GreenSquareAccord Limited (202102715)

Decision
Case ID	202102715
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured
Date	19 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house owned by the landlord. He has vulnerabilities including depression, anxiety, stress and PTSD. He complained to the landlord about several issues. These included ongoing allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and issues with fencing and boundaries. He made allegations of landlord harassment, discrimination, and staff misconduct. In addition, he raised several concerns about communication issues. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, he believed it had enough evidence to take enforcement action against his neighbour on the grounds of the reported ASB.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Fence and boundary issues.
   3. Harassment, discrimination and staff misconduct.
   4. Communication issues relating to benefit advice, medical information, fitting of a cat flap and removal of the resident’s contact details.
   5. The complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of fence and boundary issues.
5. The landlord’s handling of harassment, discrimination and staff misconduct is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
6. The landlord’s handling of communication issues relating to benefit advice, medical information, fitting of a cat flap and removal of the resident’s contact details are outside of jurisdiction.
7. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord identified its failures in relation to:
   1. Delayed contact by its housing officer
   2. Its delayed and misleading information in relation to fence and boundary issues
   3. Its delayed complaint handling
   4. It apologised and offered him appropriate compensation to put things right
9. Due to the time that has elapsed, the harassment, discrimination, staff misconduct and communication issues are outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

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.

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
1.  If not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £325 compensation.
2.The ASB case remains ongoing. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss its actions, support and communication plan to ensure he has reassurance that his concerns are being progressed appropriately.

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 August 2023 to 29 January 2024	The resident complained about ongoing ASB, the conduct of a housing officer and delayed contact. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024 and partly upheld the complaint. It explained: The issues relating to the previous housing officer occurred several years ago, so the landlord said it could not investigate. A new housing officer was assigned to his case. An attempt to contact the resident was made in December 2023 without success. The resident then contacted the landlord on 11 January 2024 requesting a call back. The landlord acknowledged a delay in responding and apologised, committing to make contact within 7 days. It recognised its delay in responding to the complaint and apologised. It offered him compensation of £175 broken down as: £25 for the delay in communication from the housing officer. £150 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
March 2024 to April 2024	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 25 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 3 response on 25 April 2024, stating: It did not have an open ASB case. The housing officer had spoken to the resident on 29 January 2024, explaining that previous ASB reports were historical and advising him to report any new issues. The landlord said it had received no further contact from the resident since that conversation. Cat spikes had been fitted to a rear fence, and the resident reported his cat had been injured by them. The landlord inspected the cat spikes on 30 January 2024. It asked the neighbour to remove the spikes immediately. It confirmed that these were removed. Compensation: The resident referred to a previous offer of £50 compensation from a complaint in 2022 about the boundary fence. The landlord agreed to include this in the current complaint, bringing the total compensation to £225.
October 2024	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the issues. The landlord reviewed the complaint and issued a revised Stage 2 response on 22 October 2024 stating: It would not investigate complaints older than 12 months in accordance with its complaint policy, however, it would provide background information for context. ASB: It reiterated its previous position, noting no new reports since August 2023 and referred to its earlier offer of mediation. Benefits advice: It had already responded in 2021 and confirmed it referred him to the council for universal credit support which it said was the correct advice. A cat flap had been fitted and retrospective permission obtained. It found no evidence that it had harassed or discriminated against him. It confirmed this was addressed in a previous complaint. Medical contact: It could not contact his doctor due to data protection laws and confirmed it required written consent to speak with his support worker. It could remove his details from its records but warned him this may delay communication and services. Fencing: This included boundary ownership, cat spikes, fence panels, and his request to build a garden wall. It explained: Boundary responsibilities were unclear, so in these circumstances it recommended shared responsibility with the neighbour Cat spikes were legal It apologised for delays in deciding on whether to give permission for his garden wall request and offered £50 compensation for this delay An inspection confirmed further evidence was needed regarding the erection of a garden wall including a license to build over drains It acknowledged poor communication and lack of response but maintained previous responses were fair and compensation appropriate Housing officer complaints: These were addressed previously, and a new officer was assigned. The landlord concluded the complaint was partially upheld due to: Poor handling of his garden wall request Conflicting and misleading information in a previous response Previous service failures: Poor communication after a call-back request on 11 January 2024 Delay in responding to the complaint Additional compensation was offered of £150, broken down as: £25 for poor handling of the garden wall request £25 for conflicting information £50 for distress and inconvenience Compensation: £325 (plus £50 from a previous complaint)
Referral to the Ombudsman October 2024	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint and contacted us to investigate the issues. He believed the landlord should have enough evidence of ASB to pursue enforcement action against his neighbour.

