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 (202405674)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405674

Anchor Hanover Group

31 July 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns over staff behaviour.
    2. The resident’s allegations of theft by the landlord.
    3. The resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
    4. Heating repairs requested by the resident.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Within his submission to this Service, the resident complained about previous disputes involving the behaviour of landlord staff. These allegations are based on events from 2022. The landlord previously managed the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour as a complaint, ending in a panel review in November 2022. The resident then complained to the landlord on 3 May 2024 about the outcome of that panel review.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which a resident brings to us more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. On this basis, the claims regarding staff behaviour are outside our jurisdiction and do not form part of this investigation.
  4. The resident also alleged that landlord staff stole his belongings from the communal area. He said that this took place in January 2022. On the allegations of theft, the resident apparently did not raise these with the landlord until his complaint on 3 May 2024. The landlord’s records show that it took these matters seriously when the resident raised them and directed him to report this to the police.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising. On this basis, this element of the resident’s complaint is outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated here.
  6. The landlord provided an additional stage 1 response on 12 June 2024 which confirmed its position that it would not re-investigate the same issues that were already subject to a complaint and panel review in 2022. Similarly, this Service will not address either issue within this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 4 December 2015. The property is a 1-bed flat.
  2. On 12 June 2024, the resident reported noise from his neighbour’s TV at unsociable hours. The landlord visited the resident and his neighbour to discuss the problem.The neighbour agreed to reduce the volume of the TV. The landlord wrote to the neighbour that month to confirm this agreement.
  3. On 8 July 2024, the landlord logged an ASB case relating to the noise. Further actions were taken by the landlord and it closed the ASB case on 27 August 2024. In closing the ASB case, the landlord agreed to maintain contact with the resident over the next 2 months.
  4. During a discussion with the landlord on 24 September 2024, the resident said that he had no heating at the property.
  5. On 24 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident about further reports of ASB. It said that the resident had cancelled a meeting to discuss these matters and asked that he engage with it further about his reports. The landlord added that it had taken further action in visiting his neighbour again and warning them regarding the noise.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman around this time and requested assistance with his ongoing complaints. On 28 October 2024, we requested a response from the landlord regarding the concerns raised by the resident. On 26 November 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had raised a new complaint relating to the heating concerns at the resident’s property.
  7. On 16 December 2024, the landlord provided a stage 1 response regarding the heating issues. It said it had checked the heating in the property on 14 November 2023 and found this to be in working order. The landlord added that it had directed the resident to speak to his utility supplier and ensure his tariff was correctly set up for the storage heaters.
  8. The landlord inspected the heating on 20 December 2024 and noted the same concerns about the tariff setup for the storage heaters. The resident disputed this and requested an escalation of the complaint.
  9. In January 2025, the landlord visited the property and agreed to update the heaters. On 28 January 2025, the landlord installed 2 new heaters and confirmed them as working. The landlord arranged further visits to change other heaters but the resident cancelled these visits with the contractor.
  10. On 25 February 2025, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It advised that the resident refused a change of heating system in 2019 as part of local planned works. The landlord said it would review his bathroom and kitchen for new heaters once both parties agreed to a visit. It offered compensation of £150 for the recent delays in addressing his heating concerns.
  11. Following the installation of the new heaters, the resident reported that they were not working. The heating contractor attended again on 13 March 2025 and reported that the problem seemed to be due to the electricity tariff not being set up correctly.
  12. On 25 April 2025, the landlord reviewed its previous response following the installation of the required heaters. It acknowledged there had been avoidable delays and increased its compensation offer by £400. The resident recently reported that he still does not have heating in the property.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s ASB reports

  1. Within the landlord’s ASB policy, it says that following an ASB report, the landlord will gather details, meet with those involved, gather evidence and then decide on a course of action. These actions include warning or advice letters and potential tenancy enforcement action.
  2. After receiving reports of noise nuisance from the resident in June 2024, the landlord took reasonable steps in meeting with his neighbour promptly to ask that they reduce the volume of their TV. The landlord confirmed this in writing and warned the neighbour that further instances could result in more action. This was an appropriate method by which to try and reduce the impact of noise on the resident.
  3. As the noise reports continued, the landlord opened an ASB case in July 2024, carried out a risk assessment and created an action plan. These were all reasonable steps given that reports were received so soon after its previous intervention. Although these actions do not form part of the landlord’s policy, these are reasonable steps to take when making an informed decision on how to proceed.
  4. During further meetings with the resident, the landlord asked him to complete diary sheets to detail any further instances of noise. The landlord noted that despite its requests, the resident refused to do so. It was reasonable for the landlord to request the completion and return of diary sheets given that it relies on information, and evidence, to allow it to progress any enforcement action.
  5. On 23 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the neighbour again regarding recent instances of noise. It warned that any further ASB would lead to the involvement of the Environmental Health team and potential further actions. Given the continued reports, it was appropriate for the landlord to write to the neighbour again.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 August 2024 to advise that it would close the ASB case but continue to contact him regularly to monitor the problem. Despite this assurance, the landlord did not provide evidence that it made these calls. This was a shortcoming by the landlord but the impact was limited given it was in contact with the resident by October 2024.
  7. Following 3 further reports of noise at unsociable hours in September 2024 and October 2024, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident on 16 October 2024, but he cancelled it. Despite the resident refusing contact, it met with his neighbour to discuss the issue again. The landlord followed up the meeting with a letter warning of tenancy breach action if he continued. This was an appropriate course of action given that the neighbour had allegedly continued to cause a nuisance.
  8. The resident did not make any further reports of noise nuisance prior to the end of the complaint period. On this basis, it was reasonable that the landlord took no further action.
  9. In summary, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy throughout this process. Although it is unclear if it met the agreed action in August 2024 to contact the resident weekly after closing the case, it still took a proactive approach whenhereported further incidents.
  10. When discussing the problem with the resident and neighbour, the landlord offered additional assistance. It discussed property transfer options and offered to help the resident clear his bedroom to allow him to use it again, reducing his potential exposure to the noise in the adjacent room. The landlord showed a resolution focused approach in offering alternative means by which to reduce these issues.
  11. Having considered the landlords actions throughout, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in its handling of ASB reports.

