Anchor Hanover Group (202420861)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420861

Anchor Hanover Group

30 September 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. Communal maintenance and cleaning.
    2. The resident’s use of the communal garden.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since May 2024. The property is a second floor flat in a retirement block. 
  2. On 22 June 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said:
    1. Residents had claimed large areas of the communal gardens as their own, which made her feel unable to use the garden. She wanted to know if the residents, who had claimed the garden paid more in service charges.
    2. The carpets, in the communal entrance, were heavily stained.
    3. There was clutter and rubbish outside a neighbouring flat.
  3. On 08 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:
    1. Planned to complete a review of the garden by 26 July 2024. It would provide a response by 31 July 2024.
    2. Acknowledged concerns regarding the external condition of a neighbouring flat and confirmed that it would be dealt with via its policy.
    3. Agreed the communal entrance carpets required cleaning and said it would obtain quotes. The resident would receive an update by 31st July 2024.
    4. Agreed the lounge furniture required upgrading, but the sinking fund for the financial year was committed to the replacement of the lift. It would provide an update by 31st July 2024.
  4. On 17 July 2024, the resident reported repairs required to the communal area. She requested that the repairs were added to her complaint. She reported:
    1. A hole in the wall and a stained ceiling.
    2. Graffiti on an external wall.
    3. The sofa and chairs in the communal lounge were not fireproof, because they do not have fire safety labels. And asked for a copy of the fire risk assessment.
    4. The shed in the communal garden was not maintained.
    5. The trees required trimming. Apples fallen from the tree had caused a pest problem.
  5. On 22 August 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said:
    1. Works had not been completed or further information provided.
    2. The landlord had mis-sold the property.
    3. The carpets remained filthy, graffiti remained on the outside walls, and the amount of broken and dirty furniture was unacceptable.
    4. The garden remained in dispute and covered in pots and broken items.
  6. On 20 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
    1. Apologised that the resident felt a lack of progress.
    2. Confirmed completion of some repairs and acknowledged the outstanding repairs.
    3. Confirmed that it had held an annual review meeting with all residents. And agreed to fund a deep clean of the lounge furniture and carpets.
    4. Advised that it had obtained a quote for furniture replacement. It would discuss this with all residents at the annual budget meeting along with 71 other competing priorities.
    5. Confirmed that trees were trimmed in April 2024 and that it was considering a tree management programme. It would update residents at the annual budget meeting.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of a response. She said she was frustrated with the condition of the communal areas. And upset that she was still unable to use the communal garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has raised other complaints regarding service charges, site manager attendance, and an application for the right to manage. We cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or been raised with it in the first instance. However, the resident has the option to complete the landlord’s complaint process with regards to this complaint and refer to this service if she remains concerned.
  2. What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Maintenance and cleaning

