GreenSquareAccord Limited (202453385)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. In October 2024, the landlord condemned her ventilation unit after an inspection. Since then, she has contacted the landlord to request a replacement and report damp and mould. She also told the landlord her son has asthma, which the mould makes worse.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the ventilation unit, damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the ventilation unit, damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not follow its repairs or damp and mould policies. It delayed contacting the resident and arranging repairs after condemning the ventilation unit, missed inspection deadlines, and failed to consider health risks. The works took about 10 months, causing significant inconvenience.
5. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the stage 1 complaint within the timescales set in its complaints policy.

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.

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.

6. On 14 October 2024, the landlord decided to replace the resident’s ventilation unit. It said it would contact her within 4–6 weeks to arrange the repair. The resident did not report damp or mould at this time.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will fix urgent repairs within 7 days, routine repairs within 28 days, and planned routine repairs within 84 days. Planned repairs need extra time because they fall outside normal time or cost limits.
8. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated this as a responsive repair. It did not say it needed extra planning or that costs were outside its usual scope. The landlord should complete responsive repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s plan to contact the resident after this timeframe was unreasonable.
9. On 14 November 2024, the resident emailed the landlord as it had not arranged an appointment. She reported damp and mould caused by poor ventilation and said her son has asthma. The landlord’s lack of contact was a failure. It led to damp and mould and forced the resident to chase a response.
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it must act urgently, inspect within 14 days, complete a mould wash within 5 days of inspection, and raise repair orders within 48 hours. The policy also says the landlord must call the resident after an email report and start works within 7 days if health is at risk.
11. On 19 November 2024, the landlord emailed to confirm an inspection for 13 December 2024. It did not call the resident first, and the date was outside the 14-day limit. These were failures. The resident asked to rearrange, which could have been avoided if the landlord had called her.
12. The landlord said it would rearrange the inspection but did not. The surveyor attended on 13 December 2024, but the resident was not home. She complained that day. The landlord rebooked for 15 January 2025
13. The landlord failed to cancel the December visit or contact the resident to rebook. The new date was over a month later, which is unreasonable given the 14-day policy. There is no evidence the landlord prioritised the ventilation repair after the damp and mould report. It ignored the health risk and did not do a risk assessment. This would have helped it understand vulnerabilities and reduce potential harm.
14. On 3 January 2025, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It admitted delays and failures and offered £70 compensation. However, it did not address its damp and mould policy breaches.
15. The inspection went ahead on 15 January 2025, and the landlord raised orders for a new ventilation unit and mould wash the next day. This was reasonable.
16. In stage 2, the landlord repeated its findings, promised urgent escalation, contact within 10 days, and to liaise with its Healthy Homes Team. It offered £486.49 compensation. The stage 2 response was reasonable. It acknowledged failings, considered health risks, prioritised works, and offered fair compensation.
17. After stage 2, delays continued. The mould wash was done on 11 June 2025, and the ventilation unit was installed on 28 August—10 months after the issue was found.
18. The landlord caused unreasonable delays and breached its repair and damp and mould policies. While the resident rearranged some visits, most delays were due to poor monitoring.
19. In its response to us, the landlord has proposed additional compensation of £1,520. This is made up of:
    1. £200 for the delay in replacing the ventilation unit.
    2. £20 for the inspection delay.
    3. £200 for poor communication after stage 2.
    4. £300 for extra utility costs.
    5. £300 for cleaning or replacing mould-damaged items
    6. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
    7. £200 for time and trouble.
20. This would bring the total compensation to £2,076.49.
21. The landlord failed to follow its repairs and damp and mould policies, causing long delays and poor communication. It failed to act urgently despite health risks, missed deadlines, and did not make required calls. It managed appointments poorly, ignored vulnerabilities, and did not complete a risk assessment.
22. Although the landlord admitted some failings and offered compensation, delays continued. Repairs finished about 10 months after the issue was reported, showing serious mismanagement. It failed to learn the lessons in its complaint process, as it continued to make the same mistakes.
23. Had the landlord not taken the steps it did to resolve the complaint after the stage 2 response, we would have found severe maladministration. The landlord has acknowledged the further failings and taken steps to address these. Because of this, we find that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
24. The landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation, considering the issues that occurred after its stage 2 response. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £2,076.49 in compensation. The landlord should deduct the £556.49 that it has already paid. We have also ordered it to send an apology from an executive team member.
25. We have also ordered a case review to identify failures and recommend improvements to prevent similar issues. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm the lessons learned and how it will prevent similar complaints in the future.
26. The resident reported that the landlord found problems with the ventilation unit and bathroom extractor fan during a service in October 2025. These are new issues, and the landlord should have the chance to resolve them through its complaints process. The resident can raise a new complaint if she wishes.
27. The landlord has identified that it needs to remove the extractor fan from the property. It says that it has booked work in to remove this, but it incorrectly cancelled an appointment of 19 November 2025. The landlord has booked another appointment for 11 December 2025. We recommend the landlord write to the resident to confirm any planned works and provide a works schedule to the resident.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It must respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Code of Practice.
29. The landlord said it logged the stage 1 complaint on 23 December 2024, but there is no evidence the resident complained that day. She emailed on 13 December 2024 to express dissatisfaction.
30. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2025. Based on the evidence, it missed the required timescale. This is a failure.
31. The resident asked to escalate on 23 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and sent its stage 2 response on 21 February 2025, meeting the required timeframe.
32. We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the delay in it sending its stage 1 response.
33. We will not award extra compensation because this did not significantly add to the overall delays. The landlord should include this failure when complying with the orders for an apology and a case review.

Learning

34. The landlord missed timescales in its repairs, damp and mould, and complaints policies. It should make sure staff know these deadlines and apply them when relevant.
35. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment after learning about the resident’s son’s health condition. Doing so would have helped it provide better support.
36. The landlord repeatedly failed to track required works. Although it blamed its contractor for some delays, it should have acted proactively. The landlord needs systems to monitor works and follow up when necessary.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s records do not clearly show which resident contact triggered the stage 1 complaint. This made it difficult for us to confirm if it met the required timescales.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide regular updates. The landlord should keep residents informed when arranging works, especially if there are delays or issues.