have been created as a continuation of the original stage 2 response. Of the 3 topics raised, it mainly dealt with the misappropriation of funds and age discrimination. While it touched on repairs, it said that because repairs had not been mentioned previously it would open a new complaint (which later happened). The landlord had dealt with the misappropriation of funds in its previous responses and again in the email on 5 September 2023, where its reasoning remained the same. We have therefore made no further comment on that aspect.
The resident’s complaint that she had experienced discrimination was a serious allegation that warranted a proper response from the landlord. It is our opinion that it failed to answer or adequately respond to her claims of discrimination. Raising the issue at stage 2 unfairly prevented the resident from requesting a review of the decision. As explained earlier in the report, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with her and ask her to explain how she had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it conducted a thorough investigation into her concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and reviewing records) and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what she no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
As previously mentioned, the landlord treated the email on 5 September 2023 as a continuation of its stage 2 response. If this was its intention, the email should have been marked as such, and should have been written by a senior manager. Instead, it was written by a customer services advisor, which was not in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
While the landlord’s initial email to the resident at stage 1 was swift and comprehensive, the failure to adequately explain that it was a stage 1 response led to confusion. It also failed to take account of the resident’s express wish to receive communication by email. This created unnecessary issues around the stage 2 response and caused further time and trouble for the resident through continued communication. The landlord also failed to properly address the resident’s allegation of discrimination through its complaints process. Considering the full circumstances of the case, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made an award of £100 compensation. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where the resident was adversely affected, but there was no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the energy rebate.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures associated with its complaint handling. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears or other financial arrangement. It is comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the energy rebate.
  2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to ask if she would like to pursue her complaint about her allegation of age discrimination. If she chooses to pursue the complaint, the landlord must respond in line with its policy and the Code.