GreenSquareAccord Limited (202428371)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428371

GreenSquareAccord Limited

9 October 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 the resident’s:
1. reports of a pest infestation.
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy, for a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, with the landlord. She lives with her 2 children and baby. She has told the landlord that 2 of her children have disabilities and she has mental health vulnerabilities.
On 5 June 2024 the resident told the landlord she thought she had a squirrel infestation. The landlord told her that it was her responsibility to resolve the issue. The resident paid for a pest controller who cleared the pests and told her it had been rats, rather than squirrels. It identified 3 holes in the property by which the rats were gaining access and advised that the loft insulation had been contaminated. The holes were in the kitchen, garage, and soil stack.
On 22 July 2024, the resident told the landlord about the 3 holes and the loft insulation. The landlord raised 2 jobs, one to repair the holes and the other in relation to the loft insulation. The landlord’s contractor attended to these on 8 August 2024 but there is no evidence that any repairs were completed.
On 20 September 2024 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues. In summary, she said she was still waiting for the holes to be repaired and the loft insulation to be removed. She said she was concerned that the rats would come back.
On 27 September 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In this it:
1. provided a timeline of events from when the resident first reported the issue.
2. said the soiled loft insulation would be removed by 27 September 2024.
3. said that once the loft insulation had been removed it would arrange the repair of the holes.
4. Apologised and offered £150 compensation for the “length of time repairs have taken and lack of communication”.
On 30 September 2024 the resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2. She said the soiled loft insulation had not been removed, and she had not been given an appointment date for this to be completed. She explained that living this way was affecting her mental health as she was concerned the rats would come back.
On 16 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it:
1. provided a timeline of events from 24 September 2024.
2. said it would call the resident by 18 October 2024 to ensure she had an appointment for the loft insulation to be removed.
3. said that once the loft insulation was removed it would arrange the repair of the holes and re-lay loft insulation.
4. said, in addition to its £150 compensation offer at stage 1, it offered a further £20 for delayed communication.
5. said it considered the matter closed, dependent on it “removing and relaying the loft insulation and blocking any potential vermin entry points.” And that “progress and completion of all agreed actions will be monitored by our Customer Care Team to ensure our service delivery promises are kept.”
On 9 December 2024 the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. This was in relation to the loft insulation, roof repairs, and additional issues.
When the resident referred her complaint to us, she said she felt that because the landlord failed to address the issues, further issues developed. She said as a resolution, she wanted the repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Ordinarily our investigation cannot go beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with our dispute resolution principles. In this case, in its stage 2 response the landlord committed to removing and relaying the loft insulation and blocking any potential vermin entry points. Therefore, we have increased the scope of the investigation to assess the landlord’s response and impact on the resident, up until she resident raised a new complaint on 9 December 2024. Anything mentioned after this date is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation

The landlord’s pest control policy and website tell residents that it takes a joint approach on pest control. It says that residents are responsible for pest issues within the property and that it is responsible for carrying out repairs to any structural damage to the property caused by pests and for blocking any holes the pests have used to get in. It was, therefore, appropriate that the landlord took responsibility for the pest issues when the resident told the landlord about the 3 access holes and the soiled insulation on 22 July 2024.
The landlord raised 2 jobs for this to be completed, one to replace the soiled loft insulation and one to repair the holes. However, while we can see that it raised a job to have new insulation laid, it has not provided evidence that it raised a job to have the soiled loft insulation removed first. This was not arranged until the resident raised her complaint. This failure contributed to the delay in the removal of the soiled loft insulation and the resolution overall.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days and “Work that falls outside of the usual time/cost scope of responsive repairs and need time to plan completion” will be completed in 84 days.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 8 August 2024. It reported to the landlord that the soiled loft insulation needed to be removed before the holes could be repaired and supplied photos of the areas concerned. The job to lay new loft insulation was placed on hold until the repairs were completed.
There is no evidence that any repairs were completed on this date and the job to repair the holes was closed. While it was reasonable that the repairs in the loft area needed further planning, the landlord has not provided any reason the hole in the kitchen and the garage could not be repaired or arranged at that time and this is a further failure. The job to lay new loft insulation was placed on hold until the repairs were completed.
In line with its responsive repairs policy, the landlord ought to have, at least, removed the soiled loft insulation within 28 days. This was not removed until 22 October 2024, which was beyond these timescales and, therefore, not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s repair history shows that when the resident raised a new complaint in December 2024 the roof repairs had not been completed. These were completed on 18 February 2025. Following this the landlord conducted a survey on 16 May 2025 and identified further issues requiring repair. The resident has told us there are still a number of repairs outstanding and because of this she is continuing to pay for pest control measures whilst the repairs are incomplete.
Overall, the landlord’s repair history shows that the repairs were not completed in line with its responsive repair policy, and the landlord has not provided any evidence that there were any exceptional circumstances which prevented it from doing so.
The delays to complete these repairs caused considerable inconvenience to the resident and her family. The resident temporarily moved from the property and sought the assistance from family to make temporary repairs while waiting for the landlord. She also had the time and trouble of chasing the landlord to complete these repairs over an extended period, including raising a further complaint in relation to these issues.
When a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged the delay and used its complaint responses to apologise and award compensation for this. However, this was dependent on the completion of the required work, in a reasonable time. It was positive that the landlord provided an explanation of why the delays had occurred in its complaint responses. However, it did not identify any learning from this, and the delays to complete these repairs continued.
The resident has told us there are unrepaired holes, outstanding from her original request, over a year later. And that because of these holes she has continued to pay for preventative pest control measures. As such, an order has been made below in relation to this.
The compensation for the impact of the delays was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report; therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these repairs. And we order additional compensation below.

The landlords handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a complaint on 20 September 2024. The landlord issued its combined stage 1 acknowledgement and response on 27 September 2024. This was in line with its policy to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and issue its response within 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 30 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and issued its response on 16 October 2024. This was in line with its policy to acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and issue its response within 20 working days.
The landlord has told us that in its stage 2 response it mistakenly noted that it had not received the customer’s bank account details to enable it to pay the Stage 1 compensation offered. It has told us it should have noted that the payment was made to the customer’s rent account. This was not appropriate and is likely to have caused confusion to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also contained a section in which the landlord should have added an expected date for the completion of the repairs; however, this was not completed. This was not appropriate, and it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectation.
Overall, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. This aspect of the complaint, however, had minimal impact on the resident and we consider an apology sufficient to put this right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £300 compensation for the impact of the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation. This includes the £170 already offered by the landlord.
3. contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding repairs. If repairs are still outstanding, then the landlord is ordered to produce a timebound action plan demonstrating the work it intends to carry out and when it will be completed. A copy of this should be provided to both us and the resident.
4. consider if financial redress is appropriate for the resident’s continued purchase of pest prevention measures.
5. provide us evidence that it has complied with these orders.