GreenSquareAccord Limited (202342489)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342489

GreenSquareAccord Limited

18 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a wet room.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has disabilities and mobility issues.
3. The resident contacted the landlord between November 2022 and May 2023 about bathroom adaptations. She said it had been sent an occupational therapist report and asked for an update.
4. The contacts were referred internally and in January and March 2023, staff noted that the resident would need to apply for a disabled facilities grant, as the landlord did not have an adaptations budget. It is unclear this was relayed to the resident.
5. The resident raised a complaint in late May 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to her about adaptations and an occupational therapist report that had been sent in twice. She said she had health issues and needed the works as soon as possible.
6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 July 2023, after it had said its response may be delayed due to volumes. It noted that the resident found it difficult to access the separate toilet and bathroom. It noted that she said the occupational therapist team and local authority had written to it but there had been no response for over 9 months. It said it had no record of an occupational therapist report and advised her to ask for the report to be re-sent. It concluded that it had not failed to act on a report as it had not received one.
7. In March 2024, the landlord received a ‘minor’ adaptation request from the local authority. They asked the landlord to consider removal of the wall between the bathroom and toilet to make it more accessible. If it removed the wall, they also asked it to consider adapting the area into a wet room, to enable the resident to be independent and support her mental wellbeing.
8. The same month, the landlord was contacted by the Ombudsman and the resident, who provided GP letters about her medical conditions and asked it to reconsider its decision about her request for a wet room.
9. The landlord provided its final response on 30 April 2024.
   1. It noted it did not receive an escalation request after its July 2023 response, but it had exercised discretion to escalate the complaint.
   2. It noted the referral received on 21 March 2024. It said this was sent to a relevant team, who said it was not obligated to install a wet room. It noted this was in line with its policy that major adaptations over £1,000, such as wet rooms, were usually funded by the local authority through a disabled facilities grant. It confirmed it was unable to install a wet room and advised the resident to apply for a disabled facilities grant. It said that if this was unsuccessful, she could consider arranging her own contractor to do the works.
   3. It said it had looked into the possibility of installing a wet room through a bathroom upgrade, but it would not consider this due to the condition of the bathroom.
   4. It noted records between November 2022 and March 2024. It acknowledged it had not been prompt enough to reply. It had also failed to keep notes of contacts a surveyor had made to the resident. It said it was discussing these internally. It awarded £300 for its communication failings, and the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident.
10. The resident brought her complaint the Ombudsman. She says she has mobility issues and is seeking for the landlord to knock down the wall and refurbish the bathroom so it is suitable for her needs. She confirms she applied for a disabled facilities grant, but was ineligible as she has savings. She feels she should be offered more compensation.

Assessment and findings

11. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is disabled and has difficulties using the toilet and bathroom. We understand how frustrating and inconvenient this must be, and her consequent desire for the rooms to be merged into a wet room. However, it is not specifically in our authority or expertise to decide if the landlord should install a wet room. We have to consider its obligations and whether it responded reasonably in line with these.
12. The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments for disabled customers such as the resident. When considering what is ‘reasonable,’ a landlord may take costs into account. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policies reflects this and says it may do minor adaptations itself if these cost less than £1,000, but not major adaptations that cost over £1,000, such as wet rooms and structural works. The policy expects these to be funded by the local authority through disabled facilities grants. Alternatively, it allows customers to do the works if it approves.
13. The landlord’s considerations of bathroom adaptations from January 2023, and its April 2024 final complaint response, have been in line with the above. It was positive to consider potentially installing a wet room if the bathroom was due for an upgrade. It was reasonable not to explore this further when it confirmed this was only about 5 years old.
14. The landlord’s ultimate advice to the resident to apply for a disabled facilities grant, or to consider arranging the works herself, reasonably reflects its obligations and her options for installation of a wet room.  Installation of a wet room and structural work like removing a wall would be ‘major’ rather than ‘minor’ adaptations under its policies, and exceed the type and cost of works it is normally obligated to do or does itself.
15. The landlord’s July 2023 stage 1 response, that it had no record of a report, and invitation to re-send this, was also a reasonable response. It reflects the evidence and gave the resident the opportunity to provide a report for it to consider. It is not clear the landlord was ever provided with a formal occupational therapist report which said it should install a wet room.
16. The March 2024 report, which it is evident was provided, said it was a ‘minor’ adaptations request. It asked the landlord to give consideration to removing the toilet and bathroom wall. If it did this, it asked it to give consideration to installing a wet room. It is evident the landlord gave consideration to these, and its decision not to install a wet room after the report was reasonable given obligations noted above. The adaptations the report requested were not minor under the landlord’s policies.
17. While the landlord’s decisions appear reasonable, its communication and recordkeeping was not satisfactory. The resident evidently experienced delays receiving responses to her queries in periods, such as from January 2023 to the July 2023 stage 1 response. It is unclear at points about what the resident was told and when. It is unclear if the landlord responded to a March 2023 request from the local authority to contact them. It is unclear if staff comments in January 2023, that the resident needed to apply for a disabled facilities grant, was relayed to her. A surveyor said they spoke to the resident multiple times, but timing and content of these discussions is unclear.
18. The landlord’s April 2024 stage 2 response was therefore appropriate to acknowledge communication and record-keeping issues, and confirm it was discussing these internally to improve future service. It was also appropriate to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the issues.
19. The £300 is in the region of what our remedies guidance considers applicable for maladministration which adversely affected a resident, but had no permanent impact. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policies and our remedies guidance, and in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonably remedied the issues and impact evident.
20. This leads us to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident. The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the installation of a wet room.

Recommendations

22. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £300 it offered, if it has not already paid this, as the decision is on the basis that this is paid.
23. The landlord is recommended to ensure it has taken steps to address the issues with its communication, record-keeping and handling about adaptations, such as:
    1. Ensuring that there is a clearer process for adaptation requests, from when they are made to when they are responded to.
    2. Ensuring that relevant staff are clear about who is responsible for communicating outcomes about adaptation requests.
    3. Ensuring that relevant staff such as surveyors maintain adequate records for adaptation requests and have a clear process in place to do this.