GreenSquareAccord Limited (202503811)

Decision
Case ID	202503811
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed house. The resident told us that she had anxiety, depression and a diagnosis of stage 4 cancer, which was notified to the landlord during the complaint procedure. In May 2024 the landlord identified a range of works to improve the energy efficiency of the property under its improvement programme. It also noted a repair was needed to the steps and door lintel. It raised these works for completion, however these were delayed at the resident’s request. Ultimately, the decarbonisation works were completed by July 2025, and the repairs to the steps in April 2025. The landlord has not completed the lintel works at the time of this investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Repairs required to a lintel and steps. 
   2. Concerns about its handling of planned works to the property. 
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.  

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to a lintel and steps.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of concerns about its handling of planned works to the property.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Lintel and steps

5. The landlord did not complete urgent lintel and step repairs within its policy timescales, particularly as it raised these as an urgent health and safety repair. The lintel repair was delayed further due to poor planning and failure to order parts. It remains outstanding at the time of this investigation and the landlord has confirmed this in recent correspondence with us.

Planned works

6. The landlord failed to keep accurate records and communicate effectively, which disrupted the planned works, caused conflicting information, and led to unannounced visits. It did not consider the resident’s health vulnerabilities, causing significant distress during serious illness. While it acknowledged failures, and the compensation offered was considerable to recognise the long-term impact, it could not demonstrate any learning taken.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord met response timescales and acknowledged the inaccurate information at Stage 1 due to poor record-keeping and communication.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,125 compensation made up as follows: £875 which it offered during its complaint process for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a protracted period by the delays in completing the planned works. If the landlord has paid this already it may subtract this sum from the total. £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by delays in completing the repairs to the lintel. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total any figures it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to repair the lintel is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 23 January 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must undertake a review of this case and provide the outcome of the review to us. The review should aim to identify the root causes of the failures identified in this report. In particular it must: Clearly identify the relevant learning from its handling of the planned works in this case. Identify the root causes of its record-keeping failures. Identify the reasons why incorrect information was provided in its complaint responses and beyond. Show what actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. This may include staff training, process changes, alterations to its policies or other actions.	No later than 23 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it offered in respect of its complaint handling in its complaint responses, if it has not already done so.

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs to the lintel and steps of her home following suspected subsidence. She also said that several planned works had been delayed by changes in the landlord’s staff including replacement doors and windows, installation of an air source heat pump, relocation and replacement of radiators and installation of insulation.
17 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged that missed appointments by its staff had delayed major works, leaving the property rated F for energy efficiency. The landlord needed to install an air source heat pump, replace doors and windows, relocate and renew radiators, add cavity and loft insulation, and secure the front step. The landlord stated it had raised 3 jobs in May 2024, but it halted progress when the resident requested a postponement for health reasons.   The landlord acknowledged it had not followed up on a quote for loft insulation from its contractor, apologised for the distress caused, and offered £450 compensation. The landlord arranged a new surveyor visit for April 2025, and it said its planning team would contact the resident within seven working days to book in the works.
27 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said that it was concerning the landlord was unaware of works already completed or scheduled, such as installing windows, doors and an air source heat pump. She explained that delays had caused distress, inconvenience and extra costs from using electric heaters. She also reported that contractors had attended without notice, causing further disruption.
23 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and acknowledged poor record-keeping and communication. It explained that windows, doors, the air source heat pump and radiators were part of a decarbonisation project managed outside the repairs service, which caused missing records and inaccurate information. The landlord said it had completed or scheduled these works for March and April 2025. The landlord also apologised for omitting details of oil boiler servicing in its earlier response. It said that its previous quote for insulation had not included cavity wall insulation, so it raised a new quote request. Its contractor had tried to contact the resident but was unsuccessful, so the landlord asked the resident to call and book. It apologised for the delays, heating issues and unannounced visits, and offered an additional £450 compensation for poor record-keeping, missing information, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble. This brought the total compensation to £900.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 April 2025 seeking an investigation and assistance with progressing repairs to completion.

 

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to a lintel and steps
Finding	Maladministration

8. A contractor visit in May 2024 put the landlord on notice of a repair to the lintel and steps in the resident’s property. The landlord raised this as an urgent repair due to potential health and safety risks and should have completed it within 7 calendar days under its responsive repairs policy.
9. The landlord planned to form 2 new steps and renew the lintel in the property. The landlord targeted the works for completion no later than 26 July 2024. It is unclear why urgent works were given a target date of almost 2 months for completion. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy timescales and this was a failing.
10. The records show that on 17 July 2024 the resident requested to postpone the works, due to health concerns. The records show the resident did not contact the landlord again about the repairs until her formal complaint in February 2025, when she said that the landlord had delayed in completing the works. The landlord said it was awaiting contact from the resident and did not wish to intrude while she was recovering. This was a reasonable approach, given the resident’s previous request and the sensitivity of her circumstances.
11. In its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2025, the landlord said it would contact the resident with 7 working days to rebook the works. It did this on 27 March 2025 and rescheduled the works for completion on:
    1. 16 April 2025 for the repairs to the steps.
    2. 22 and 23 September 2025 for the lintel renewal.
12. The landlord completed the works to the steps on 16 April 2025. This was within the landlord’s policy timescales for this type of repair. It is not clear why the lintel renewal was booked almost 6 months after the job was raised. Compounding this, the contractor did not complete the first appointment because the landlord had not ordered the lintel part and it was unavailable. Given the significant period between the job being raised and the fitting date, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not previously surveyed the property or ordered the part in good time. This was a failing, that caused the resident additional time and trouble.
13. The landlord rebooked the fitting appointment for 21 October 2025, however the resident was very unwell on the day and was not available for the works to go ahead. The contractor who attended on this day noted that the “crack was very small and unlikely to cause water ingress”. The landlord has not resolved this matter at the time of investigation. However, this further delay and cancelled appointment was not within its control.
14. While some of the delays were caused due to the resident’s condition, the landlord took significantly longer than its policy timescales to address the safety issues and did not act on them with the required urgency. The landlord failed to ensure the parts for the lintel were available at the first appointment, which was a failing which can only have caused the resident additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing this matter to completion.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of concerns about its handling of planned works to the property
Finding	Service failure

