Anchor Hanover Group (202328326)

Decision
Case ID	202328326
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Anchor Hanover Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident is a variable service charge payer. In November 2022, the resident raised a number of queries with the landlord about the service charges at his scheme. The resident raised his complaint on 22 August 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the level and increase in his communal electricity service charges.
   2. A previous enquiry he made in February 2015 about a deficit relating to an electricity meter that went unread for a long period of time.
   3. The resident’s concerns about storage and panel heaters in individual properties.
   4. The resident’s concerns about the communal energy charge for his scheme.
3. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his concerns about the level and increase in his communal electricity service charges is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s responses to a previous enquiry he made in February 2015 about a deficit relating to an electricity meter that went unread for a long period of time, is outside of our jurisdiction.
   3. The resident’s complaint about storage and panel heaters in individual properties is outside of our jurisdiction.
   4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal energy charge for his scheme.
   5. There was maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. We will also not investigate whether the costs are ‘reasonable’ or provide value for money. If the resident wants to pursue his concerns about these matters, he may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.
6. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. This is the same as the time limit set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. In this case, the resident complained in August 2023 about a deficit in his service charges in 2015 caused by an electricity meter that went unread for a long time. As the complaint was made more than 8 years after the issue occurred, we have not considered this matter in our investigation.
7. We cannot consider any elements of the complaint that did not have a direct adverse effect on the resident himself. In this case, the landlord said in its stage 2 response, the concerns raised by the resident about storage and panel heaters affected other individual properties at the scheme, not the resident himself. We have therefore not considered this issue in our investigation.
8. The landlord took reasonable steps to ensure the electricity contract it procured provided the best value for money for its residents. In general, it also maintained open communication with the resident about the concerns he had raised. This it did by both meeting the resident, and others, in person and in providing detailed responses to the resident’s extensive and complex concerns. The replacement of the meter was the responsibility of the supplier, and the landlord took reasonable steps to try to ensure the works were progressed in a timely manner. However, as the landlord acknowledged, it failed to keep the resident up to date about what steps it was taking with regards to this. We are satisfied that the landlord put this failure right by its apology and offer of £100 compensation.
9. There were delays in the landlord providing its response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2. These delays resulted in the resident having to contact us to help him progress his complaint. Whilst the landlord apologised at both stages for the delay in its response, it only offered the resident compensation for the delay at stage 1 which was not reasonable.

