Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202502565)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502565

GreenSquareAccord Limited

30 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house that the landlord, which is a housing association, owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in 2007. The landlord was aware that a member of the household is asthmatic and prone to pneumonia.
  2. On 16 November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her home and asked the landlord to carry out an inspection. The landlord inspected the property on 11 January 2024 and recommended a number of repairs.
  3. The resident complained on 10 June 2024 stating the landlord had not carried out any repairs since the inspection. She added that, since 2022/23, there had been damp and mould issues in her property and that the patio was level with the damp proof course, causing water to penetrate from outside.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 June 2024, and it replied to the resident on the same day. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor communication and delay in raising the necessary works. It listed all the outstanding repairs, along with the dates when operatives were due to attend. It also offered the resident £220 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and the delay in responding to her complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 September 2024. She said that the landlord had cancelled 2 jobs that were due to be completed on 29 and 30 August 2024. She stated that it had rebooked them twice but they were either cancelled again or the operatives were unable to carry out the work. She added that she had taken unpaid leave to allow access, which had been a “waste of her time and energy”.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 September 2024, and it sent a final response to the resident on 29 September 2024. It upheld the complaint and provided a timeline of events regarding its handling of the resident’s reports. It then said that:
    1. The repair it had booked for 29 August 2024 was more complex than had been set on the works order and it had to pass this to a subcontractor.
    2. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused when it had to rebook the repair that was due for 4 September 2024.
    3. On 5 September 2024 the resident had refused to allow the works to be completed due to the disruption they would cause. The operative had passed the job back to the surveyor to find a solution that would be acceptable to her.
    4. It had arranged for operatives to attend on 22 and 23 October 2024 to complete the remaining repairs.
    5. It apologised for the unsuccessful visits and lack of progress. It also acknowledged the stress caused by the damp in her property, and impact this had on her son’s asthma.
    6. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied because of landlord had failed to complete repairs in a timely manner. On 24 September 2025 she told us that 2 of the repairs from the inspection in January 2024 remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould

  1. Following the resident’s initial report of damp and mould on 16 November 2023, the landlord did not inspect the property until 11 January 2024. This was 56 days later. Records show the resident chased up the inspection on 5, 8 and 22 December 2023. The resident should not have had to take unnecessary time and trouble to ensure the inspection went ahead.
  2. The landlord’s records show it had cancelled the inspection. It is unclear why this was the case and why the landlord had not contacted the resident to try and re-schedule it. The landlord was obliged under its damp, mould and condensation procedure to investigate the causes of damp and mould within 14 days of being put on notice.
  3. Furthermore, it ought to have made additional efforts given it was aware the resident’s son had asthma. The delay in completing an inspection and failure to take account of the vulnerabilities within the household was a departure from its damp, mould and condensation procedure.
  4. There is evidence the landlord took photographs of the property during the inspection, which was appropriate. However, there are no records to show it provided the resident with a report of its findings following the survey. This was a further departure from its damp, mould and condensation procedure.
  5. The surveyor identified 7 repairs during the course of their inspection. The landlord is obliged under its damp, mould and condensation procedure to raise works orders within 48 hours of the surveyor’s visit. Despite this, the landlord did not raise the repairs until 13 June 2024. This was 22 weeks after the date of the inspection. This was a significant failing.
  6. We note that the resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2024 to find out why it had not raised the works. It told her it would call her back within 7 days to get them arranged. This did not happen. It was only when the resident raised her complaint that the landlord took any action. The landlord’s communication was poor, which would only have added to the resident’s frustration at its failure to respond appropriately to her damp and mould reports.
  7. As part of its attempts to resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would:
    1. Carry out a mould wash in the living room on 11 June 2024.
    2. Check and flush the radiator in cloakroom and add a thermostatic valve to the hallway radiator on 17 June 2024.
    3. Install a new insulated hose for the passive vent in the loft on 15 July.
    4. Repair the hole in the roof underlay on 18 June 2024.
    5. Remove the silicone sealant from around the bath affected by mould on 19 July 2024.
    6. Reduce the level of the manhole in the patio, and replace any damaged patio slabs on 29 August 2024.
    7. Replace a damaged air brick, remove the soil and concrete in the area breaching the DPC and install gravel on 30 August 2024.
  8. The landlord attended the property to carry out the mould wash on 11 June 2024. However, its records show that the resident had already removed the mould herself, and told the operative she was “constantly doing it”. The evidence shows the landlord carried out repairs b. to d. within 4 to 17 days of having raised them. It appropriately completed them on the target dates as specified in the stage 1 response. This was also in line with its repairs policy, which requires it to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
  9. The landlord completed the replacement of the silicone sealant around the bath within 36 days. It is unclear why it had scheduled this repair outside its 28-day timescale for routine repairs, particularly considering it was a relatively straightforward job. Given the landlord was aware a household member had asthma, it ought to have prioritised the repair. It is acknowledged that increased demand and resourcing challenges can result in the contractor’s lack of availability. However, the landlord should make reasonable efforts to ensure any issues with contractors do not have an adverse impact on the service it provides to its residents.
  10. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do this. In its stage 2 response it said it would attend on 22 and 23 October 2024 to complete the following outstanding damp repairs:
    1. Reduce the level of the manhole in the patio, and replace any damaged patio slabs after raising the repair on 13 June 2024.
    2. Replace a damaged air brick, remove the soil and concrete in the area breaching the DPC and install gravel.
  11. Despite making this commitment, the resident informed us that those works remain outstanding. This is over a year and a half following the damp and mould inspection on 11 January 2024. The failure to complete those repairs within a reasonable amount of time was a significant failing. It was also a departure from the landlord’s obligation in the tenancy agreement to keep the structure of the property in a reasonable state of repair.
  12. The records identify various reasons why the works were subject to further delays. These included:
    1. Contractors failing to attend due to overrunning works on other sites, and not notifying the resident.
    2. Contractors not being able to complete repairs and having to re-schedule further appointments.
    3. Operatives attending but not having the appropriate equipment or skills for the job.
  13. The landlord’s poor communication and poor planning would have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience and disruption. The evidence shows she had taken time off work to allow access, only for operatives to make little or no progress in completing the repairs. The landlord ought to have ensured it was clear about the nature of the work that was required and established at the outset whether it needed to sub-contract the work out. Failure to do so contributed to the lengthy delays.
  14. When contractors attended on 5 September 2024 to complete work to replace the damaged air brick, the landlord’s internal records state that the resident “refused” for the work to continue. The stage 2 response states that this was because she thought her “dogs would dig up the gravel” and she did not want any noisy building work as her “husband’s office was at the back”. The resident has disputed the landlord’s account of events.
  15. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in its repair handling and poor communication. It also offered the resident £320 compensation in recognition of its failings. However, the landlord failed to complete external repairs when it said it would or follow its damp, mould and condensation procedure. Furthermore, it has not been able to demonstrate that some of the delays were unavoidable. This left the resident with the ongoing impacts of a damp property for longer than necessary.
  16. We acknowledge the landlord’s attempts to put things right. We also note that the landlord took actions to address the damp. It arranged for a mould wash and attempted to carry out some external works. However, it is clear that the landlord did not do enough to ensure that the underlying repair issues were completed in good time. We do not consider its offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment caused by delays in responding to the resident’s reports and completing some of the repairs.
  17. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to award an additional £600. This is the maximum amount we would order a landlord to pay where there has been a failure that adversely impacted the resident, but we are unable to establish a permanent impact. This is set out in our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should be made in writing and by a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This should be paid on top of the £320 the landlord has already offered the resident.
    3. Contact the resident and agree dates on which it will complete the 2 outstanding repairs from the inspection in January 2024. It must then write to her with confirmation of those dates. If it is of the view that those repairs are no longer necessary, it should explain why. It must send a copy of its letter to us within the above-mentioned timescale.