Aster Group Limited (202403154)

Background

1. The resident’s front door was painted on 29 November 2022 as part of a major works programme. The landlord later accepted that the work did not meet an adequate standard and the door needed to be repainted. In March 2024 the resident complained that the repainting remained incomplete and that the landlord had not taken their access related requests and concerns into account.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repainting the resident’s front door.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repainting the front door.
4. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repainting the front door.

5. The landlord’s approach to arranging access for the works was not sufficiently proactive. It did not effectively coordinate with both the resident and the contractor before considering legal action.

Complaint handling.

6. The landlord did not respond within its policy timescales and did not provide a full response at stage 1.

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.

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident’s door was painted during a programme of major works on 29 November 2022. The resident advised that the door was painted shut while they were out and they had to force the door to get into their flat.
8. The door repainting issue took place within a wider dispute between residents and the landlord about service charges and the quality of major works. A case was also brought to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). At the hearing on 21 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s front door had not been painted to an acceptable standard. The FTT directed the landlord to repaint the resident’s front door to their satisfaction as soon as possible.
9. Following the FTT determination, the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident by text message on 7 December 2023. It asked to arrange a day for the door to be repainted. The landlord said that the resident did not respond. The resident disputes this. They have told us the contractor was on site at the time and they spoke to them directly about a date, but nothing happened. They said they were not contacted again until 11 March 2024. It is positive that the landlord took steps to make an appointment. However, we do not consider that a single text message was sufficient, particularly in the context of the FTT decision and it could have followed up sooner.
10. The resident’s lease requires them to provide reasonable access for works. It was reasonable for the landlord to request access during standard business hours. However, raising the possibility of legal action without first exploring alternative access arrangements, including out-of-hours options, was disproportionate. The resident reported that the threat of legal action caused them distress and they did not believe the landlord had listened to their needs regarding access arrangements. The possibility of legal action was also communicated to the resident’s neighbour rather than to the resident directly. If the landlord intended to consider legal proceedings, it should have informed the resident directly and transparently.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had followed procedure due to continued no-access and that pursuing an injunction was sometimes necessary. However, this is inconsistent with the landlord’s later confirmation to us on 1 April 2026 that its no-access procedure was not introduced until June 2025. The information provided to the resident in 2024 that it was acting in accordance with established procedure was therefore incorrect.
12. The door was repainted on Saturday 11 May 2024. It is clear there were difficulties with arranging suitable access and it is positive that the landlord’s contractor agreed to work outside of its usual operating hours. However, the landlord could have contacted the resident sooner and explored reasonable alternative arrangements before escalating to discussing potential legal action.
13. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repainting the front door. We have ordered it to apologise and pay £200 in compensation to reflect the delays in repainting the door and the distress caused to the resident by the threat of legal action.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy stated it would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and would not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. It would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days and would not exceed a further 20 days without good reason.
15. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 26 working days, which exceeded its policy timescales.
16. Our Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to address all issues raised, including related matters added before the stage 1 response is issued. The resident raised their concerns about the threat of legal action before the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord should therefore have addressed the resident’s concerns about legal action at stage 1.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after 23 working days, which is slightly outside of its policy timescales.
18. The landlord apologised for the delay at stage 1 of its complaints process. However, both complaint responses were issued late, and the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the threat of legal action at stage 1. The resident had also made it clear that they found the prospect of legal action distressing. By omitting any reference to legal action in its stage 1 response, the landlord missed an opportunity to acknowledge and respond to these concerns at an earlier stage. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
19. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Learning

20. The landlord should have ensured that any reference to legal action was proportionate and that the information provided to the resident about its procedures accurately reflected the processes in place at the time. It is positive that the landlord has since introduced a formal no-access procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. There were gaps in the landlord’s records about when the door was first painted and when further works orders were raised. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping for major works.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication could be improved. In this case, the landlord should have taken a more proactive and coordinated approach to arranging access, ensuring timely follow‑ups and early exploration of reasonable alternatives.