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	Apology order 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 has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 22 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 made up as follows: The £50 the landlord offered at stage 1 for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the delay in its response. A further £50 for the delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 22 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should now pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered the resident in its stage 1 complaint response for its failure to keep the resident informed of the actions it was taken with regards to the replacement of the meter. The finding of reasonable redress only stands as long as the landlord honours this offer. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the replacement of the meter had been ‘challenging to progress’ and recognised there was ‘scope for improvement in how quickly’ it was able to resolve this issue. Whilst this is welcome, the landlord gave no indication of what steps it had actually taken with regards to any improvements it might make. The landlord should therefore now consider what learning it can take from this case in order to improve how quickly it is able to resolve potential issues with replacement of meters going forward. If the meter at the resident’s scheme has not yet been replaced, the landlord should then apply any learning to ensuring this is now done.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 August 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord as he remained dissatisfied with its response to concerns he had raised in November 2022. The resident’s concerns included the contract the landlord had procured for the electricity at his scheme, the metering of the communal electricity supply, communal energy usage and what steps the landlord was taking to ensure energy efficiency and sustainability.
14 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response. It also acknowledged it should have kept the resident up to date with the actions it was taking but had not done so. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the impact of these failures on him. With regard to the electricity contact it had procured, the landlord said: Its fixed-price deal ended in March 2023. On 1 April 2023, it moved to a flexible contract. This allowed it to buy electricity at different prices each day instead of 1 fixed rate. Its energy broker reviewed market trends and advised when prices fell. Utility budgets for 2023–2024 used Government Energy Price Guarantee rates set on 1 October 2022. With regards to the metering of the communal electricity supply, the landlord said: There were 4 communal electricity meters at the scheme. The landlord shared current unit rates for each. (A named company) would be replacing the last remaining non-smart meter with a smart meter. Once installed, bills would no longer be estimated. The lifts would have to be powered down to replace the meter. An electrician would reset and power the lifts up after the meter was replaced. The job was booked for October 2023 but delayed because the location (scheme) manager was unwell. With regards to communal energy usage and what steps it was taking to ensure energy efficiency and sustainability, the landlord said: As a housing provider entirely for older people, it had a policy on heating, which was in line with guidance from Age Concern. The heaters in the corridors maintained the temperatures set out in the policy. It reviewed its heating policy in light of the cost-of-living crisis but agreed the safety and comfort of its residents was its priority. It offered a support service for those struggling to pay their bills and general energy saving advice on its website. While replacing the meter, the electrician would check if the weather watcher controls were working and what they did. It had spoken at the scheme about its strategy for reaching net zero carbon. The landlord also provided a link to its Environmental Sustainability Strategy (2023-2026). Cavity wall insulation was installed in November 2021. Loft insulation had been installed at the current recommended level of 300mm. The building had double glazing. Communal areas used electric storage heaters with manual charge control. Electric immersion heaters ran on off-peak settings and homes had low energy lighting. There was a ‘huge amount’ of work to be done in order to achieve the changes needed. It had set targets it believed it could meet and it was working towards them.
28 December 2023	The resident escalated his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. With regards to the metering of the communal electricity supply, the resident said there had been at least 3 occasions where the location manager had attempted to make appointments with the company, appointed by the energy supplier, to install the smart meter. These ended in aborted visits due to ‘‘the meter operators incompetence of not understanding the complexity of the work’’. The resident said the issue of how energy consumption could be reduced was not resolved. The resident also questioned the landlord’s reference to ‘guidelines’ in respect of the heating of the communal areas.
15 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response. With regard to the electricity contract, the landlord said: The rates it had achieved through its energy broker were at or below the Energy price guarantee in 2023 to 2024. Any savings it had been able to achieve on that year’s budgeted costs for energy would be used to offset next years’ service charges. The location manager took manual readings on 14 February 2024. Its Energy Manager compared the current billing to these estimated reads. Estimated and actual reads, for the meter which was to be replaced, were in line. The landlord said these had been submitted to the electricity supplier to inform billing. With regards to meter replacement, the landlord said: Since its stage 1 response, the company appointed by the electricity supplier to install the smart meter had attended but had not managed to carry out the works. The landlord explained the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) needed to attend and complete works before the meter exchange could be safely completed. It was in the process of arranging a date for the DNO to attend, after which an appointment to upgrade to the smart meter could be made. With regards to communal energy usage and what steps it was taking to ensure energy efficiency and sustainability, the landlord said: An electrician attended site on 14 February 2024 and confirmed the ‘weather watchers’ were not operational and therefore not increasing the amount of energy being consumed at the scheme. Regular residents’ meetings were also held to ensure residents could raise concerns and discuss any matters they would like to.   The landlord said the next steps and action plan was for: The smart meter to be installed to support accurate meter reading. It to provide an update on progress by the end of April 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 6 March 2024, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint. The resident said: The landlord had entered into an energy supply contract where everything was on a single rate tariff. The resident also raised concerns about energy efficiency. The replacement of the existing communal electricity meter with a smart meter was still outstanding.

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 response to the resident’s concerns about the communal energy charge for his scheme
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

10. We consider complaints from individuals. We can accept an individual complaint as a lead case as long as a number of conditions apply. These include whether the landlord  dealt with it as a group or individual complaint through its complaints process. In this case, the resident expressed concerns about how the matters he was complaining about might affect other residents.
11. In this case, we have considered this as an individual complaint. This is because there is no evidence of the resident formally bringing the complaint to the landlord with the agreement of other residents. Nor is there any evidence of the landlord dealing with the matters raised as a group complaint.
12. We cannot determine whether the electricity contract procured by the landlord actually provided value for money for the resident. This would be something for the First Tier Tribunal or a Court to determine. However, when concerns are raised by residents about communal electricity costs, we can consider whether the landlord had taken reasonable steps to:
    1. Ensure the electricity contract it procured provided the best value for money for its residents.
    2. Consider any energy efficient measures it might have taken or might introduce to reduce energy consumption and costs.
    3. Maintain open communication with residents about what steps it was taking in line with these expectations.
13. As the resident acknowledged in an email to the landlord on 22 April 2024, the supplier, and not the landlord, was responsible for replacing the meter. We cannot investigate the actions of the supplier. However, we can consider whether the steps the landlord took to facilitate the replacement of the meter, and its communication with the resident about this matter, was reasonable.