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.

Complaint	ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

10. The landlord’s ASB policy commits to take ASB, harassment and hate crime seriously and tackle it using preventative measures, early intervention, partnership working, support and legal action where appropriate. 
11. The landlord’s ASB procedure sets out how it will investigate and manage reports of ASB. It has a set of service standards for example the landlord commitment to record ASB within 2 working days of a report. Its response will be determined by the outcome of its risk assessment (2 to 5 working days). A separate assessment of the resident’s vulnerability is also part of its ASB procedure.
12. Under the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003, landlords have a responsibility to take reasonable and proportionate steps to address persistent nuisance or disorder associated with their properties. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take all complaints of nuisance and ASB seriously and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner, aiming to resolve issues and keeping complainants informed of developments.
13. The resident’s reports of ASB appear to have been ongoing from as early as 2019. To provide context, we will refer to some of these earlier issues, however, in the interest of fairness our investigation will begin from February 2023 and will continue up until the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2024.
14. The resident reported ASB involving a neighbour. He said the issues included damaged fencing, noise nuisance, verbal abuse, and attempts to harm his cats. During this time, the neighbour also made counter-allegations against him. In early February 2023, the landlord confirmed that an ASB case was open but explained there was not enough evidence to take further action. It advised the resident that if he did not provide specific details of incidents, the case would have to be closed. The landlord did not receive any further reports, and on 16 March 2023 it wrote to him to confirm the case was closed. However, it said it would reopen the case if new reports were received. Given the lack of evidence, the landlord’s actions were in line with its ASB policy and procedure, so we are satisfied it acted appropriately at that point.
15. Between April and July 2023, the landlord and the resident continued to communicate. During this time, the landlord carried out a harm risk assessment and gave it a score of 3. According to the landlord’s ASB procedure, this assessment helps prioritise cases based on the level of harm caused to the resident rather than the type of behaviour. A score of 3 is classed as low to medium risk, which means the landlord should contact the resident within 5 working days. There is no evidence to show what prompted the assessment or what action, if any, the landlord took afterwards. This appears to be a record keeping failure which was inappropriate.
16. In August 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said he had submitted evidence of dogs barking through the noise app but had not received a response. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in its housing officer contacting him, apologised, and partly upheld the complaint. It offered £25 compensation for this failure. There is no evidence that the delay affected the overall handling of the ASB case, so we consider this to be a reasonable resolution for this part of the complaint.
17. The resident was still unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint at the end of March 2024. The landlord explained that it had not received any new reports of ASB and therefore did not have an open ASB case. It stated it was satisfied with how it had handled the previous incidents. As there was not enough evidence to justify further action, we consider the landlord’s response to be reasonable and proportionate.
18. In October 2024, the resident escalated his complaint, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response later that month. The landlord explained that it had not received any reports of ASB since August 2023. It repeated its previous position and renewed its offer of mediation. It also reviewed its offer of compensation which now totalled £75.
19. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was consistent with its policy and procedures. It carried out risk assessments throughout the case, kept in contact with the resident, provided a nuisance monitoring pack earlier in his reports of ASB and communicated with both parties. It issued warning letters where appropriate and worked with the police. The landlord also explored other options, such as mediation, in an effort to resolve the issues.
20. Later in the timeline, the landlord informed the resident that there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action and closed the ASB case. This outcome was disappointing for the resident, who believed there was enough evidence to start enforcement action, but the landlord disagreed. The available evidence indicates that the landlord’s decision aligned with its ASB policy and procedure and helped manage expectations. The threshold for enforcement action is high, and landlords are expected to pursue this route only when the evidence justifies that course of legal action. The ultimate decision on legal enforcement action such as eviction is determined by the court —not by the landlord or our Service.
21. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed contacting the resident about one incident and offered £75 compensation. We consider this to be an appropriate way of addressing that failure and find that the landlord therefore provided reasonable redress in its handling of the ASB case.

