The Riverside Group Limited (202300145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300145

The Riverside Group Limited

30 September 2024

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 consultation with the resident relating to:
   1. A change in service delivery partner.
   2. Cyclical external painting works.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in August 2009.

Landlord obligations

3. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to consult residents who may be affected by a variation to the services it provides.
4. S.105 of the Housing Act 1985 requires a landlord to consult on matters of housing management (not related to charges for services) where a tenant is likely to be substantially affected by such matter. It can apply to assured tenancies where it is written in the tenancy agreement.
5. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard requires:
   1. Where a registered provider is considering a change in landlord for one or more tenants, or a significant change in management arrangements, it must consult affected tenants on its proposals at a formative stage and take those views into account in reaching a decision. The consultation must: 
      1. be fair and accessible 
      2. provide tenants with adequate time, information and opportunities to consider and respond 
      3. set out actual or potential advantages and disadvantages (including costs) to tenants in the immediate and longer term, and 
      4. demonstrate to affected tenants how the consultation responses have been taken into account in reaching a decision.

Summary of events

6. On 3 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident confirming there was a change to the contractors used to complete repairs. It explained the contractor used from 1 June 2023 would be its in-house contractor, which was a subsidiary company of the landlord.
7. On 5 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its failure to consult them on its change of repair contractors and its cyclical property painting works, specifically the colour choices offered which they deemed unsuitable.
8. On 9 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
9. On 15 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
   1. It advised residents in its welcome letter when it joined the group, that it would use the contractors which were in place until their contract expired in summer 2022. It would then bring the delivery of its responsive and void services in house, to be delivered by its wholly owned subsidiary contractor.
   2. It believed the impact to residents would be minimal, as the staff members under the previous contract would remain employed by the new providers.
   3. It consulted using the customer voice panel (CVP). However, it acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied by the level of local consultation. It would feed back to the relevant teams ahead of any future consultation in that area.
   4. It had consulted residents in 2019 ahead of the external painting programme. Residents voted on the colour they wanted, and a colour chart was created for residents to select from ahead of the works.
10. On 16 March 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. They explained:
    1. The CVP had no record it was consulted about the change of contractor.
    2. They did not receive any information about the paint colour choices or an invitation to a consultation event.
11. On 21 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
12. On 29 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
    1. Its welcome pack emailed to the resident said the repairs would be carried out by the current contract delivery partner until summer 2022.
    2. It acknowledged the welcome pack did not specifically communicate the choice of the next contract delivery partner however, it believed it was reasonable to interpret that a change of contract delivery was planned. It also could not fully confirm whether it did or did not communicate the new delivery partner in future communications.
    3. It reiterated some of the repair operatives delivering the service would remain the same due to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) arrangements. The impact would therefore be minimal. It also reiterated the proposed change was consulted appropriately using the CVP.
    4. The colour chart was designed in 2019 following customer consultation. It was developed with the previous landlord ahead of commencement of the cyclical works. It had not been updated since then.

Assessment and findings

A change in service delivery partner

13. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not have services attached to their tenancy agreement for which they must pay a charge. They have access to the landlord’s repairs service and the landlord employs a contractor to maintain the green spaces. The only payment required by the resident as set out in the tenancy agreement is for rent.
14. Where there are no additional charges attached to the tenancy agreement, a landlord does not have to consult residents when changing contractors for supply or repair services, so long as the change does not significantly impact the residents’ living conditions or the services they receive. However, if the change in contractor leads to a substantial alteration in the quality or type of service provided, it could be considered a significant impact, and consultation might be necessary.
15. The new contractor had previously managed the delivery of repairs carried out by the previous contractor, with many of the same operatives and management staff continuing to deliver the service due to TUPE.
16. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider there to be no significant impact to the resident because there was no loss of the repair service, and the same operatives would manage the repairs. This met its responsibilities outlined in the tenancy agreement and the Regulator of Social Housing’s Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard.
17. As such, there was no significant adverse impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s change of contractor and the repairs service the landlord had to provide had not changed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was no maladministration by the landlord in choosing not to consult the resident.

Cyclical external painting works

18. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the previous landlord had consulted with residents regarding the planned cyclical property painting works in 2019. Following the consultation event the colour scheme was voted on by residents and had been in use since.
19. This Service appreciates the resident did not choose the available colour options and they were not invited to the consultation which took place in 2019. However, the landlord had since taken charge of the properties and chose to keep in place the colours voted on in 2019 when continuing the cyclical works. The landlord’s response was reasonable as its predecessor had consulted residents in 2019 and devised a colour scheme.
20. This Service cannot require the landlord to use a specific colour of paint at the resident’s property. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have considered if there were any alternative options it could offer to the resident. While it may not be able to accommodate the resident’s preferences it should show it explored options to maintain customer satisfaction.
21. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the cyclical painting colour was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a change in service delivery partner.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its consultation of cyclical external painting works.

Reasons

24. In line with the tenancy agreement the landlord was required to consult residents on changes to the services it provides if it significantly impacted the quality of service provided or the living conditions. The landlord did not consider that a change in contractor would significantly impact the repairs service it provided.
25. The choice of colour scheme had previously involved residents in 2019, and a colour scheme was developed following those meetings.