Anchor Hanover Group (202017364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017364

Anchor Hanover Group

26 January 2023

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:

1. The landlord’s response to concerns about the suitability of the resident’s former property.
2. The landlord’s refusal to grant the resident access to view CCTV footage.
3. The landlord’s assertion that the resident was in rent arrears.
4. The resident’s concerns that the landlord told other parties he had a criminal record.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the landlord told third parties that he had a criminal record.
4. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”.
5. In bringing his complaint to this Service, the resident said the landlord had discredited his name by stating to other organisations that he had a criminal record when he does not.
6. Where a complaint has not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, it will not normally be considered by the Ombudsman. This is because it is important for a landlord to first have the opportunity to respond to an issue under its internal complaint procedure, before the Ombudsman will investigate and comment on it. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he will need to ensure that the matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before it can be considered by this Service.

Background

7. The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord, and lived in a studio flat. The landlord has the following vulnerabilities recorded for the resident: liver problems, difficulty walking, and mental health issues.
8. On 24 September 2020, the resident complained to the landlord. He said the landlord’s staff member would not allow him to view CCTV footage to find out how his cars had been damaged outside the property. He also explained that he needed to use a wheelchair after coming out of hospital, and the property was no longer suitable for him because of this. The resident said that when he asked for a new property, he was told he could not transfer because he was in arrears, but he could not repay the arrears as he could not get to the post office. He also said he was unhappy with the kitchen because he could not fit in a fridge/freezer and a cooker. The resident also expressed concerns about the behaviour of the landlord’s staff member and that he had contacted the police about them and about a former neighbour that he had found threatening.
9. The resident asked this Service to become involved when he did not receive a response to his complaint from the landlord. This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021 and advised the landlord of the resident’s main concerns and asked it to respond.
10. On 19 April 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It said that the resident made the choice to have the fridge/freezer in the space where the cooker would normally go, and it had offered to make alterations to his flat to put the fridge/freezer in a store cupboard. It said his request for a transfer to another property was declined due to him being in rent arrears at the time. The landlord said the resident had used threatening behaviour towards its staff member and, after visiting him to discuss the matter, the resident had said he was leaving the property. It said it received his termination form on 20 October 2020. Finally, the landlord said residents were not allowed to view CCTV in line with its data protection policy, but its staff member viewed the footage and could find no evidence of his cars being damaged.
11. The resident then provided the landlord with evidence that it had received the letter he had sent it on 24 September 2020. He said that he had given his notice to quit the property in the letter.
12. On 26 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It said it had been able to trace the letter of 24 September 2020 to its Customer Centre, but was not able to establish what happened to it after that. As the resident had said the letter included his notice to quit the property, it said it was willing to recalculate his notice period as if it had been given on 24 September 2020. That meant there was a credit of £505.42 on his account which would be sent to him. It also noted that it had not responded to previous correspondence he had sent it in August 2020 asking to escalate his complaint. The landlord apologised for these errors and set out how it would learn from its failure to respond to the resident’s letters. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £350, made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the landlord’s lack of response to / failure to process the resident’s letter received on 24 September 2020.
    2. £100 for the missed opportunity to review the complaint when the resident wrote to the landlord in August 2021.
    3. £150 for the overall experience in the resident’s contact with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The suitability of the resident’s former property

13. The resident was not a wheelchair user when he first moved into the property in 2019. It is understood he began using a wheelchair after a hospital admission in 2020.
14. The resident said that the kitchen was not suitable for him because there was no space for a cooker. However, the landlord has said the resident chose to put the fridge/freezer in the space for the cooker, and that it offered to make alterations to the property to put the fridge/freezer into a store cupboard. The resident accepts this was offered. Although the resident did not wish to accept this alteration, the landlord acted reasonably in offering to carry out the alteration as it would have allowed the resident to have both a fridge/freezer and a cooker.
15. The resident has also mentioned in his contact with this Service that the property was unsuitable as he could not reach the kitchen worktops. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the resident raised this concern with the landlord whilst living in the  property.
16. Therefore the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property was reasonable.

The landlord’s refusal to give the resident access to CCTV footage

17. The landlord’s CCTV guidance says that only authorised owners of the equipment may view live feeds, and images may only be viewed by others if a CCTV image request has been made. It also says the landlord’s staff members must understand their responsibilities in respect of requests to view images, and refers them to the data protection policy.
18. The landlord’s data protection policy sets out how personal data should be shared, and this does not include providing it to third parties without authority. It also says that if the police make a formal request for information, this can be provided.
19. The resident said that the landlord refused to allow him to view CCTV footage of the car park, as he wanted to see who had damaged his cars. Given that the CCTV footage would have captured images of other residents, and the resident did not have their permission to view the footage, it was appropriate for the landlord to refuse to allow the resident to view the CCTV. The landlord also confirmed that its staff member reviewed the available footage to see if they could find out how the resident’s cars had been damaged. That was an appropriate response.
20. The resident also says that he was assaulted by the landlord’s member of staff, and the landlord refused to provide the police with a copy of CCTV footage. However, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that the police had requested CCTV footage. The landlord’s data protection policy explains that information should be given to the police if a formal request is made.
21. Therefore the landlord’s refusal to allow the resident access to CCTV footage was appropriate.