Heating repairs requested by the resident 

  1. Within his complaint submission, the resident said that his heating had not worked for several years. Landlord records show that its contractors attended checked the heating on 16 December 2022 and 14 November 2023. In both instances, the contractor found no fault with the heating. In 2023, the contractor directed the resident to speak to his supplier to ensure that the ‘Economy 7’ tariff was set up for his supply as it used storage heaters.
  2. The landlord said that following both visits in 2022 and 2023, the resident did not make any further reports of heating outages for almost a year after the previous incident. Given the lack of any follow up from the resident, it is reasonable for the landlord to have considered that there were no necessary repairs.
  3. The resident reported heating concerns again in September 2024. An internal landlord email references this report from the resident but the landlord failed to act on it. This was a service failing on the part of the landlord which delayed any investigation into a potential heating issue.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its response to this Service on 26 November 2024 that it failed to act on our correspondence from 28 October 2024. This meant an additional unnecessary delay. Even after acknowledging this, the landlord failed to attend the resident’s property until 16 December 2024. This was almost 3 months after the resident’s stated concerns and over 7 weeks after we made it aware of the heating issue. This was an unreasonable delay.
  5. Although the landlord could not gain access on 16 December 2024, it attended again shortly after on 20 December 2024. The contractor noted no faults with the heating and again directed the resident to speak to his electricity supplier regarding the tariff setup for the storage heaters. The landlord’s records show that the resident continued to dispute the findings and said the heating was the problem. Nevertheless, given the contractor’s findings (and their consistency with previous inspection outcomes), it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action at this stage.
  6. The exact dates are unclear but the landlord and contractors visited again in January 2025. Following these visits, although noting that the heaters were working, it agreed to replace 2 of them to rule them out any problem. The contractor replaced these heaters on 28 January 2025 and the landlord said it would arrange for a review and replacement of the other heaters in the property. This was a reasonable course of action by the landlord given the inconsistency between the resident’s reports and contractors’ findings.
  7. Shortly after the installation of the new heaters, the resident reported that they were not working. There were again discrepancies between the resident’s reports and the contractor’s notes as to the exact nature of the problem. The landlord attempted to arrange 2 further visits to the property, but the contractor said the resident cancelled when they called to schedule the visit. The landlord’s records show that it made reasonable attempts to address the resident’s concerns at this point, but cancellation of the visits contributed to the delays.
  8. Within the landlord’s February 2025 stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it should have acted sooner to replace the bathroom heater. It said this remained an issue. Nevertheless, it noted that it had measured for new heaters in the bathroom and kitchen on 24 February 2025 and would arrange installation in due course.
  9. A further engineer visit took place on 14 March 2025, following which the contractor again noted a likely issue with the electricity tariff setup.
  10. It is not disputed by the landlord that it did not install the bathroom heater as quickly as it should. However, its records show further problems in communication between contractors and the resident which resulted in cancelled visits, contributing to those delays.
  11. On 24 April 2025, the landlord provided an updated response to the complaint in which it noted that the contractor had now installed the required heaters. It noted that they could not replace a bedroom heater due to items in the room. However, the landlord explained that the offer remained open if the resident cleared the room. The landlord offered an additional £400 payment for the delays since its stage 2 response. It was reasonable for the landlord to revisit its compensation offer once all the heaters were replaced as promised.
  12. In summary, given that historical visits found no repair issues with the heating, it was reasonable that the landlord did not raise any works in 2022 or 2023. Communication issues between the landlord, resident and contractors throughout the complaint period contributed to some delays in visits and completion of works. However, the landlord does not dispute that it could have ensured that it completed required works sooner. There was a delay between September and December 2024 in it responding properly to the resident’s renewed heating concerns.
  13. The resident said that his heating still does not work. Despite such reports and multiple visits, the landlord has been unable to find a fault with the heating system. Inspections by different contractors found no fault with the heaters and some have suggested that the problem is related to the supplier or tariff. Given the lack of any repair obligations established despite multiple visits, it is reasonable that the landlord took no further actions beyond the pro-active replacement of heaters.
  14. Within its complaint responses, the landlord offered total compensation of £550 for its failings up to April 2025. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on a resident. Given the adverse impact on the resident between late 2024 and early 2025 due to delays in inspection and replacing some heaters, this was a proportionate level of compensation.
  15. Considering the failings identified in this report and the landlord’s actions to put things right, the Ombudsman finds that it offered reasonable redress. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and offer redress for its failings. The finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs requested by the resident, or the impact on him, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord which it acknowledged and offered compensation for in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns over staff behaviour are outside of our jurisdiction
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s allegations of theft by the landlord are outside of our jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the heating repairs requested by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £550 (for its heating repair failings) that it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.