Hull couple face eviction for refusing to let house be painted

“I must be missing something here, I really don't understand what the landlord has really done wrong. Landlords carry out cyclical maintenance which will involve a long term maintenance programme. Items over £250 per unit require Section 20 consultation with residents. Mr & Mrs Parker will no doubt be aware of this if they are residents of 16 years, as its highly likely that they will have benefited from similar works in the past. Their legal position is not as unclear as people think. If intention is demonstrated, an assumption can be made that rules can be applied, i.e. terms of a lease. They may well deny they are party to any existing lease, but if they have continued to receive the benefit of services under the intended lease, and have not queried or objected to this in their lengthy term of ownership, in law I'd expect that estoppel applies. Claiming an agreement doesn't exist or should not be valid, despite receiving the benefit of such an agreement for a lengthy term and without objection from either party, may well mean that it can be demonstrated that the agreement does exist and is being practised.

Would there still be the same outcry if, say in 2 years time, the paint was peeling off this house, and the landlords works were still in great condition, and the works carried out (unlawfully?) by the residents above were bringing down the image (and property values?) on the development?

Reasonable assumptions -
Did they apply for consent for the works, which would no doubt be required under any shared ownership lease? Probably not, as the landlord would have pointed out that they are responsible for those works, and they'd possibly also have referred to works being planned in the future.
Do registered social landlords make a profit from works carried out on residents properties? No, they charge at cost, because they have to, with any admin cost coming as part of a management fee.
Are the customers protesting against a management fee? No, so its possibly safe to assume that its a reasonable fee in the first place. If they feel this is excessive it can be challenged quite easily at LVT. Was this the case either? No.
Their case has been heard in front of an independent panel who have made a decision based on facts available to them. Possibly even at the request of the customers. A fair trial? Most likely yes.
Do registered social landlords have to go through a tendering process for major works, throughout which residents are consulted? Yes, so why are people claiming landlords cream huge amounts of money from these kinds of works? I fully expect that the landlord will have had at least 3-6 quotes from potential contractors. Independently, because they have to.

YorkieTed - Is it fair to make such assumptions with an obvious lack of understanding of RSL's or shared ownership leases and lease provisions?
RichSpice - Really? Community Gateway are the regulator of Housing Associations? Not the HCA then is it? Please research a little more before posting irrelevant links. Unhappy with your landlord? Jog on then, you are a customer, vote with your feet. To clarify my own position, I used to work for Places for People when it was North British Housing, and have worked for 2 RSL's since, neither of which are as good. Yes, nobody is perfect. If you have issues, perhaps spend your time consulting your landlord instead of muddying their name - not really a productive way of resolving your situation, is it.”

“I must be missing something here, I really don't understand what the landlord has done wrong here. Landlords carry out cyclical maintenance which will involve a long term maintenance programme. Items over £250 per unit require Section 20 consultation with residents. Mr & Mrs Parker will no doubt be aware of this if they are residents of 16 years, as its highly likely that they will have benefited from similar works in the past. Their legal position is not as unclear as people think. If intention is demonstrated, an assumption can be made that rules can be applied, i.e. terms of a lease. They may well deny they are party to any existing lease, but if they have continued to receive the benefit of services under the intended lease, and have not queried or objected to this in their lengthy term of ownership, in law I'd expect that estoppel applies. Claiming an agreement doesn't exist or should not be valid, despite receiving the benefit of such an agreement for a lengthy term and without objection from either party, may well be binding, as it should be.
Reasonable assumptions -
Did they apply for consent for the works, which would no doubt be required under any shared ownership lease? Probably not, as the landlord would have pointed out that they are responsible for those works, and they'd possibly also have referred to works being planned in the future.
Do registered social landlords make a profit from works carried out on residents properties? No, they charge at cost, because they have to, with any admin cost coming as part of a management fee.
Are the customers protesting against a management fee? No, so its possibly safe to assume that its a reasonable fee in the first place. If they feel this is excessive it can be challenged quite easily at LVT. Was this the case either? No.
Their case has been heard in front of an independent panel who have made a decision based on facts available to them. Possibly even at the request of the customers. A fair trial? Most likely yes.
Do registered social landlords have to go through a tendering process for major works, throughout which residents are consulted? Yes, so why are people claiming landlords cream huge amounts of money from these kinds of works? I fully expect that the landlord will have had at least 3-6 quotes from potential contractors. Independently, because they have to.

YorkieTed - Is it fair to make such assumptions with an obvious lack of understanding of RSL's or shared ownership leases and lease provisions?
RichSpice - Really? Community Gateway are the regulator of Housing Associations? Not the HCA then is it? Unhappy with your landlord? Jog on then. I used to work for Places for People when it was North British Housing, and have worked for 2 RSL's since, neither of which are as good. Yes, nobody is perfect. If you have issues, perhaps spend your time consulting your landlord instead of muddying their name - not really a productive way of resolving your situation, is it.”

“Interesting, thanks for the info.
Seems Places for People want to do this too.
http://tinyurl.com/8p2syg5

Seems even more important to me then to check this kind of thing, or any other issues, are dealt with as soon as possible.”

“It is said the dwp use their vans for surveillance work I guess they call it multi tasking!!”

“Check with gateway housing they are the government's regulator for housing associations

http://tinyurl.com/clrvwga

places for People are part funded by the government and as such have to comply to their regulations. As others have said if the lease you signed doesn't have it written in it that this charge / costs are payable and that the housing association will carry these works out then you are not legally bond to pay it. I am with places for people and they are rubbish I would recommend anybody considering getting a property to avoid Places for People at all cost”

“Check with gateway housing they are the government's regulator for housing associations http://tinyurl.com/brr3ape
places for People are part funded by the government and as such have to comply to their regulations. As others have said if the lease you signed doesn't have it written in it that this charge / costs are payable and that the housing association will carry these works out then you are not legally bond to pay it. I am with places for people and they are rubbish I would recommend anybody considering getting a property to avoid Places for People at all cost”

“Charged us £6,000 to paint the communal hall, doors and under the garage area for a block of 10 flats. On the bright side they could have gone with the other quote for £15,800. I'm making a complaint. Seems like it's not an isolated incident.
I wouldn't avoid Places for People, there's a lot worse out there, but they need to look at some of their current policies in my opinion.

Have you tried making a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service:
0207 421 3800”

“Well it cant be the outside as ive said its all PVC,it looks like the only thing that is paintable i the fence,if thats the case then the painter will be charging a total of £750 for the day it would take to complete, thats almost £110 per hour,im sure ... anyway im sure Places For People will no doubt come forward and clarify the situation.And to threaten eviction over a bit of paint is a very harsh and shameful act.”

“Are they referring to the inside of the property?. Seems odd if they are.”

“£600 is ridiculous. It's almost on par with some programmes on TV that boast about a room they have made over for only £3000!! Hope you get it sorted, Mr & Mrs Parker.”