Estuary Housing Association Limited (202308323)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308323

Estuary Housing Association Limited

26 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a project to paint internal communal areas.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

This is a group complaint raised on behalf of 28 residents who are leaseholders of a block of flats. We will refer to the resident who brought the complaint to us as the “lead resident”. The landlord is a housing association.
In January 2023, the landlord wrote to residents saying its contractor had agreed to paint all the communal corridors and staircases in the block. It said there would be no charge for the work. Work started in March 2023 but the contractor only painted the entrance lobby, ground floor corridor and part of a staircase.
On 16 March 2023, the lead resident complained on behalf of all 28 residents. She said residents were unhappy because not all corridors and staircases had been painted as promised.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said the contractor had not been able to paint all the corridors and staircases because the cost of the paint had been higher than expected. It was continuing to review the financial position with the contractor and would try to complete the work.
On 21 April 2023, the lead resident wrote to the landlord. She said residents were not satisfied with the explanation and the landlord should have told them about the changed scope of work. The residents wanted the landlord to paint the other areas as promised.
The landlord escalated the complaint and gave its stage 2 response on 26 May 2023 which said:
1. The work was done under the contractor’s “social value” offer. This meant it was free of charge and not subject to the landlord’s usual procurement process.
2. It had not been aware of the costs and the contractor had said it could paint all the corridors and staircases.
3. Work had started by the time the contractor told it of the change in scope.
4. It had no “recourse” to make the contractor finish the job for free.
The lead resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said residents were dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the project and its explanation of why the painting was not finished. Residents wanted the landlord to finish the work and not charge them for doing so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 26. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may accept a complaint from a group of residents of the same landlord if the issues and facts are the same. This is to avoid the need for multiple investigations about the same issue.
We have decided this is a group complaint because we are satisfied the:
1. Events that led to the complaint were the same for all residents in the block and all residents were similarly affected.
2. Landlord dealt with the matter as a group complaint through its complaint process.
3. Lead resident has the authority of the other residents to ask us to investigate.

