GreenSquareAccord Limited (202406999)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a block with her children. She complained about a number of issues and says she should be given a management transfer due to the impact of these on her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The lack of receipt of a decorating voucher.
   2. The resident’s reports about communal maintenance, mice, door repairs, and health and safety issues.
   3. The resident’s concerns about the rent and service charge.
   4. The resident’s management transfer request.
   5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about lack of receipt of a decorating voucher is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal maintenance, mice, door repairs, and health and safety issues.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the rent and service charge.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s management transfer request.
7. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The lack of receipt of a decorating voucher

8. The landlord did not investigate this complaint as it relates to matters that occurred over 12 months before the resident complained. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be about issues that happened within the past 12 months. We have not investigated this complaint as there is no evidence to contradict the landlord’s assessment that this happened over 12 months before the resident complained.

The resident’s reports about communal maintenance, mice, door repairs, and health and safety issues

9. The landlord responded to multiple issues in a reasonable and proportionate way and no significant failings are evident in its handling of these.

The resident’s concerns about the rent and service charge

10. The landlord responded reasonably and provided reasonable explanation for how a rent increase was in line with the tenancy agreement.

The resident’s management transfer request

11. The landlord acted reasonably in line with its policy, and with information from the resident and other agencies, in its 2023 offer. Its complaint response reasonably reflected her then options to move.

The landlord’s complaint handling

12. The landlord responded to the complaint reasonably in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

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 investigation

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.

What we did not investigate

13. The resident says issues with her living situation impact her and her family’s health and wellbeing. It is fairer, more reasonable and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for this type of claim. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the issue. We can consider if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience for any service failings, which has been considered as part of the investigation.

What we did investigate

14. The resident raised dissatisfaction in the complaint timeframe with multiple communal-related issues such as fly tipping and litter, communal maintenance and decoration, lifts, mice, door repairs, and health and safety. The landlord’s responses and consideration of these seems proportionate to the evidence and the reports it received from the resident.
15. The landlord responded to reports it received about fly tipping and litter, and took action to remove items such as sofas and fridges in a timely manner. It also sent letters to residents about the issue. This shows it took steps to try to resolve this issue. The landlord was reasonable to say this was difficult to resolve. Whether residents fly tip and litter is ultimately outside its control, unless it receives clear evidence about perpetrators, so it is understandable if it can only respond to reports in a reactive way.
16. The landlord responded to concerns about communal maintenance and decoration in a reasonable way. The resident complained about how long it took to repair a communal ceiling, but the specifics of this are unclear, including when this happened. The landlord tried to obtain information and then said it could not see a repair logged for this issue. This is proportionate to the evidence. The landlord explained that it was procuring a contractor for works to improve the appearance of the communal areas. This reasonably reflects that the landlord does responsive repairs to meet its day-to-day repairs obligations, and does longer term planned repairs for less urgent works.
17. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the lift in a reasonable way. Its contractor responded to a July 2024 report that she had got stuck in the lift the same day, and in line with the service level agreement. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the distress she must have experienced. The landlord conducted further investigations of the lift which shows it took the incident seriously. The lift breakdowns in the complaint timeframe do not seem excessive, as before the July 2024 breakdown, it previously broke down in March 2024 and July 2023.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about mice in a reasonable way. The resident raised mice issues in her property in 2022 which were reportedly resolved. In March 2024, she referred to mice in communal areas and her having had mice on multiple occasions. The landlord responded that if she did pest treatment it could attend and fill in any holes, which was in line with their relevant responsibilities. After the resident raised the issue via the Ombudsman, the landlord invited her to provide further information in August 2024, so it could assist. The landlord’s response seems proportionate to the evidenced reports about the issue.
19. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the front door in a reasonable way. The resident raised dissatisfaction in March 2024 that a door had been broken on multiple occasions, letting homeless people in, and the landlord attempted to clarify if it had broken again since a previous repair. The resident later reported repairs for her front door in May and July 2024, and when the contractor attended without access, they reportedly left cards. The landlord invited the resident to reschedule this repair in its complaint response. This reasonably addressed the issue on the evidence and the resident was told how to progress the repair.
20. The landlord also responded to health and safety issues in a reasonable way. In March 2024, she said that a fridge had blocked a fire safety box, and that another fire safety box was open at some point, and the landlord asked her for more information. In May 2024, the landlord noted it had spoken to her and she had said a fire point was broken. In June 2024, it told her that contractors had attended and found no broken call points, and asked her to report if any were broken.
21. The resident then said in August 2024 that a fridge had recently blocked a fire safety box, after she had raised issues via the Ombudsman. The landlord’s complaint response subsequently noted that this had been removed and it had not identified any issues with a fire safety box being open. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, but the landlord reasonably shows that it has considered and responded to these in a timely way when it has received them.

