Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202422878)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422878

GreenSquareAccord Limited

6 June 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 handling of a request to paint fascia boards.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since December 2000. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow.
  2. On 25 June 2024 the resident reported the fascia boards at the front of her home had rotted and the paint had flaked off.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 16 July 2024 that its operatives had damaged her flower beds and a car wing mirror. The resident complained on 29 July 2024 about delays in repairing the fascia boards. She also complained about the damage caused by operatives.
  4. On 1 August 2024 the landlord inspected the fascia boards and found they had “no sign of being rotten or damaged”. It said the only issue was flaking paint.
  5. In its complaint response on 2 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged damage due to “poor workmanship”. It also said it did not follow up the resident’s call when she reported the damage. It said following the inspection on 1 August 2024 it had raised a repainting job. It offered £250 compensation.
  6. On 5 August 2024 the landlord told the resident its cyclical maintenance team had confirmed there was no work programme or budget for painting fascia boards. It apologised that it would not be able to do the work and suggested the resident could paint the boards herself or hire someone to do it.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 August 2024. She said she was unhappy the landlord would not do the painting, and she could not do it herself because of her and her husband’s health and the cost.
  8. In its final response on 4 September 2024 the landlord said the boards were structurally sound and it did not have a budget for painting. It said it would look at whether it could do the work in future.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to paint the fascia boards. She said she was a pensioner and could not climb to paint.
  10. On 1 April 2025 the landlord told the resident it had a budget to do the work during the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. It said it planned to start the work between April and June 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request to paint the fascia boards

  1. The landlord’s occupancy agreement with the resident says it will keep the exterior of the home in a good state of decoration. This means the landlord has responsibility for repairing and painting fascia boards.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy gives details of how it will prioritise repairs. It says it will do routine repairs in 28 days and planned routine repairs in 84 days. It says a planned routine repair is work that “falls outside of the usual time and cost of responsive repairs and needs time to plan”. However, the landlord says the repairs and maintenance policy does not cover cyclical maintenance, such as external decoration.
  3. Records provided by the landlord show the resident reported rotten fascia boards on 25 June 2024. In response the landlord raised a job the same day. It gave it an 84-day priority, with a completion date of 17 September 2024. Because of the possible presence of asbestos, it also raised work to “encapsulate” the boards. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord told the resident about the timescale for the work at this time.
  4. On 16 July 2024 the resident told the landlord that its operatives had caused damage to her property. On 26 July 2024, the resident chased the landlord for an update. On 29 July 2024, she complained about delays to the repairs and the damaged caused. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident between 16 and 29 July 2024.
  5. Records show the landlord tried to call the resident about her complaint on 29 and 30 July 2024. It visited the property on 1 August 2024 to inspect the fascia boards and found no sign of rot. However, it found the paint was flaky and raised a job to repaint the fascia boards.
  6. In its complaint response on 2 August 2024 the landlord referred to a conversation with the resident that day. It apologised for the delays and damage caused. It said it had originally raised a job as a planned routine repair with a target of 84 days. It said the damage was due to “poor workmanship” by the asbestos team. It said when the resident called to report the damage on 16 July 2024, it had a 7-day target to call her back but did not do so. It said it had since inspected the fascia boards and found they were not rotten but needed to be repainted. It said it had sent this work to the planning team to book in and it would tell the resident when the work would happen. It offered £50 compensation for service failures, £50 for inconvenience and distress, and £150 for damage caused.
  7. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response. This is because the landlord apologised for the delays and damage caused and acknowledged it had not communicated with the resident. It also explained the timescales for the work and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the failures. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord originally gave a priority of 84 days to complete the work. This was reasonable as there was no sign the work was urgent, and the landlord needs to prioritise different types of reported repairs. However, it should have told the resident about the target date in June 2024.
  8. After the landlord sent the complaint response on 2 August 2024, an internal email the same day said it did not have a current cyclical budget for painting fascia boards. It said it was pulling together a programme but did not have a date for when work would start. On 5 August 2024, the landlord told the resident there was no programme for painting fascia boards. It said it was looking at putting a programme in place but did not currently have a budget. It said the resident could paint the fascia boards herself. It acknowledged this was not the news the resident wanted to hear. The landlord sent the resident a similar email on 20 August 2024. It said the resident could paint the fascia boards herself or hire someone to do this.
  9. The Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably when it updated the resident about the work on 5 August 2024. The landlord could have waited for more information about the work from the planning team before it sent its complaint response, as it sent it only 3 days after the resident complained. However, once it became aware of the new information it quickly updated the resident.
  10. On 21 August 2024 the resident said it was “disgusting” the landlord expected pensioners with health problems to do the work. She said she was not able to pay someone to do the work. The landlord responded the same day and said it was sorry for any unintended offence caused. It said it did not have a programme to do the work, which was why it said the resident could do the painting or hire someone to do it. It said if the resident was unhappy with the response, she could escalate her complaint. However, it said the outcome would be the same as it did not have a budget for the work.
  11. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s language in its communications with the resident was clumsy when it said she could paint the fascia boards herself. This caused upset for the resident, who explained she was not able to do this due to her and her husband’s health. However, the Ombudsman has seen that the landlord quickly apologised for any offence caused and made it clear in follow up communications that there was no expectation the resident needed to do the work or pay for it.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 August 2024. In its final response on 4 September 2024, the landlord said it did not have a budget for painting facias, but its cyclical maintenance team would look at whether it could do the work in future. It again said the resident could arrange the work herself, but it was only an option.
  13. On the landlord’s final decision about whether to do the work, it is the Ombudsman’s view that when it comes to cyclical work, it is for the landlord to decide what works to prioritise and when to carry them out. This is because it needs to consider its budget and other cyclical maintenance priorities. The Ombudsman cannot decide what cyclical work the landlord should prioritise.
  14. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there were some communication failures when the resident first reported the repairs and the damage. The landlord also caused upset when it suggested the resident could paint the fascia boards. However, the landlord apologised for these failures, corrected the information it gave, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation. It also clearly explained why it was unable to do the work in its final response. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was reasonable redress in the way the landlord handled a request to paint fascia boards.
  15. The resident told the Ombudsman in June 2025 that she had received a communication from the landlord saying it was going to paint the fascia boards but had not been told when the work would start. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident with an update on the work.

 

 

 

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of a request to paint fascia boards.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to give her an update on when work to paint the fascia board will start.