Anchor Hanover Group (202210252)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210252

Anchor Hanover Group

20 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 the resident’s concerns about the hedge at the rear of her property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff conduct.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies a bungalow (the property). From late 2021 into 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord regarding a hedge behind her bathroom window. She felt that it was poorly maintained and too large, too close to her bathroom window, blocked light, encouraged rats and mice, and caused insects to enter her home.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2022 to raise a formal complaint about the matter. The landlord responded to advise that it had arranged for its gardener to visit and speak to her on 29 April 2022. This went ahead, with the gardener inspecting the hedge.
  3. The resident reiterated to the landlord on 3 May 2022 that the hedge was overgrown, too close to her window, and that it attracted insects, and may attract rodents. The resident wanted this to be cut back to provide four feet of clearance between the hedge and her property, and shortened to below her window. On 6 May 2022, the landlord relayed to her its gardener’s opinion that the hedge should be cut back at a slope to provide three feet of clearance. It advised that there was a six-foot fence behind the hedge so therefore shortening it would provide no additional light. The landlord confirmed that there was no evidence of rodent activity but would monitor the area for this.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord twice further, asking for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage. It informed her on 19 May 2022 that her complaint had been dealt with as a “local resolution response” and acknowledged the complaint at stage one. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 6 June 2022 which declined to reduce the height of the hedge for the reasons previously given. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 June 2022, saying the landlord had not considered the considerable depth of the hedge, and that this was blocking the light, and the bathroom window. The landlord issued a further stage one complaint response on 23 June 2022 confirming that the hedge had been cut back as far as possible, and hoped this work would address the insects around the area.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 24 June 2022, saying that the problem with insects remained, and she wanted the hedge to be cut down. On 28 July 2022, she added a further aspect to her complaint about staff conduct. The landlord responded at the final stage of its complaints procedure on 17 August 2022 to say that it could only reduce the depth of hedge and maintain this; any further cutting would be destructive to the hedge. It suggested using an insect screen and apologised for miscommunication by its staff.
  6. The resident informed this Service on 21 August 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the size of the hedge and said that other properties were not required to use insect screens. She said the hedge caused a lack of fresh air and light to her bathroom.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the hedge at the rear of her property

  1. The resident has mentioned that the height of the hedge contravenes her ‘Right to Light’. This is a legal definition, and is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to make a determination on: This Service does not have legally binding enforcement powers over this matter, and neither can it make an assessment of light/lack thereof. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint. This investigation will focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns, and acted in accordance with its obligations under the lease and its policies.
  2. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it agrees to “keep the gardens and grounds neat and tidy and cultivated”. Therefore, it had an obligation to carry out gardening work in the grounds and gardens, and to maintain the growth of the vegetation while keeping these areas orderly. It was not disputed that the hedge was part of the communal gardens, thereby conferring responsibility for its maintenance to the landlord.
  3. As such, when the resident reported concerns about the maintenance and condition of the hedge, the landlord was obliged to take action. The records are not entirely clear, but suggest that when the resident first raised the issue in 2021, the landlord arranged for some gardening works to be carried out. This was a reasonable first course of action.
  4. When the resident raised the issue as a formal complaint in April 2022, the landlord addressed this by arranging for its gardener to attend to speak with the resident and to inspect. Again, this was a reasonable course of action, and demonstrates the landlord taking steps to understand the resident’s concerns, and obtain a professional opinion on the matter.
  5. In relation to the resident’s concerns about rodents, when a landlord receives a report of a pest infestation, it would be appropriate for it to carry out an inspection and then tackle any infestation which it was responsible for. In this case, an inspection was carried out, and did not find any evidence of rodent activity. In the absence of any indication of an infestation, there was no action for the landlord to take. Nevertheless, the landlord proposed to monitor the area for pests, so as to reassure the resident.
  6. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident did not agree with the gardener’s findings, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of appropriately qualified staff. The landlord may have given consideration to the shortening of the hedge to the height requested by the resident to see if there was any benefit to her. However, given that its gardener had advised that doing so would be destructive and invasive, it was reasonable that it did not. The landlord carried out the works recommended by the gardener, and reduced the size of the hedge, angling it away from the bathroom window, providing three feet clearance.
  7. There are also reference to site visits from other landlord staff to inspect the hedge, for example on 11 May 2022, where it was found the area was cultivated well and in keeping with other areas of the estate. Another visit was carried out in July 2022. This demonstrates the landlord taking steps to identify any issues/works for which it would be responsible.
  8. The landlord also appropriately set out  its findings and position in its response to the resident’s formal complaint. For example, in its 6 June 2022 letter it explained that rodents may move around the estate freely amongst any foliage. As such, cutting down the hedge, would not have any effect on rodent activity.
  9. The resident said in her complaint escalation request on 24 June 2022, that she continued to experience insects. Given that there was no definitive evidence that the hedge was the source of the insects, or that removal of the hedge would remove the insects reported by the resident, it was reasonable for it to suggest, in its final stage complaint response on 17 August 2022, that she install an insect screen to address this matter. 
  10. In response to the resident’s concerns over her ‘right to light’, it advised her in its final stage complaint response that it had considered this and confirmed that the hedge did not exceed two metres in height, as specified in the legislation. It also explained that the resident would not benefit from an increase in light to her property from any shortening of the hedge below six feet as there was a six-foot high fence behind the hedge. 
  11. Overall, the evidence available shows that the landlord took reasonable action to investigate and address the resident’s concerns about the hedge, in line with its obligations as set out in the lease agreement. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff conduct

