We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Anchor Hanover Group (202422120)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422120

Anchor Hanover Group

1 October 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 implementation of an appropriate dress policy.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a one-bedroom first floor flat, since 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy agreement includes an additional charge for support. The resident is a veteran who has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a history of military trauma. He also has diagnoses of depression, anxiety and noise sensitivity.
  2. The resident reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) on 20 March 2024. He said another resident asked him why he wore his dressing gown in communal areas and that other residents were unhappy about this. He felt her tone was aggressive. The resident told the landlord he wore his dressing gown over his clothes to avoid cooling down during physiotherapy breaks. He explained how the dressing gown helped manage the physical symptoms of his PTSD.
  3. The landlord investigated the reports of ASB. It wrote to the resident on 28 June 2024 and said other residents felt uncomfortable when he wore his dressing gown in communal areas. It referenced meeting the resident and suggesting he wore alternative clothing to prevent future confrontations. It asked him to restrict his use of the dressing gown when visiting managers and in communal spaces. It said he could wear it briefly when visiting the waste bins or during his allocated laundry slot. It said the alleged perpetrator of ASB denied the allegations and it was one person’s word against another.
  4. The resident made several complaints about the landlord’s ASB response between 9 and 20 July 2024. He felt the appropriate dress policy only applied to him. He said he was refused management support when wearing his dressing gown and was disadvantaged and could not complain. He said several female residents wore dressing gowns in communal areas and believed the landlord had not considered the Equality Act 2010.
  5. The resident provided a supporting letter from his GP on 12 July 2024, saying his PTSD should be treated as a disability. They asked the landlord to consider a reasonable adjustment in respect of any appropriate dress policy. Also that day, a Rehabilitation Officer for the Hearing Impaired emailed the landlord. She explained the resident’s dressing gown previously belonged to his son who helped manage his PTSD. She said it had a positive association of training they did together and was essential for the resident’s well–being. The landlord responded to the Rehabilitation Officer on 15 July 2025. It reiterated its position on when the resident could wear his dressing gown.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 1 August 2024 said it had asked everyone to dress appropriately in communal areas and apologised if the resident felt this only applied to him. It said it had made a reasonable adjustment by allowing him to wear his dressing gown in certain situations. It apologised if he felt unable to complain but said he could do so by phone or email. It said it would have acted the same with any resident regardless of gender.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 August 2024. He followed this up on 8 and 19 August 2024 with a further complaint that the landlord had failed to consider the Armed Forces Covenant (AFC). He also said the landlord had not consulted him about a significant change that affected his tenancy.
  8. In its stage 2 response of 9 September 2024 the landlord said:
    1. It did not have an appropriate dress policy and apologised if this was not clear. Previous references to such were not accurate or consistent.
    2. It had considered the resident’s needs and he could wear his dressing gown in communal areas. It would tell other residents there was no appropriate dress policy and that they should not comment on a resident’s choice of dress going forward.
    3. It acknowledged it should have considered the medical evidence provided before its stage 1 response. It apologised for its failings and awarded £200 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s implementation of the appropriate dress policy