15. The records show that the landlord had previously scoped the property for decarbonisation improvements in or around April 2024. When the resident raised the complaint, the property had an F energy efficiency rating and relied on an oil boiler for heating.
16. There was an initial delay in completing the works, as the resident requested a postponement due to health reasons. It was reasonable that the landlord postponed the works and demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s health concerns. The landlord used the complaint to restart these works and the records show no contact between the landlord and resident in the interim to discuss this. The landlord said it had avoided contact to give the resident privacy while she was undergoing treatment and recovering, which was reasonable explanation.
17. The evidence shows, particularly within the complaint responses, that the landlord did not update its systems with details of the planned or completed works undertaken by its decarbonisation team. It attributed this to administrative staffing shortages. This led to conflicting information and complaint responses, along with contractor attendances at the property which had not been pre-booked. The landlord also said that this had led to cavity wall insulation not being added to an earlier quote for works by its contractor. This meant the landlord had to obtain a new quote. The landlord acknowledged these failings in its complaint responses, apologised and offered compensation in respect of this.
18. The landlord’s failure to keep accurate and contemporaneous records made it difficult for us to assess the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. Where present, its records also conflict, for example a surveyor report on 2 April 2025 noted that “works already completed” in relation to doors, windows, air source heat pump, radiators and cavity wall insulation. On 9 April 2025, the resident reported to the landlord that contractors had arrived on an unannounced visit on 7 April 2025 to begin installing the air source heat pump and cavity wall insulation, that the surveyor noted had been complete a week earlier.
19. The landlord’s records show that it completed all the planned works by 7 July 2025, which was around 5 months after the resident’s complaint, when it restarted the works. However, the exact completion dates for each piece of work are unknown due to a lack of records, except for:
    1. The replacement of windows and doors in the property, which the landlord said was completed on 27 March 2025, and the resident did not dispute.
    2. The installation of the air source heat pump on 9 April 2025.
20. While these record-keeping issues were acknowledged by the landlord, this was a significant failing, which affected its own ability to respond effectively to the resident, to progress works and to evidence their completion. For major works programmes, we would expect to see a schedule of works, pre and post completion inspection reports, regular updates and communication to the residents involved and more tailored support to vulnerable residents. The landlord has not provided any of these records.
21. The landlord has gone some way to acknowledging the impact that this has had on the resident through apologies and compensation. The records show little evidence that the landlord learned from these failings. There were continued attendances by contractor, without notice, after the complaints procedure and the record-keeping did not improve.
22. Beyond postponing works, there is also little evidence of the landlord prioritising these works for completion given the resident’s significant vulnerabilities and her availability around health appointments and illness. The landlord’s poor record-keeping also frustrated this as it did not reflect the resident’s cancer diagnosis in a way that was easily accessible to staff until much later in its complaint handling process.
23. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for causing distress and inconvenience to the resident and offered £200 compensation for this, along with £250 for failing to follow up with its contractor about the missing insulation quote. At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the “significant amount of work” being undertaken in the resident’s property and the “upheaval” this caused to her and increased its overall compensation offer to £875.
24. The landlord apologised for the disruption the works had caused, as well as its poor record keeping, poor communication and appointments booked without notice. Overall, while the planned works have now been completed, the resident spent additional time and trouble and was caused considerable distress and inconvenience, during a period where her priority needed to be her health. However, the steps taken and the level of compensation were significant to recognise the effect of the failures on the resident. This level of compensation is also in line with our Remedies Guidance for prolonged failures with significant impact on residents.
25. The landlord has identified these failures within its complaint process, apologised and paid appropriate compensation, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, there is little evidence of what learning has been identified or implemented to prevent a reoccurrence.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to complaints promptly and accurately. The landlord operates a 2-stage process, which mirrors the Code with targets a response of 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2. The records show the landlord met these timescales.
27. The stage 1 response contained incorrect information due to poor record-keeping and internal communication. The landlord acknowledged this at stage 2, apologised and offered £25 compensation for missing boiler service details which was adequate in the circumstances.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. As already highlighted in the report, the landlord’s record-keeping in this case frustrated its ability to plan, monitor and progress both the repairs and planned works. It also did not accurately record the resident’s health needs and was not able to provide accurate complaint responses as a result of these omissions.

Communication

29. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident was poor. This was particularly important in this case given the health of the resident. The landlord should have tailored its communication to these needs and there is little evidence it did this, apart from pausing the planned works upon her request.