  1. After the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 24 June 2022, she emailed the landlord on 28 July 2022 about her meeting with its staff member six days previously. She said that the staff member had been “argumentative throughout” and they had acted contradictorily to previous advice given by the landlord. The resident said that she had been told by the landlord to “tell the gardener what you would like” but the staff member had not committed to any specific actions. She added that the staff member had “laughed” dismissively when she told them about her circumstances and she wanted to complain about this “bullying behaviour”, of which this was not the first instance.
  2. When a landlord receives a report about staff conduct, it would be expected to investigate the matter, speaking with those involved, and using any evidence available. In this case, the landlord’s final stage complaint response stated that it had reviewed notes from the meeting and spoken to both of the staff members present. It apologised for miscommunication about the purpose of the meeting, which was to assess the hedge, not to carry out work. The landlord explained that no offence was intended by the staff member and advised that it had spoken with them about being considerate in their communication. It asked for examples of the bullying behaviour cited by the resident so that it could carry out a more thorough investigation.
  3. Where there is a lack of third-party independent evidence in such case, a landlord can only rely on the word of the resident and its staff. As there was no independent evidence in this case, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to take formal action given that perceptions of an exchange can be subjective. It was proportionate for it to apologise for any offence or miscommunication after assessing the accounts of its staff against that of the resident. It was also appropriate for the landlord to provide feedback to its staff about their communication to prevent future incidents.
  4. It was also reasonable for the landlord to request specific information from the resident about the bullying behaviour she reported. A landlord would be expected to thoroughly investigate such reports and take action based on the evidence available. As there was no additional evidence provided by the resident alongside her report, it was reasonable for it to request further details before taking further action.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation procedure confirms that it recognises a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction… about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the [landlord]”. This provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where complaint responses should be provided within 14 calendar days at each stage. If a resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s stage one complaint response they may escalate the complaint to the final stage; this procedure sets out no other pre-requisites for a complaint to be escalated.
  2. The resident first sent an email to the landlord on 13 April 2022, with “formal complaint” in the title. Given that the content of the email was dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the maintenance of the hedge, which she had raised previously, it was unreasonable that it did not consider this at stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord informed her on 19 May 2022 that it had attempted to resolve the matter as a “local resolution response”. This may have been reasonable if this was the first time the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the hedge. But since this had been a matter she had highlighted from 2022, coupled with her email titled “formal complaint”, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to immediately raise a stage one complaint. 
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 6 June 2022 (nearly two months after the initial complaint) and she voiced her dissatisfaction with this three days later. In her email she highlighted that she had already requested on 17 May 2022 that her complaint to be escalated to the final stage. The landlord provided a further stage one response to the resident on 23 June 2022. This was not appropriate since she had already expressed dissatisfaction with the stage one response and therefore, in accordance with its complaints and compliments procedure, it should have escalated the complaint to the final stage of its procedure.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint again on 24 June 2022 and the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to her on 17 August 2022, again two months after the escalation request, and so in excess of the timeframe specified in its complaints and compliments procedure. The landlord did contact the resident on 13 July 2022 to advise that there would be a delay in issuing its response; however, this contact was made a week after the response was due, and no updated timeframe was provided to her.
  5. The landlord, therefore, delayed excessively in the handling of the complaint and did not escalate the complaint appropriately in accordance with its procedure, which it did not acknowledge in its complaint responses. This led to excess involvement being required of the resident to progress her complaint, and a delay in the completion of the complaints process. Compensation should be paid to her in light of these failures to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience involved.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of compensation of £100 and over for failures which had an adverse impact on the resident, but which did not have a permanent impact. Therefore, in light of the extended duration of the delay, but taking into account that there was no evidence the delay led to a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint, compensation of £100 should be paid to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the hedge at the rear of her property.
    2. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of staff conduct.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its failures in the handling of the complaint.
    2. Review its complaint handling procedures and confirm to the Ombudsman how it will ensure complaints are handled in a timely manner in accordance with its procedure in future.
    3. Confirm to the Ombudsman within four weeks that it has complied with the above orders.