Anchor Hanover Group (202347361)

Decision
Case ID	202347361
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Anchor Hanover Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 June 2026

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord had asked him to sign an acceptable behaviour contract, and subsequently issued him with a tenancy warning, after reports of antisocial behaviour about him. He also said he had reported antisocial behaviour that had not been investigated properly because of the landlord’s bias against him.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord conducted an appropriate investigation into the resident’s antisocial behaviour in line with its policy. Its use of an acceptable behaviour contract and subsequent tenancy warning were reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s own reports, and there was no evidence of bias.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages, meaning the response times were outside those required by our Complaint 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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The resident must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord, saying he had been asked to sign an acceptable behaviour contract or receive a written tenancy warning, following an investigation into reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident said the landlord had reached its decision without considering his version of events and mitigating factors. He said he was a victim of ASB which had not been properly investigated.
19 April 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said there was sufficient evidence to justify the use of an acceptable behaviour contract, in accordance with its ASB policy. It said it had investigated the resident’s reports about a neighbour but had found no evidence of ASB.
29 April 2024	The landlord issued a formal tenancy warning to the resident after he did not sign the acceptable behaviour contract.
7 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint, saying that he disagreed with the stage 1 response and complaining about the tenancy warning letter. He said he believed that his own experience of ASB had not been investigated properly because of bias shown by the location manager.
17 June 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It provided the reasons for the tenancy warning and said it was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord addressed the new matters raised by the resident at stage 2, and said there was no evidence of service failure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident first contacted us on 2 May 2024, and then periodically throughout the internal complaint process. After the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident told us that he wanted an apology, compensation, and to not be required to sign an acceptable behaviour contract.

 

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 responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour
Finding	No maladministration

6. The purpose of this report is not to establish whether ASB occurred, but to examine the landlord’s actions and establish whether they were appropriate in the circumstances.
7. The landlord investigated the actions of the resident following a report that a neighbour’s doorbell had been rung late at night, and in response to an incident where the resident grabbed the same neighbour by the neck. It also investigated two incidents of vandalism.
8. Following its investigation into these incidents, the landlord asked the resident to sign an acceptable behaviour contract. The evidence shows that the landlord sought information from both parties, as well as using CCTV evidence. It completed risk and impact assessments, and engaged the police for instances where property had been damaged. The resident asked for all contact from the landlord to be in writing. The landlord sent him written questions so that he could provide his account, and the resident responded. In conducting the investigation into ASB, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its policy.
9. The resident complained to the landlord that it did not take into account his version of events when reaching its conclusion. It is clear from the letters it sent to the resident that the landlord had considered his account, including what he thought were mitigating circumstances for two of the incidents. The resident denied being responsible for another two incidents, which the landlord acknowledged. Having considered the resident’s response, and given that by this time the resident had declined to sign the acceptable behaviour contract, the landlord concluded that a tenancy warning remained the appropriate action. As the resident admitted to being responsible for two instances of ASB, this was reasonable and in line with its policy and the evidence.
10. The resident also complained that he was a victim of ASB and said a particular neighbour had caused noise nuisance from the communal lounge, directly below his flat, over a number of years. The landlord said the matter had been investigated but that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the noise was deliberate, intended to disturb him, or caused by a specific person. The landlord replaced kitchen taps and a door closer in the communal lounge to reduce the noise. It also said it had provided noise diaries to the resident so that he could provide evidence of any noise being made at unsociable hours, but he did not return them. (Evidence of this has not been provided, but the resident did not dispute it.) The landlord offered to send a member of staff to the resident’s flat to establish the level of sound transfer, but he declined.
11. In its complaint responses and letters to the resident in 2024, the landlord said the resident had not made any noise reports since 2022. It encouraged him to report any instances of ASB so that it could investigate them. It said there was no evidence of favouritism or a lack of professional boundaries on the part of the location manager.
12. While it is clear from his correspondence that the resident felt he had been subject to ASB, no evidence was provided to the landlord to support this, and he had not made any reports in the 2 years prior to his complaint. The landlord took steps to reduce noise from the communal lounge, as well as providing ways for the resident to gather evidence to support his allegation. It also encouraged him to make reports of any noise nuisance. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances.
13. The actions taken by the landlord in response to the reports made about the resident were appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s counter-allegations, explained how it had responded to his previous reports, and encouraged him to report further instances of noise nuisance or ASB. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Code.
15. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The resident complained on 1 March 2024 but the landlord did not acknowledge this until 5 April 2024, some 23 working days later. It gave its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024. While the complaint response was issued 10 working days after acknowledgement, as required by its policy, the delay in acknowledgement of more than a month meant that the response took longer than it should have.
16. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 7 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 May 2024, after 11 working days, which was again outside the 5 working days required by its policy. It gave its stage 2 response on 17 June 2024. This was within the 20 working days required by its policy but, as at stage 1, the delay in acknowledging the escalation request led to a delay in the overall response time.
17. The delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaints (particularly at stage 1, which led to an overall response time of 33 working days) was a service failure. While there is no evidence of a serious detrimental impact, it caused inconvenience for the resident, who wrote to us on 20 March 2024 to say he had not received a response. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge or remedy the delays. We have made an order for the landlord to address this service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s records were of an appropriate standard, which enabled us to robustly consider its actions and decisions regarding the substantive issue and the associated complaint.

Communication

19. While communication with the resident was generally of a high standard with considered and comprehensive responses, the landlord should ensure that it acknowledges complaints within the timescales set out by the Code, so that residents can be reassured that their complaints have been received and are being investigated.