Anchor Hanover Group (202504091)

Decision
Case ID	202504091
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Anchor Hanover Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat in an extra care scheme. The resident uses a wheelchair and has a care plan in place with the on-site care team.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the offer of compensation to the resident.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the electrics were faulty.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the security gate.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the offer of compensation to the resident.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the electrics is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the security gate.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Compensation

The landlord asked the resident if she was agreeable to its offer of compensation. It acknowledged in its final complaint response that it should have paid the compensation straightaway. It offered the resident an apology and paid the compensation.

Heating

The landlord checked the heating levels in the resident’s flat and noted she could adjust the temperature by adjusting the thermostatic radiator valves. It also increased the building temperature and arranged for the resident’s radiator to be checked.

Electrics

The resident’s complaint about faulty electrics was determined by this Service in July 2024.

Staff conduct

The landlord did not carry out an investigation into the resident’s concerns of verbal bullying and not feeling listened to.

Security gate

The landlord did not arrange for the security gate to be repaired in a timely manner.

Complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and good practice as set out in this Service’s complaints handling code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows. £50 compensation for the distress caused to the resident by its handling of her concerns about the conduct of a member of staff. £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay in repairing the security gate.	06 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

06 January 2026

The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows.

£50 compensation for the distress caused to the resident by its handling of her concerns about the conduct of a member of staff.
£100 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delay in repairing the security gate.

06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2024	The resident made a complaint. She said the landlord had not provided her with any information on how long it would take to replace her bathroom. She also noted the electrics were faulty and she was unable to charge her wheelchair.
22 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: It was sorry for the significant distress that was caused to the resident after leaving her without facilities when adapting her bathroom. It acted in accordance with its procedure when carrying out adaptations to the resident’s bathroom. Whilst it offered the resident the use of the communal disabled bathroom, the option was not suitable given she was unable to use the facility independently. It would offer the resident £500 compensation.
15 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint and said: The heating was not working and the electrics in her flat were faulty. The security gate was broken. A member of staff was disrespectful and did not listen to residents. This included telling one resident to put on a jumper if she was cold. The landlord’s claim that other residents did not complain was incorrect.
11 October 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response and said: The building had a communal heating system and the temperature was set at 21°C. Residents could adjust the temperature in their home by adjusting the thermostatic radiator valves on the radiators. It had carried out temperature checks in the resident’s property. The checks confirmed the temperature in her flat did not drop below 21°C. It had increased the building temperature to 25°C given the cold weather. It had raised a repair to check the resident’s radiator given her reports that it was too hot and would not turn off. Its contractor would visit the resident’s home by 17 October 2024. The comments made by a member of staff were not intended to mock residents but were said with the best intentions. It was sorry if the comments came across in the wrong way. It could not investigate the resident’s concerns about the electrics. This was because she had requested a review of the determination that had been made by the Housing Ombudsman. The security gate was fixed on 2 October 2024 after being broken for some time. It was sorry the resident had been told she was the only resident who made complaints. This was not the case. It was sorry the resident did not feel listened to. She had a contact plan in place and could discuss any concerns she had with the area manager, who contacted her once every fortnight. It was sorry for not paying the resident the £500 compensation that had previously been offered. It would arrange for the payment to be made.
21 November 2025	The landlord told this Service that it had not progressed with repairs to the security gate as it was waiting for a second quote. It said it would liaise with the residents regarding its plans once the quotation had been received.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told this Service that her flat was cold. She said this was because the windows were single glazed. She noted the security gate was not working. She also said her relationship with the member of staff had improved since the landlord issued its final complaint response.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the offer of compensation to the resident.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2024. It asked the resident to confirm if she was agreeable to the offer and if so, it would arrange for the payment to be made.
The landlord noted on 11 October 2024 in its final complaint response that it should have sent the resident the compensation straightaway after issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for not doing this and confirmed it had raised a cheque and this would be sent to the resident. It did this on 15 October 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord carried out a monitoring exercise in the resident’s flat in February 2024 to check the temperature levels. This confirmed the temperature did not drop below 21°C at any point during the 7-day monitoring period.
The resident told the landlord on 15 September 2024 in her complaint escalation request that the heating in her property was not working properly and she was cold at night. She asked the landlord why the heating in the building could not be regulated.
The landlord confirmed on 11 October 2024 in its final complaint response that the building had a communal heating system and the temperature was set at 21°C to ensure residents felt comfortable. This was consistent with information in the tenants’ handbook. It also noted residents could adjust the temperature in their homes by adjusting the thermostatic radiator valves. The landlord’s comments were reasonable given there was no evidence the resident could not adjust the radiator valves.
The landlord noted the monitoring exercise carried out in the resident’s flat had confirmed the temperature did not drop below the set temperature. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord told the resident it had increased the building temperature to 25°C given the cold weather and noted it had raised a repair to check the radiator given her reports that it was too hot and could not be switched off. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord carried out a monitoring exercise and confirmed what the building temperature was. It also told the resident she could adjust the temperature in her home and raised a repair to check the radiator. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the electrics were