What we have considered

14. The resident is obliged, under the terms of his tenancy to contribute to the communal heating, hot water, lighting and electricity at this scheme. The scheme is all electric.
15. On 8 November 2022, the resident raised concerns about the electricity contract the landlord had procured and the metering of the communal electricity supply at his scheme. The resident also raised concerns about what steps the landlord was taking to ensure energy efficiency and sustainability. The resident asked to meet with the landlord’s energy manager to discuss his concerns.
16. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request in December 2022 and said it would arrange for its Energy and Retrofit Manager, Environment and Sustainability Manager and property surveyor to meet with the resident, and others, at his scheme on 3 March 2023. As this was some 3 months later, the landlord would have been expected to have remained in contact with the resident and respond to any further concerns he raised, which it did.
17. The landlord has provided us with a copy of the slides it used at its meeting at the resident’s scheme on 3 March 2023. We have not seen the minutes from the meeting. However, it is not disputed that the electricity supply, energy efficiency works and the landlord’s sustainability strategy were discussed.
18. Following the meeting of 3 March 2023, the resident continued to raise concerns about the energy (electric) contract procured by the landlord, the landlord’s ‘failed’ attempts to have a smart meter installed and what steps the landlord was taking to ensure energy efficiency and sustainability at his scheme. The resident raised his formal complaint on 22 August 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
19. Having reviewed the evidence, we are satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure the electricity contract it procured provided the best value for money for its residents. This is because the landlord:
    1. Explained that when the fixed-price energy contract for the resident’s scheme ended in March 2023, it procured a flexible contract that began in April 2023. The landlord said the new contract meant it could buy electricity at daily rates instead of 1 fixed price. The landlord advised it had engaged an energy broker to help secure low rates by tracking market trends and advised when prices dropped. The landlord confirmed these rates stayed at or below the Government Energy Price Guarantee set in October 2022 and its utility budgets for 2023–2024 would use those guaranteed rates to keep costs stable.
    2. Said to ensure accurate billing, the location (scheme) manager took manual meter readings. The Energy Manager compared these with estimated readings, and both matched. The readings were sent to the electricity supplier.
    3. Said any savings from that year’s energy costs would reduce the following years’ service charges.
    4. Said the remaining non-smart meter would be replaced with a smart meter. 
20. There was evidently a delay in the new smart meter being installed. However, as the resident acknowledged in his escalation request of 28 December 2023, the 3 occasions when the appointments to replace the meter were ‘aborted’, were due to ‘the meter operators’ and not the landlord’s ‘incompetence of not understanding the complexity of the work’. The resident also acknowledged in an email to the landlord on 22 April 2024, the supplier, and not the landlord, was responsible for replacing the meter.
21. In circumstances such as this where the landlord is not directly responsible for an action to be taken, we would expect it to actively engage with the organisation responsible. This would be to ensure the works were progressed in a timely manner. We would also expect the landlord to keep the resident updated as to what action it was taking.
22. In this case, it is evident that the landlord did seek to ensure the works were progressed. This was initially managed by the location manager. However, following the aborted appointments (referred to by the resident in his escalation request) and the location manager having not had any update from the supplier as to when the meter would be replaced, this was then chased by the landlord’s Energy and Retrofit Manager through September and October 2023. The energy supplier then provided a provisional date of 24 October 2023 for the meter to be replaced.
23. The appointment on 24 October 2023 did not go ahead and the landlord continued to pursue the energy supplier for a date for the meter to be replaced. This it did up to, and following, its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint of 15 February 2024.
24. Whilst we are satisfied the landlord actively engaged with the organisation responsible for the replacement of the meter, and took reasonable steps to ensure the works were progressed in a timely manner, there were failures in how it communicated what steps it was taking to the resident. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response, for which it apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation.
25. The landlord also did what it said it would do following its stage 2 response. It continued to contact the organisation responsible for replacing the meter. On 30 April 2024 it wrote to the resident, as promised, to provide an update and explain the ongoing issues it had been experiencing. The landlord also confirmed that its Electrical Compliance Contracts Manager, would be overseeing the exchange.