  1. The resident’s handbook states that the landlord is responsible for making sure internal shared areas are clean and tidy. The lease states that the landlord must maintain the main parts of the structure and exterior.
  2. The resident’s handbook states that repairs are prioritised according to urgency. An emergency repair is attended to within 24 hours, urgent within seven days and routine within 28 days. Further, when major items reach the end of their serviceable life or become uneconomical to repair, the landlord will discuss it with all residents at an annual review meeting.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2024. The landlord visited and met with the resident on 27 June 2024. The visit occurred in a timely manner, demonstrated that the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns, and was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that the carpets required further cleaning, and lounge furniture required upgrading. The landlord agreed to obtain quotes and said it would provide an update by 31 July 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as promised. It has not provided an explanation for the delay. This was unreasonable and contributed to the resident raising a stage 2 complaint.
  1. The resident reported that the sofa and chairs within the lounge communal area did not appear to have any fire safety labels. She requested a copy of the fire risk assessment (FRA). The landlord’s website states that it carries out FRA’s on all buildings with common areas, and it will meet all legal and statutory obligations. It also states that residents can request a copy. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request or investigated the resident’s concerns, this was unreasonable.
  2. Further, the resident reported that asbestos was present in a hall cupboard. She requested a copy of the asbestos report for the building. The resident handbook states that the landlord has surveyed all its properties and has records detailing where asbestos is contained. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request or investigated her concerns, this was unreasonable.
  1. On 17 July 2024, the resident reported maintenance repairs required to the communal areas, which included a hole in the wall and a ceiling stain. The landlord acknowledged the repairs within its stage 2 response and said it completed the repairs in September 2024. It is noted that the repairs were completed outside the landlord’s standard priority timescale of 28 days, this was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord agreed that the lounge furniture required updating and explained that the cost would be met from the sinking fund. On 20 September 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had received quotes for the replacement and that it would discuss it with all residents at the annual budget meeting. Although the delay regarding a resolution would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord was obligated, in accordance with its policy, to consult with other residents regarding the proposed spend.
  3. Further, the landlord agreed, as a short-term solution, to steam clean the furniture and lounge upholstery. This was a reasonable resolution from the landlord, while it considered and consulted on a major refurbishment.
  4. On 20 September 2024, the landlord’s contractor carried out the removal of the graffiti and on 23 September 2024, it carried out the deep clean of the carpets, lounge furniture, and upholstery. From the resident’s complaint it took 68 days to remove the graffiti and 93 days to complete the deep clean. Considering the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs of 28 days, this delay was inappropriate.
  5. The resident told the landlord that the trees required trimming and that a nearby apple tree had caused a pest problem. The landlord said it had trimmed the trees, only a few months earlier, in April 2024, but would obtain quotes and share it at the annual budget meeting. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it had already completed works, and leaseholders were required to agree to any on-going maintenance costs.
  1. The resident said that she was mis-sold the property because she did not feel it was as enjoyable, relaxing, warm, or welcoming as advertised. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had completed all its obligations to the resident at the time of the purchase and advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied, she could refer the matter to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who deal with leasehold disputes. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  1. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s concerns and acted, however it was limited in the actions it could take without consultation. Further, the landlord used its discretion to improve the overall appearance of the communal area, where it feasibly could.
  2. However, the landlord failed to provide updates in line with the commitments it made within its stage 1 response and failed to complete reported repairs in line with its published timescales. Nor did it act upon the resident’s concerns or provide the requested information regarding fire and asbestos safety. Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlords handling of communal maintenance and cleaning.
  3. Having considered the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for a failure, which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Communal Gardens

  1. On 27 June 2024, the landlord met with the resident, she explained the hostility she felt when using the communal gardens. The landlord confirmed that all residents pay a service charge, which is used towards the cost of gardening works to maintain the communal gardens for all residents. The landlord said it would review the current use of the gardens to ensure they are accessible and enjoyable for all residents. This was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take and demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s concerns.
  2. The landlord said that it would establish clear guidelines to prevent individual residents from claiming large areas of the garden. And it would communicate with all residents that the garden is a shared space for the benefit of everyone by 31st July 2024. This service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord took any appropriate action despite its stated commitments. This was unreasonable.
  3. On 24 September 2024, the resident told the landlord that the stage 2 response had failed to respond to the main element of her complaint regarding the use of the communal garden. She told the landlord it was not resolved and that she felt ignored. There is no evidence that the landlord considered reinvestigating this element of the resident’s complaint or amending its stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage further with the resident, understand her frustrations, and work towards a resolution.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it carried out a reasonable investigation in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the use of the communal gardens. The landlord has not evidenced that it has facilitated an agreement, and it failed to include the complaint within the stage 2 response. The resident’s concerns have consequently remained unresolved. As a result, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident use of the communal garden.
  5. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay a total of £250 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance where there is a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal maintenance and cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s use of the communal garden.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £500 for the following:
      1. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of communal maintenance and cleaning.
      2. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s use of the communal garden.
    3. Provided the resident with a copy of the fire risk assessment and confirmed to the resident that the communal lounge furniture is compliant.
    4. Provided the resident with a copy of the most recent asbestos report.
  1. Within 6 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has investigated the use of the communal garden and updated all residents accordingly.