The landlord’s assertion that the resident was in rent arrears

22. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy states that transfer applicants will only qualify for rehousing if they have no net arrears, or if the total arrears are less than £500 and a repayment plan is in place and has been adhered to for at least three months, and no legal action has commenced.
23. It is accepted that the resident contacted the landlord to make enquiries about transferring to another property. The landlord explained that he could not transfer whilst he was in rent arrears. The resident explained that he was in arrears because he could not get to the post office, and the landlord advised him to speak to its payments office about this. The landlord said the resident hung up the call at that point.
24. The landlord acted in line with its policy when it advised the resident that he could not transfer to another property whilst his rent account was in arrears. It is understood the resident did not have a payment plan in place. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have supported the resident with paying his arrears if his health physically prevented from making the payments. However, there is nothing on the landlord’s file to indicate that the resident contacted the landlord’s payments team to ask for support in respect of the arrears.
25. The landlord advised the resident that he could not transfer to another property whilst he was in rent arrears. It appears that the resident then brought his arrears up-to-date, but decided to vacate the property rather than request a transfer to another property.
26. The landlord received a termination form completed by the resident on 20 October 2020. It therefore took this date as being the date the resident had given notice, and charged him rent accordingly. This meant that the resident again fell into rent arrears (of around one month). However, the resident later said that he had given his notice to quit with his letter of 24 September 2020, and so he disagreed with the landlord that he was in rent arrears.
27. The resident provided evidence that he had sent a letter to the landlord on 24 September 2020 and that the landlord had received the letter. The landlord accepted it was at fault here, as it was not able to trace what had happened to the letter. It therefore accepted the resident’s explanation that the letter contained notice of his intention to quit the property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to alter the termination date, which resulted in the resident being credited with the amount he had overpaid (£505.42). This was a reasonable response, as it placed the resident back in the financial position he would have been, if it had not been for the landlord’s error.
28. The landlord also recognised that its failure to action the resident’s correspondence caused him inconvenience, and was poor service. It apologised for this, and offered the resident £100 compensation, together with a further £150 for the overall experience in the resident’s contact with the landlord The £150 compensation had been considered in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling below.
29. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
30. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to respond to the resident’s letter dated 24 September 2020.
31. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by identifying the  steps that it was taking to identifying any steps that could be taken to enable its service.
32. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact of the landlord’s actions on his mental health, but it is outside this Service’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the landlord’s complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts.
33. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the landlord’s failings may have caused the resident in this assessment.
34. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident as:
    1. The delay in acknowledging the resident’s letter was significant and led to the resident incurring time and trouble in contacting this Service and in having to provide the landlord with proof that it had received the letter.
    2. The amount of £100 at the lower end of the range of amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance of remedies for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.
35. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in respect of this aspect of the complaint and the Ombudsman will be making an order for further compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

36. There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling as:
    1. It did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint made by the resident in his letter dated 24 September 2020 until 19 April 2021 when contacted by this Service. This was 208 days outside the 14 calendar days timescale for responding set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
    2. It did not respond to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint received on 19 August 2020 until 26 October 2021. This was 65 days outside the 14 calendar timescale for responding set out in the  landlord’s complaints procedure.
37. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for failing to respond to the request to escalate the complaint and a further £150 for its overall contact with the resident. The amount of £250 is within the range of amounts set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance of remedies for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.
38. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures and it demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by conducting a review into the resident’s case to understand what went wrong and how it could make sure that the failings did not occur again. Whilst the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint were significant, the compensation, together with the landlord’s apology and demonstration of lessons learnt was a proportionate response to the impact that the landlord’s complaint handling failures had on the resident.
39. Therefore, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

40. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to concerns about the suitability of the resident’s former property.
41. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s refusal to grant the resident access to view CCTV footage.
42. In accordance with paragraph[h 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its assertion that the resident was in rent arears.
43. In accordance with Paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress, which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.
44. In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord told other parties he has a criminal record is outside jurisdiction.

Orders

45. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to:
    1. Pay the resident the £350 compensation plus £505.42 for the rent overpayment previously offered if this had not already been paid.
    2. Pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s assertion that he was in rent arears.
46. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks.