GreenSquareAccord Limited (202524178)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202524178

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

GreenSquareAccord Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

27 February 2026

Background

  1. The resident reported repairs to her landlord including a broken back door which let in cold air, and outstanding repairs relating to a disrepair claim. She also told it that her kitchen was over 35 years old, and its condition contributed to a mice infestation. She said her family had outgrown the property and asked for a property move. She complained to the landlord in June 2025 as she was unhappy that it had not completed the repairs and told her that she was responsible for appointing pest control. The resident told us that she has experienced stress and anxiety because of the mice and the condition of the property.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Mice in the property.
    2. Back door repairs.
    3. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
    4. The resident’s request for a new kitchen.
    5. Repairs ordered as part of a disrepair claim.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of back door repairs.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
    4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
    5. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs ordered as part of a disrepair claim.
  2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Handling of mice in the property

  1. The landlord did not follow its pest control policy when the resident reported mice and did not consider whether the household was vulnerable.

Handling of back door repairs

  1. The landlord delayed ordering a new back door, with no clear explanation for the delay. It did not make regular attempts to complete temporary repairs to the back door which meant the resident’s property was draughty and cold.

Handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. The landlord gave the resident reasonable advice about her housing options which was consistent with its policies.

Handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen

  1. The landlord completed temporary repairs in the kitchen, and organised replacement for the following year. The kitchen was replaced in January 2026. Where it identified failures in service, it offered appropriate compensation.

Handling of repairs ordered as part of a disrepair claim

  1. The landlord made regular efforts to complete repairs associated with the disrepair settlement. When it was unable to gain access, it contacted the resident using multiple means. Where it identified failures in service, it offered appropriate compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord handled the complaint in a manner consistent with its policies and our Complaint Handling Code.

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

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • a senior manager provides the apology.
  • the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  • it has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

27 March 2026

2

Inspection order

The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified person to survey the property and determine:

  • the extent of the mouse infestation
  • whether there are any structural defects or access points that could allow mice to enter the home
  • whether the resident is vulnerable in line with the criteria in its pest control and vulnerable persons policies
  • whether any issues identified fall within its repairing obligations

 

The landlord must send us a copy of the survey as evidence of compliance. If the landlord identifies works, it is responsible for it should confirm in writing when it will complete them and send a plan and timeline to the resident and us. It must complete any works identified within 4 weeks of the survey.

No later than

10 April 2026

3

Compensation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £250 made up of:

  • £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of mice
  • £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of back door repairs

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident, unless she specifically asks that it is paid to her rent account. The landlord must send us proof of payment to demonstrate compliance with the order.

No later than

27 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should pay £300 compensation as offered during the complaint process in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.

The landlord should pay the resident £160 compensation as offered during the complaint process in relation to its handling of repairs in the bathroom.

The landlord should consider the specific failures identified in the case, particularly relating to the handling of mice. It should look at how the process may be clearer for residents in future and consider whether there is any additional guidance it can give to residents affected by pests where it is not the landlord’s responsibility to remove them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

5 June 2025

The resident made a complaint to the landlord about several issues. She said:

  • the landlord had not completed the disrepair works that had been ordered during an earlier disrepair claim
  • the back door was rotten and was allowing cold air into the property
  • she disagreed with the landlord’s position that she was responsible for dealing with mice in the property, as the landlord said there were no structural defects causing the issue
  • she was unhappy that the landlord told her she did not qualify for a management transfer as she felt the property was overcrowded

24 June 2025

The landlord responded at stage 1. It partially upheld the complaint as it found it had not ordered some of the disrepair work in the bathroom. It said it would inspect the kitchen on 2 July 2025 and repair the back door on 26 June 2025.

It said that pest control was the resident’s responsibility and it would only resolve any structural issues which were allowing pests into the property.

The landlord offered £160 compensation made up of:

• £60.00 for failure to raise the bathroom works

• £100.00 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint

7 July 2025

The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that the landlord had not given her a timescale for completion of the works. She also said that it did not consider the distress and inconvenience she’d experienced, and it had not taken accountability for missed appointments and poor communication.

11 August 2025

The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint as it had not updated her about the kitchen within 7 working days. It also found that it had not fully acknowledged distress and inconvenience.

It offered an additional £300 made up of:

  • £100 for poor communication, and failure to update on the kitchen
  • £200 for distress and inconvenience

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident has come to us as she is still unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to treat the mice infestation, and not to replace her kitchen. She wants the landlord to remove any pests and block access points.

