GreenSquareAccord Limited (202504098)

Background

1. The resident reported recurring damp and mould in his property to the landlord. He said he was concerned about the impact on his health. He has asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord responded well following the initial report but failed to take sufficient action. It was slow to complete repair works and missed its deadlines. Its record keeping was poor. It failed to show it was adjusting its approach to the issue once it knew the resident was vulnerable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord handled the complaint well, responding within its timeframes and giving clear explanations of what it had investigated.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

6. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould was positive. It spoke to him to organise a date for a new damp and mould survey. It said in its stage 1 response it would raise any works required following the survey. It responded promptly to identify the cause of the problem and informed him of the steps it would be taking to resolve the issue, as its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure says it will.
7. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said there had been no reports of damp and mould following the completion of its previous works until the complaint on 1 November 2024. However, as it completed previous works on 1 October 2024, it had only been a month before the resident raised a new report. There is also no evidence that it conducted an inspection in line with its Responsive Repairs Policy after it completed the works. The work had not been effective as the problem returned. It did not provide a quality repair service as its policy says it will.
8. The landlord took a long time to complete the follow on works its surveyor identified. It set target dates for completing the works in its stage 2 response but failed to meet these. It did not complete mould washes in the property until 24 February 2025, 2 months after its stage 2 response. Windows were not resealed until 10 September 2025, 9 months after. This was unreasonable as the resident said his health was being impacted. It did not use its knowledge of his health condition to determine the speed of its response as its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will.
9. There is no evidence that the landlord made any changes to its approach once it knew the resident was vulnerable. While it apologised that it had failed to record this earlier in the process, it should have taken more action in response. It did not conduct a needs assessment of the household to better understand his needs as its Vulnerable Persons Policy says it will. There is no evidence that it used the information to solve the problem more urgently when it knew his health was at a higher risk, which was not appropriate. He experienced ongoing distress as a result of its inaction.
10. The landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to these issues. It failed to raise works in good time following its inspection on 13 November 2024. It told us that it had closed jobs in error on its repair records, which led to further delays. It also failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities when they were mentioned. It should ensure that it has a robust record keeping system to prevent unnecessary delays in future.
11. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 response, which was positive and showed it was being reflective. It paid compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience the resident faced as a result of poor communication, delays in raising works and failures to record his health condition. This was an appropriate amount of compensation at the time of the response.
12. However, the landlord failed to keep to its commitments in a reasonable period of time. The resident continued to experience poor communication and further delays to repairs that resulted in target completion dates being missed. The property was not recorded as free of damp and mould until 6 August 2025. The landlord made no adjustment to the way it delivered its service in this time to accommodate his vulnerability. It is appropriate that further compensation is paid to reflect its failure to take learning from the complaint.
     

13. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”.)
14. As can be seen above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 6 working days (1 November 2024 to 11 November 2024) which was compliant with the Code which allows 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 21 working days (19 December 2024 to 24 January 2025) after a request for an extension to the deadline which was compliant with the Code which allows 20 working days
15. The landlord handled the complaint well. It acknowledged the complaint and escalation correctly and responded within its timeframes. It gave clear responses to all issues raised as part of the complaint and set out specific actions it would take. It kept accurate records of the complaint which allowed it to provide a comprehensive final response at stage 2. It communicated through the resident’s representative when it needed to as he had requested, which was in line with its Complaints Policy.
     

Learning

16. The landlord demonstrated a reflective approach to the complaint. It was positive that it identified its failings and apologised. However, it failed to show it was taking learning from the process. It could consider whether a focus on joined up working internally would help it keep its promises to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord could reflect on the good record keeping by its complaint handlers to see where it could improve in other areas that caused problems during this complaint.

Communication

18. Communication was inconsistent throughout the complaint and the resident raised concerns about not being kept informed at various stages. The landlord could consider whether its procedure for regular communication with residents is robust enough.