GreenSquareAccord Limited (202419137)

Background

1. In September 2024 the landlord raised repairs to the property following a damp and mould inspection. The resident complained that the landlord did not carry out these agreed repairs following this inspection. The landlord’s records show that the resident has various vulnerabilities, including autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Repairs to a window and an internal door.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to a window and an internal door.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. However, we have recommended the landlord reoffers the £350 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord inspected the property for damp and mould within a reasonable timescale and promptly raised orders following the inspection.
8. Although there were failures in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to a window and an internal door, the landlord acknowledged these during the complaints process and took steps to put things right, including offering reasonable compensation.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the appropriate timescales.

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.

10. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. Hazards can include damp and mould. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
11. The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 August 2024 about his reports of damp and mould and arranged to inspect the property on 23 August 2024. However, as the resident had another appointment on this day, the landlord rescheduled the inspection to 13 September 2024. The landlord had therefore arranged to inspect the property within a reasonable timescale following the call on 8 August 2024 and had then changed the appointment at the resident’s request, which was also reasonable.
12. The landlord attended the property on 13 September 2024 and noted that, although there were a few outstanding repairs, there was no damp or mould present. The landlord’s notes said the resident had told the 2 inspectors that he had been wiping away the mould. The landlord did not raise any follow-on orders for damp and mould as a result of the inspection. As the landlord’s inspectors said they had not seen any mould during their inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on their advice and not to arrange any mould treatment at that stage.
13. During the inspection, the inspectors identified the need to renew the sealant around the bedroom window as the resident had reported damp and mould around the window. They also noted that repairs were needed to the bathroom door as the resident was unable to close the door during and after showering and this was leading to the spread of condensation. The landlord ordered the repairs on 17 September 2024. These repairs are considered in more detail below, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspectors’ findings and to raise timely orders to help address the resident’s reports of damp.
14. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord after its stage 2 response on 4 February 2025 to report damp. For example, he contacted the landlord on 29 April 2025 to report damp around the windows. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s final response on 4 February 2025. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
15. Overall, we have found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp and mould by arranging for 2 of its inspectors to attend the property and then raise timely orders following the inspection. We have therefore found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

16. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 28 days. These are standard responsive repairs that are not considered to be emergency or urgent repairs.
17. Following an inspection on 13 September 2024, the landlord raised orders on 17 September 2024 to apply sealant around the bedroom window and to adjust the bathroom door as it was not closing properly. The landlord had therefore raised the orders within 2 working days of the inspection, which was reasonable.
18. The landlord’s notes show that, during the inspection, the resident advised the inspectors that he would be away from the property from 17 September 2024 to 17 October 2024. The inspectors therefore asked the resident to contact the landlord on his return so it could make an appointment to carry out the repairs. As the resident had told the landlord that he would be away from the property for a month, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to make an appointment when he returned. This would enable the landlord to assess the availability of appointments at the time of his return and schedule a suitable date and time.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident had phoned on 18 October 2024 to book an appointment for the repairs. However, it said the adviser taking the call had misunderstood the purpose of the call. The landlord said it had agreed on 18 October 2024 that someone would contact the resident within 7 days but had not done so. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not contacted the resident within the agreed timescale. This would have given the landlord an opportunity to clear up the misunderstanding and establish that the resident was seeking to make an appointment for the repairs.
20. As the resident had not received a call back, he phoned the landlord on 12 November 2024 to make a complaint that he was still waiting for the repairs to be booked. The landlord’s failure to contact the resident therefore resulted in additional time and trouble for the resident in having to chase the landlord, as well as a delay in the landlord carrying out the repairs. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint to acknowledge there had been a misunderstanding and apologise for not contacting the resident which led to a delay in carrying out the repair. The landlord offered compensation of £150 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience and said it had phoned the resident on 14 November 2024 and agreed to carry out the repairs on 12 December 2024.
21. The landlord therefore acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and then sought to put things right by offering compensation and agreeing an appointment to carry out the repairs. The level of compensation offered was in line with the amounts suggested in its compensation procedure for situations where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident but has not had a permanent impact. In this case, the period of delay was relatively short and the landlord had contacted the resident 2 days after his complaint to book the appointment. In our view, the landlord therefore took reasonable steps to put things right.
22. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2024 to report his dissatisfaction that the landlord had cancelled the appointment booked for that day. The landlord’s repairs log states that the operative who was due to carry out the work was absent due to sickness. The job notes also state that the landlord tried to ring the resident at 8.34am on 12 December 2024 but his phone was switched off and therefore it sent him a text message.
23. We understand that sometimes unexpected events, such as sickness absence, will arise which result in landlords cancelling appointments. In such circumstances, it is important that landlords notify the resident of the cancellation as soon as possible. In this case, the landlord tried to ring the resident on the morning of the appointment and when it could not reach him, it sent a text message. The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to notify the resident that the operative was unable to attend.
24. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 13 January 2025, which was 32 days later. Although the job was not categorised as an emergency, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not offered the resident an earlier appointment. Whilst we understand that the Christmas period would have affected the landlord’s capacity to carry out repairs, the resident was known to be vulnerable and had already experienced delays in relation to the repairs. The landlord should therefore have recognised these factors and offered to bring the appointment forward.
25. In its stage 2 response dated 4 February 2025, the landlord apologised that it had been necessary to cancel the appointment on 12 December 2024, which had led to a further delay. It confirmed that the repairs had been completed on 13 January 2025 and it offered the resident additional compensation of £200. It said the compensation was for the delay with the repairs and the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
26. The amount offered by the landlord was again in line with the amounts suggested in its compensation procedure for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident but has not had a permanent impact. In this case, as the delay was for a relatively short period and the evidence indicates there was no permanent impact, we consider the landlord’s offer to have been fair and reasonable to put things right.
27. Overall, we have found there were failures because:
    1. The landlord did not contact the resident within the timescale agreed with him on 12 November 2024.
    2. The landlord delayed carrying out the repairs after it cancelled the appointment on 12 December 2024.
28. However, we have also found that the landlord identified and acknowledged these failures during the complaints process and took steps to put things right, including offering reasonable compensation. We have therefore found there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to a window and an internal door.

29. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales due to the complexity of the complaint. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason for the extension to the resident.
30. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2024 to report various repairs and the landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 November 2024, which was appropriate and in line with its policy.
31. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 November 2024, which was 9 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its policy.
32. The resident phoned the landlord on 7 January 2025 and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 9 January 2025, which was appropriate as it was within the timescale set out in its policy.
33. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 February 2025, which was 18 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the stage 2 complaint within the 20-working day timescale set out in its policy, which was appropriate.
34. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the appropriate timescales. Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

35. The landlord used its complaints process well to identify service failures and offer suitable redress to put things right.
36. During the period investigated, we did not find any concerns regarding the landlord’s recordkeeping.
37. The landlord should ensure that it keeps any commitments to contact residents within given timescales.