GreenSquareAccord Limited (202417152)

Background

1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s workmanship, communication, and delays when it upgraded her bathroom. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A bathroom replacement.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have determined:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a bathroom replacement.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

Bathroom replacement

4. The landlord recognised its failings, apologised to the resident, and awarded proportionate compensation. It also set a date to complete the outstanding work.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord broadly managed the complaint in line with its policy at the time. While there was a slight delay in its response time, it managed the resident’s expectations.

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 have not considered

6. The resident told the landlord that its handling of the issues had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. We note the resident cancelled the repair appointment scheduled in the landlord’s final complaint response. While it attempted to rearrange the appointment, she chose to escalate the complaint. There is no evidence that she raised a further complaint about events which took place after the final response or gave the landlord reasonable opportunity to consider this. Therefore, we have not investigated matters which occurred after June 2024.

What we have considered

8. In May 2023, the landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom but failed to properly respond to her subsequent concerns about the quality of the workmanship, demonstrating poor communication and a lack of effective engagement.
9. Despite the resident repeatedly raising concerns in June, October, and November 2023, and again in January and February 2024, the landlord responded late and failed to address the issues adequately. As a result, it conducted several remedial visits over a prolonged period without achieving a satisfactory resolution.
10. This protracted process likely caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, who was vulnerable with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia. This also impacted the landlord–tenant relationship and undermined trust.
11. Through the landlord’s complaints process, it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, recognised the impact of its service failures, and offered £850 compensation. It also completed an inspection and agreed a date to conclude the repairs, with the aim of resolving the matter.
12. The landlord’s offer of £850 was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident. In our view, this acknowledged that its failings went beyond minor service issues and fell within the upper range of remedies intended to reflect serious shortcomings.

13. Under the current Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. The landlord’s current complaint policy aligns with the Code’s requirements.
14. The landlord’s complaint process at the time of this case had 3 stages. Step 1 was intended for complaints that it could resolve within 48 hours. It aimed to respond to complaints at step 2 within 10 to 20 working days. At step 3, it aimed to give a reply within 20 working days.
15. The landlord’s complaint policy was not in line with the Code. However, compliance with the Code was not mandatory during the period of this complaint.
16. Records show the landlord progressed this complaint to step 2. It issued its step 2 response within 22 working days. This was slightly outside of its policy timescale. However, we recognise that within its complaint acknowledgement, it made the resident aware of the increased demand on its complaint service and the date she could expect a response. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It issued its step 3 response within 15 working days, in line with its policy at the time.

Learning

General learning

17. The landlord has already demonstrated learning from this complaint by reviewing its management arrangements for planned works. It introduced a new role to ensure all upgrades receive a visual post‑work inspection. Residents now must review and sign off the inspection document.
18. We welcome the landlord’s proactivity in improving accountability and service standards. This shows it has learnt from outcomes, in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate throughout.

Communication

20. At times, the landlord failed to follow up with the resident where it committed to do so. It ought to learn from this and improve communication.