Complaint	Fence and boundary issues
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The resident’s concerns about fencing and boundary issues appear to date back to 2020. We will refer to some of these earlier matters for context, but to ensure fairness, our investigation will focus on events from February 2023 through to the landlord’s final complaint response in October 2024.
23. The landlord told us it had very little evidence regarding this part of the complaint, as most of the fencing and boundary issues appeared to be historical. In 2021, the landlord inspected the boundary line to determine responsibility. It informed the resident that it could not establish clear responsibility and therefore considered the boundary to be a joint responsibility between him and his neighbour. The landlord also confirmed there were no restrictions on the type of boundary that could be erected. During 2021, the resident requested permission to build a garden wall.
24. There is a significant gap in the records until March 2024, when the resident reported that his neighbour had installed cat spikes on top of a fence. The landlord inspected the rear fencing, saw the spikes, and asked the neighbour to remove them. The spikes were subsequently removed.
25. There is another gap in the records until October 2024, when the resident raised the fencing and boundary issue again. The landlord logged the complaint at stage 2 and responded to several points. It repeated its previous position on the boundary and confirmed that installing cat spikes on boundaries is legal. The landlord acknowledged a failure in delaying its decision on the resident’s request to build garden walls. It apologised for this and offered £125 compensation, which also covered communication issues.
26. In conclusion, although fencing and boundary issues have been ongoing for several years, the matters relevant to this complaint are limited to clarifying boundary responsibilities, delays in deciding on the resident’s request to build a garden wall, and the installation of cat spikes on fencing. The evidence shows the landlord handled these issues reasonably. It was open and transparent about its delay in responding to the garden wall request and communication issues. It offered a total of £125 compensation (including £50 for distress and inconvenience). This amount of compensation aligns with our remedies guidance where the resident has experienced an adverse impact. For these reasons, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of the fencing and boundary issues.

Complaint	Harassment, discrimination and staff misconduct
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

 

27. The resident told the landlord that he believed it was harassing him and discriminating against him based on his gender and disability. He also alleged there had been staff misconduct in relation to the housing officer.
28. The landlord first raised these issues in 2020, and the landlord responded through its complaints procedure at that time. The resident had the opportunity to progress the complaint but did not do so. Due to the time that has elapsed since then this aspect of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Complaint	Communication issues
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

 

29. The resident raised his concerns to the landlord about its poor communication. It had already dealt with a complaint about these issues in December 2020 and February 2021.The resident had the opportunity to progress his complaint to us at that time but did not do so.
30. Due to the time that has elapsed we are unable to investigate these aspects of the complaint that relate to the historical communication issues.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

31. The resident raised his complaint on 1 August 2023. The landlord responded on 29 January 2024.
32. The Complaint Handling Code (2022) requires stage 1 complaints to be answered within 10 working days. In this case, the landlord took 6 months to respond, which did not comply with the Code. This was inappropriate and caused significant delays, as well as unnecessary follow-ups from the resident.
33. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 March 2024. The landlord responded on 25 April 2024.  Our Code states that stage 2 complaints must be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord responded slightly outside of the timeframe.
34. The landlord revised its position in October 2024. It reissued its final stage 2 response on 22 October 2024. It apologised and apportioned £150 compensation to its delayed complaint response. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for adverse impact caused to the resident. We are therefore satisfied the landlord put things right for the resident and have found reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s ASB record keeping overall was good. However, for completeness, it should ensure its risk assessments are aligned to its individual case actions. This will ensure a clear audit trail of actions and provide a full picture of the issues presented.

Communication

36. Overall, the landlord’s communications let it down. While it did recognise the individual failures, it should review the case to ensure it learns from these failures.