Handling of the painting project

Under the lease agreements the landlord is responsible for decorating the communal areas of the block. The residents are obliged to pay the cost of decorating through their service charge.
In October 2022, the landlord decided to ask its contractor to paint the communal corridors and staircases of the block using its “social value” fund. The project was agreed between the landlord and its contractor on the understanding that the social value fund would cover the cost of the work.
The evidence suggests that the social value fund is intended to benefit the landlord’s social housing tenants. We have recommended the landlord investigate how it came to be used to fund the project in this case.
The landlord did not manage the project as it should have. Regardless of how the work was being funded, the landlord should have specified the work needed, got a quote from the contractor, and ordered the work. This would have made sure there was an agreement between the landlord and the contractor setting out the scope of work. It would have also made sure the cost was assessed.
There is no evidence the landlord asked the contractor about the cost of the work at any point before it started. Nor is there evidence that it made a binding agreement with the contractor about the scope of work. This was a failing and meant there was no action the landlord could take to make the contractor finish the painting. It also meant the landlord did not consider whether the project was value for money as it should have.
On 9 November 2022, the contractor told the landlord the painting would need to comply with fire regulations. There is no evidence that the landlord responded or asked how this would affect the project. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to find out that the contractor intended to use fire proof paint which would cost more than ordinary paint.
The landlord wrote to residents in January 2023 saying the contractor would paint all the corridors and staircases and it would not charge them for the work. The residents expected this to happen.
The landlord put a lot of effort into choosing the colour of the paint. It exchanged emails with the contractor to get colour charts and between internal colleagues to agree a short list of colours. It then consulted with residents so they chose the final colour. While this shows the landlord wanted to involve the residents, the lack of attention to other parts of the project suggests the landlord’s focus was on the wrong things.
The scheme manager told colleagues that the contractor was only going to paint the ground floor on the afternoon of 6 March 2023. At this point, the contractor had delivered the paint and was due to start work the following morning.
There is no evidence to suggest the scheme manager delayed passing on the information and the landlord had little time to stop the work from going ahead. The landlord may have avoided being in this position if it had managed the project as it should have.
After the scheme manager raised concerns, the officers involved exchanged emails considering what to do. The emails show the officers were concerned about how the communal areas would look if they were not all painted and understood the residents would not be happy. The landlord then emailed the contractor saying it needed to paint all the communal areas as agreed. The evidence suggests the contractor did not respond.
Under the circumstances, the landlord should have done more to try to resolve the situation. It could have called the contactor or gone to the block when the work was due to start. Apart from emailing the contractor again at 10:25am on Tuesday 7 March 2023 and on 13 March 2023, there is no evidence the landlord did anything else to resolve the problem.
The landlord’s communication with residents was not good enough. For example, it wrote to residents on 14 March 2023 saying that the fire proof paint used had cost more than expected and it was looking at “other routes” to continue the work. By that time, the contractor had finished the work it intended to do but the letter did not explain that.
The landlord should have been clear that it had no plans to continue the work in the near future and explained the “other routes” it was considering. It should have apologised for not being able to meet the commitments it had given.
Further emails exchanged with the contractor after the residents complained show the landlord did ask if there was any funding to pay for the rest of the painting. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that no funding was available. Its final position was to offer to get quotes for finishing the work and then consult with residents about paying for it through their service charge. This solution was in line with the terms of the residents’ lease agreements.
During our investigation, the landlord told us the block is included in its planned painting programme for the financial year 2025/26. It intends to follow the statutory process to consult with residents about the proposed work and what it will cost them. The statutory process allows residents to nominate contractors to be invited to tender and to make written observations about the proposed work. The landlord must consider any written observations it receives.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the painting project. This is because it did not manage the project or communicate with residents as it should have.
The landlord’s failings left the residents with partly redecorated communal areas. The lead resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused. Residents are angry that the landlord did not keep its promise to paint all the communal areas for free. They feel it “misled” them and has not been honest about what went wrong.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £50 to each resident. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
We cannot order the landlord to finish the painting for free because the lease agreements oblige residents to pay for decorating in communal areas. However, we have ordered the landlord to start the statutory consultation process by 30 June 2025. The statutory process will give the residents some influence over whether the communal areas are decorated, and make sure they know the cost implications.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord met the response timescales of the Code at both stages of its complaint process.
However, its responses included inaccurate information. For example, in both of its responses, the landlord said it had not known that not all the corridors and staircases would not be painted until after work started. We do not think this was accurate because the scheme manager raised concerns before it started as we have explained in paragraph 20.
The landlord’s responses suggest it was the contractor’s fault that the work was not done as agreed. Its stage 1 response said the contractor had not considered the cost of the fire proof paint and had said it could paint all the communal corridors and staircases. Its stage 2 response repeated that the contractor had said it could paint all areas and said the landlord had not been aware of the costs involved.
The landlord’s responses did not refer to any failings of its own. This shows it had not considered its own role in managing the project or recognised its responsibility for its contractor’s actions when working on the landlord’s behalf.
The Code says landlords must make sure complaint handlers have no conflicts of interest. The officer that dealt with the complaint at stage 2 was the same officer that set up the painting project with the contractor and communicated with it throughout. The landlord should have considered the potential conflict of interest in this and there is no evidence it did so. This was a significant failing which may have compromised the landlord’s investigation at stage 2.
The stage 2 response did not address all parts of the complaint. For example, it did not address the point that residents had not asked for the painting work or that fire proof paint had not been used previously. The landlord should have explained how the project had come about and why fire proof paint was needed.
Its failure to do so caused the lead resident to ask the landlord again to address those issues. She also asked it to clarify some other points of its stage 2 response. It was right the landlord answered her queries. Its response caused offense because it suggested that the contractor had used fire proof paint because of the residents’ age group.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because it failed to consider the conflict of interest at stage 2 and its inadequate investigations at both stages caused it to give inaccurate and incomplete responses. The landlord also missed the opportunity to identify what went wrong and learn from the complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to each resident and pay £50 compensation to the lead resident for her time and trouble in raising and escalating the complaint. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and reflects the inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Project to paint the internal communal areas.
2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to each of the residents who are part of the group complaint to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the residents. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay each of the residents who are part of the group complaint £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the painting project. The compensation must be paid directly to the residents.
3. Pay the lead resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble in raising and escalating the complaint. The compensation must be paid directly to the lead resident.
The landlord must start the statutory process to consult with residents about its planned decoration work by 30 June 2025. It must send us a copy of its Notice of Intention (under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) to show it has started the process.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Investigate how the social value fund came to be used to fund this project. The landlord should satisfy itself that it has controls in place to make sure the social value fund is used for its intended purpose.
2. Consider how it can make sure there are no potential conflicts of interest when handling complaints.