22. The resident raised dissatisfaction with having to pay service charges given the communal issues. The landlord shows that it subsequently sought to consider and take action for any concerns she raised that related to the communal areas. This was in line with our expectations where a landlord receives concerns related to the services paid for in the rent and service charge. The landlord’s actions and response was reasonable and proportionate to the concerns raised, and it is not evident that there were significant issues in its handling to find a failing.
23. The landlord also responded reasonably about an increase in the rent and service charge. It explained that the property was an affordable rent property, where the rent is up to 80 percent of the market rate of an equivalent property, and explained that the rent increase was in line what was allowed for this. This reflected the tenancy agreement. The landlord therefore provided reasonable explanation about why the rent and service charge had increased.
24. If the resident thinks that her rent or the increase in the rent is too high or unreasonable, the Ombudsman is unable to determine this. She has the option to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which makes definitive decisions about such issues, or to seek independent advice.

25. The resident was previously identified to be at risk and, in 2023, was offered an alternative property under the landlord’s management transfer procedure. She declined this as the property offered was a ground floor flat, which she felt was unsuitable and unsafe for her. The resident subsequently complained about various issues such as the communal and lift issues, and asked the landlord to move her due to the impact on her. The landlord responded that the previous offer was a one-time offer and that she had not said she would not accept a ground floor property. It detailed her current options to move. 
26. The landlord’s management transfer policy says that the landlord considers management transfers in exceptional cases, such as where a tenant is at risk. The 2023 management transfer was offered after a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference identified the resident to be at risk, so the landlord acted in line with this. The landlord also acted in line with its policy to only offer the resident one property.
27. The resident confirms the landlord said it would only make one offer, but says she disagreed with this as it was for a ground floor property. We understand her concerns about this, but it is not clear she had a preference against such a property beforehand, as this was not stated in a form completed with her. It is evident that the landlord discussed its offer with the police and it was considered to be a reasonable offer. The landlord’s response about the 2023 offer therefore seems reasonable, as the offer reasonably reflected the form, and the landlord sought appropriate advice on whether the offer was reasonable.
28. The landlord responded to the resident’s further transfer request by detailing her options to move. This was reasonable. While distressing for her, it is not evident that the issues the resident raised in the complaint met the criteria for a management transfer. It is also not evident that other agencies identified her to be at risk in 2024 in the same way as they had in 2023. The options that the landlord detailed in its September 2024 complaint response therefore reasonably reflected the resident’s then options to move.

29. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It may extend response timescales by the same timescales at each stage depending on the complexity of a complaint.
30. The landlord acknowledged and responded at stage 1 in line with this, when it said it would respond in 20 working days due to the number of issues. It also acknowledged and responded at stage 2 in line with the timeframes in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

31. The landlord was positive to acknowledge and compensate for issues recording up-to-date contact details for the resident, that it recognised would have impacted its communication.
32. The landlord was also positive to seek to take a detailed approach in its complaint response. This included the summarising of other recent complaints from the resident and the findings. This shows that it was seeking to communicate clearly.
33. However, its records for the 2023 management transfer are unclear at points. For example, while this did not impact matters, it is not clear it sent a letter in line with its policy to confirm it was progressing a management transfer. The landlord could reflect on its record keeping and consider what action it can take to ensure its records are accurate and detailed and show procedures have been followed.