faulty.

Finding

Outside jurisdiction

This Service has not investigated the resident’s complaint about the electrics. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about the electrics was determined by this Service on 30 July 2024.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a

member of staff.

Finding

Service failure

The resident told the landlord on 15 May 2024 that a member of staff did not ‘‘care less’’ and had not bothered to visit her when the contractor started work in her bathroom. She told the landlord on 18 May 2024 that the member of staff was abrupt. She raised further concerns on 15 September 2024. This included noting that residents were subject to verbal bullying and were mocked. She also said the member of staff failed to listen to residents and as a result, they did not complain.
When concerns are raised about the conduct of a landlord’s staff, it would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation. This should have included interviewing the resident to get an understanding of her concerns.
In this case, the landlord noted on 11 October 2024 in its final complaint response that it was sorry if the member of staff’s comments about putting on a jumper came across wrong. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to do this, there is no evidence it carried out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s wider concerns of verbal bullying and not feeling listened to. This was a failure.

Complaint the	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the security gate.
Finding	Maladministration

As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The housing records confirm the landlord raised a job on 23 April 2024 to repair the security gate, with a target completion date of 30 May 2024. It is unclear if the landlord repaired the gate or attended to the follow up reports that it was not working in July 2024. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
The landlord asked its contractor to inspect the security gate on 19 August 2024 following reports that it was not closing properly. It is unclear whether the contractor attended. The landlord chased up the contractor on 27 August 2024 and noted it had spent a substantial amount of money repairing the security gate but did not share any information with this Service on what work was carried out. The contractor responded on the same day and noted that it attended over the weekend and was waiting for the landlord to approve a quote. It is unclear if the contractor repaired the gate or the landlord responded to the contractor’s query regarding the quote.
The landlord confirmed on 11 September 2024 that the automatic security gate was out of service and had been set on a manual setting so residents could access the car park. It also noted it would consider replacing the gates if the contractor could not repair them.
The landlord noted on 11 October 2024 in its final complaint response that the security gates had been broken for some time. Whilst it noted the gate was repaired on 2 October 2024, it did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The resident made a complaint on 11 April 2024. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2024. This was 7 working days after the resident raised her complaint and was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 September 2024. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged on 23 September 2024. This was 6 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. Whilst this was not consistent with the 5 working day timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, the delay was unlikely to have caused the resident any inconvenience, time or trouble. The landlord said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 October 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It addressed all of the issues raised by the resident and was resolution focused.

Learning

General learning

The landlord should ensure residents’ concerns about staff conduct our investigated and outcomes are documented. This helps ensure transparency and build trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The repair records provided by the landlord regarding the security gate were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its repairing obligations.

Communication

We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s communication in this case. Going forward, the landlord should ensure its offers of compensation are made in a timely manner