  1. The landlord’s definition of ASB includes intimidation, verbal abuse and threats. It is positive the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. It completed a risk assessment and action plan, which was appropriate.
  2. Internal emails show the landlord intended to meet with both parties and explain that the resident could wear his dressing gown in communal areas. It hoped this would end any upset or intimidation. This action was appropriate. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will use a range of outcomes to resolve ASB, including mediation. It says it will focus on preventing and resolving the problem and take prompt and appropriate action.
  3. We do not know why the alleged perpetrator felt uncomfortable when the resident wore his dressing gown. Therefore, it is difficult to assess whether the landlord’s change of response to the situation was appropriate. However, we understand why it suggested the resident could wear alternative clothing. Other clothing, such as a coat, may have helped the resident to keep warm between physiotherapy sessions and prevented future confrontations. However, it is clear the resident disagreed with this suggestion.
  4. It is not our role to decide if the landlord’s subsequent decision to implement an appropriate dress policy breached the Equality Act 2010. Nor can we decide if it is a public authority with obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Both these decisions are a matter for the courts. However, we can assess if the landlord gave due consideration to the Equality Act 2010 when planning arrangements. Further, we can look at whether it followed its own procedures and acted in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  5. The landlord’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy says it actively promotes a person-centred approach to ensure residents’ needs are understood and met. It says this is fundamental to delivering equality and diversity in its services. It says it will recognise the needs of disabled people, particularly in making communal areas accessible.
  6. We have not seen evidence the landlord properly considered the resident’s needs or the Equality Act 2010 before deciding to restrict when he could wear his dressing gown. This is despite the resident having provided a detailed explanation of how wearing his dressing gown helped with the symptoms of his PTSD and offering to provide further medical evidence. Although the landlord offered to meet with him and a social worker to discuss this further, the resident said he did not have a social worker at that point. We agree with the resident’s view that the landlord should have considered his representations and any supporting evidence before implementing the arrangements. It did not, and this was a failure in service.
  7. Further, the landlord’s Reasonable Adjustment policy says it is committed to ensuring disabled people are not disadvantaged when accessing its services. It says it will make decisions in a case-by-case person centred way, taking full account of the resident’s needs. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered if the appropriate dress policy would disadvantage the disabled resident, including the impact of restricting management support.
  8. We understand why the resident felt disadvantaged because of these arrangements. He could not meet managers face to face like other residents when he wore his dressing gown. The landlord’s response to these concerns was also inappropriate. It should have considered how it could facilitate face to face management support, particularly as the resident was vulnerable and paying an additional charge for support. These were further failures in service, which, when combined with the other failings, amount to maladministration.
  9. The landlord disagrees it discriminated against the resident due to his gender. Its justification of this was its decision to apply the appropriate dress policy to all residents, meaning it expected both male and female residents to comply. However, this is further evidence that it did not consider the resident’s individual circumstances and disability.
  10. The landlord has not addressed the resident’s complaint that it did not show due regard to the AFC (which is a promise by the nation). The main principle is that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces face no disadvantage compared to others in the provision of public and commercial services.
  11. There is an additional legal duty on certain public bodies when carrying out certain functions. We cannot decide if the landlord was legally required to comply with this legislation. Again, this would be for a court to determine. However, the landlord made a pledge to the AFC. It was aware the resident was a veteran yet we have not seen evidence it considered whether the appropriate dress arrangement would disadvantage him accessing its services. This was another failure in service.
  12. It is positive the landlord changed its position in its stage 2 response. As was its acknowledgement that it failed to consider further reasonable adjustments following evidence from the resident’s GP. Although it promised to tell other residents there was no appropriate dress policy it has been unable to provide evidence it did so. This is a further failure in service exacerbated by previous reports of ASB about the resident’s choice of clothing. We therefore order the landlord to communicate its position regarding dress in communal areas.
  13. The stage 2 response was also contradictory. While the landlord said previous references to an appropriate dress policy were inaccurate, it also said the ASB closure letter made it clear it was just a request. The evidence does not support this view.
  14. The ASB closure letter said the resident could wear his dressing gown when doing his laundry ‘as long as he agreed not to wear it for an extended period’. Further, the landlord said in the email of 15 July 2024 that it had asked the resident ‘to ensure’ he wore appropriate clothing in communal areas. The language used implies there was a formal arrangement and the resident needed to comply. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this means it could not have appropriately considered the impact of the policy on the resident, as it believed it was optional.
  15. This means there was another service failure as the landlord did not act in line with its compensation policy. This says any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The landlord has not provided a copy of its compensation award guidance to allow us to assess if the amount awarded was appropriate for the failings it identified. However, it did not recognise all the failings identified in this report and the detriment caused as a result. Therefore, it has not acted in line with our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
  16. In determining an appropriate amount of compensation, we take into account that evidence suggests the resident continued to wear his dressing gown in communal areas after the landlord asked him not to. However, we also consider the resident’s reports that ongoing restrictions caused a lack of sleep and affected both his physical and mental health. This was in addition to restricted management support.
  17. We are not medical experts so cannot determine if the landlord’s failures directly impacted the resident’s health. However, we do consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. We are not satisfied the award of £200 recognised this. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £350 compensation (inclusive of the £200 already awarded). This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been maladministration and the landlord has acknowledged failings but its attempt to put things right was not proportionate. We also order the landlord to reimburse support charges paid between 28 June to 9 September 2024.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. While it did not respond within its time frame, overall, the time taken to respond was reasonable. The resident had made further complaints after 9 July 2024 and the landlord discussed these with him on 25 July 2024, responding not long after.
  2. The landlord’s decision to address all the complaints in the stage 1 response was appropriate. Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that when residents raise additional related complaints during the investigation, they must be added to the stage 1 response if not already issued.
  3. The landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It can extend this timeframe by a further 10 working days. It told the resident to expect a response by 20 September 2024. Its stage 2 response was issued one day outside of this time frame which was not unreasonable.
  4. While the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint that it did not consult residents before implementing the policy, we note it confirmed there was no appropriate dress code in its stage 2 response and therefore this issue became moot.
  5. However, the stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaint that the landlord did not show due regard to the AFC. Nor did it address this issue separately as an additional stage 1 complaint. This was a service failure. It caused the resident time and trouble progressing the issue with us.
  6. Despite numerous representations from ourselves, the landlord has still not responded to this complaint. In the interests of fairness, we have accepted this complaint without it exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is because we gave the landlord adequate opportunity to respond and invited it to provide any relevant evidence for the investigation.
  7. The landlord’s continued failure to respond to this complaint over a prolonged period amounts to maladministration. Again, it is not in line with our dispute resolution principles or the Code, which expects the landlord to formally respond to the complaint. The landlord has not recognised this failure and we order it to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there has been an adverse failure on the resident, with no permanent impact, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Implementation of an appropriate dress policy.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has: 
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report. 
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £500 compensation (inclusive of the £200 previously offered) as follows:
  1. £350 for its failures implementing an appropriate dress policy.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. 
  1. Reimbursed the resident for any support charges paid between 28 June and 9 September 2024.
  2. Notified all residents who share the communal areas of its position regarding appropriate dress.