26. The landlord continued to pursue the organisation responsible for replacing the meter through May and June 2024, writing to the resident on 14 June 2024 to apologise for the ongoing delay. It remains unclear whether the meter has or has not now been replaced.
27. We are satisfied that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to consider any energy efficient measures it could take or introduce to reduce energy consumption and costs. This is because it:
    1. Provided a reasonable explanation as to its position with regards to the heating of the communal corridors. This is because as a housing provider entirely for older people, it had a heating policy which was in line with guidance from Age Concern. The heaters in the communal corridors were set to maintain the temperatures set out in its policy. It had reviewed its heating policy in light of the cost-of-living crisis but agreed the safety and comfort of its residents was its priority, which was reasonable.
    2. Improved energy use with several practical steps. It installed cavity wall insulation in 2021 and added loft insulation at 300mm to reduce heat loss. Double-glazed windows and low-energy lights had been installed to cut power use. Communal areas used electric storage heaters with manual controls, and immersion heaters ran on off-peak times. Residents also received advice on using heaters efficiently, and one-to-one help was offered to reduce consumption.
    3. Shared its net-zero carbon plan and its 2023–2026 sustainability strategy.
    4. Arranged for an electrician to check the “weather watcher” controls. The electrician confirmed these were not working and so were not consuming additional electricity.
    5. Met with resident to share concerns and energy-saving tips.
    6. Acknowledged more work was needed and said it had set targets it believed it could achieve.
28. In his correspondence with the landlord the resident challenged the landlord’s heating policy. Broadly speaking, it is for a landlord to set its own policy direction and the processes and procedures it expects its staff to follow. However, we may consider the extent to which a policy complies with the law, regulations or good practice in place at the time of the complaint.
29. In this case we are satisfied it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it based its heating policy on guidance from Age Concern. This is because this guidance reflects expert advice on safe indoor temperatures for older residents. Following the guidance from Age Concern helps safeguard residents’ health and welfare while demonstrating the landlord’s responsibility to meet recognised standards for older residents.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (March 2022).
31. The landlord had a published complaints policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales at the time of the complaint.
32. The resident first complained to the landlord on 22 August 2023.
33. In accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response by 12 September 2023, allowing 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 to respond.
34. However, by 20 November 2023, the landlord had not acknowledged the resident’s complaint nor provided its response. The resident then asked us to help. We wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2023, asking it to provide its stage 1 response.
35. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. This represents a delay of 40 working days. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £50 compensation for the impact the delay had on him.
36. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 December 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, the landlord should have responded within 20 working days. With 3 bank holidays in December and January, the deadline for the landlord’s response would have been 30 January 2024. It missed this date, and the resident contacted us again for help.
37. We wrote to the landlord on 7 February 2024, and it sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 15 February 2024.
38. The landlord apologised for this further delay but did not offer more compensation. Given the length of the delay in its stage 2 response, and that the resident had to again contact us to assist him with progressing it complaint, this was not reasonable. This failure led to our finding of maladministration in how the complaint was handled.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. No record keeping issues were identified during this investigation.

Communication

40. There were acknowledged failings by the landlord in keeping the resident updated about what steps it was taking to progress the installation of the meter. Otherwise, its communication with the resident in this case was good. The landlord provided detailed and thorough written responses to the extensive and often complex concerns raised by the resident. The landlord’s Energy and Retrofit Manager, Environment and Sustainability Manager and property surveyor met with the resident and others at his scheme to discuss the concerns raised in person. We have also seen evidence of the Environment and Sustainability Manager continuing to communicate with the resident following this visit. The resident also acknowledged the location manager’s communication with him in correspondence with the landlord.