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 handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The resident reported mice on 5 June 2025. We note that she said they had been in the property since before she moved in, but we’ve not seen evidence of this. The landlord referred to surveys completed as part of the earlier disrepair claim dated 21 May 2024 and said that because the surveys and earlier repair records did not mention mice, there was no structural cause.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the cause of the problem to identify if a new structural issue had occurred, which as explained in its pest control policy, falls under its responsibility. Small gaps or defects that allow rodents to enter may not be found during wider disrepair inspections and new gaps could also appear over time. The landlord therefore did not provide evidence that it assessed the cause of the problem or satisfied itself that the issue was outside its responsibility. This was inappropriate.
  3. There are 3 children in the home, 2 of whom were under 5 years old at the time of the complaint. The resident told the landlord this in her original complaint. She also reported financial difficulties and ongoing stress linked to the wider disrepair issues. There is no evidence that the landlord considered if the resident was vulnerable. This was not appropriate. Its policy says it will visit and inspect where it is unclear who is responsible for an infestation and residents are vulnerable.
  4. The landlord recommended that the resident contact the local council for pest control support. The local council told her that they no longer provided this service. She informed the landlord of the council’s position in her stage 2 escalation email. The landlord’s actions would have been reasonable had it confirmed that the pests were not its responsibility. In this case it did not, and so it was inappropriate for it to direct the resident to the council without this confirmation.
  5. Considering the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mice in the property. In line with its policy, the landlord should have visited the property to assess the source of the mouse problem when the cause was unclear. It should also have considered the household’s vulnerabilities. The evidence does not show that it took these required steps. As a result, the resident and her children have been living with mice in the property for over 8 months.
  6. As such, it should pay the resident £150 compensation for likely distress, time and trouble caused by its handling of mice. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which has significantly impacted a resident. We have also made an order to complete an inspection to determine how pests are accessing the property.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of back door repairs

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord scheduled its first visit 13 working days after the resident reported that the back door was letting rain in. This was not appropriate as it was outside the responsive repairs policy timescale for an urgent repair. The door required attention to prevent further damage and potential security issues due to the rotting wood. The resident also told the landlord that rain and draughts were affecting the temperature of her home.
  2. The repair records show the resident reported the rotten back door on 4 February 2025. The landlord arranged visits on 20 February 2025 and 10, 26 and 30 March 2025 but noted that it could not gain access on each occasion. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would attend on 26 June 2025. It is unclear from the evidence whether this appointment went ahead or what work, if any, was completed.
  3. The landlord carried out a temporary repair on 31 October 2025 by boarding the bottom of the door. It identified that the door was beyond repair and needed replacement. It confirmed the order for a new door on 8 December 2025 and scheduled the replacement for February 2026. While the replacement has now been arranged, the evidence does not explain why there was a one‑month delay between the temporary repair and placing the order. This was not reasonable and caused an avoidable delay for the resident.
  4. The evidence shows some repair appointments were moved for reasons outside the landlord’s control. However, the records do not explain why it made no further attempts to repair or make safe the door between July and September 2025.
  5. Overall, the landlord took steps to secure the door once it carried out the temporary repair, and it has arranged the replacement. However, the evidence shows there were avoidable delays in attending the initial repair, in progressing the repair during mid‑2025, and in ordering the replacement door. These delays caused unnecessary inconvenience for the resident.
  6. For the reasons above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of back door repairs. While the landlord did try to complete temporary repairs, there were avoidable delays with the replacement door. This was inconvenient for the resident. It also meant that it did not replace the door within its policy timescales. As such, it should pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the likely time and trouble caused. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which the landlord has not acknowledged and caused disappointment, time, trouble or inconvenience.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

Finding

No maladministration
  1. On 5 June 2025 the resident told the landlord that she believed the property was overcrowded. She was sharing a room with her 2 youngest children and felt the lack of personal space was affecting their wellbeing. She asked it to move her to a larger property by a management transfer.
  2. The landlord’s management transfer policy only considers management transfers where a resident is at risk of serious harm, or there is a documented threat. Therefore, landlord’s decision not to approve a management transfer was consistent with this policy as we have seen no evidence that she met the criteria.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord explained the criteria for a management transfer to the resident during the complaint, and in phone calls. It also told her that she could pursue a mutual exchange or contact the local council and make a social housing application. In July 2025 it also gave the resident the opportunity to supply any new evidence which may support a management transfer. We have not seen any evidence that this was supplied.
  4. For the reasons above, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

 Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. On 4 February 2025 the resident reported that the kitchen drawers needed to be replaced. On 26 June 2025 the landlord confirmed that it would replace the entire kitchen. It also said it would complete temporary repairs in the interim including renewal of the worktop and replacing the drawers and runners.
  2. The landlord’s repair records do not clearly show when, or if, it completed the agreed temporary repairs. The records show that an appointment scheduled for 28 August 2025 was cancelled, but there is no information explaining who cancelled it, the reason for the cancellation or whether the landlord made further attempts to complete the work. This is a failure as landlords must keep clear records of all repairs.
  3. On 29 October 2025 the landlord referred the kitchen to its assets team. The assets team placed it on the planned repairs list for the following year. The landlord then replaced the kitchen in January 2026.
  4. We acknowledge the resident’s view that the age of the kitchen contributed to wider issues in the property, including pests and mould. However, landlords must balance their legal responsibilities with planned investment cycles and available budgets. The landlord’s plan to carry out temporary repairs was reasonable and would have ensured the kitchen remained safe and usable until full replacement could be completed.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord added the kitchen to its planned repairs programme and that less than 3 months passed between ordering the new kitchen and completing the installation. This timescale was reasonable.
  6. While it is unclear from the records when the landlord completed the temporary repairs, there is also no evidence that the resident raised this as a concern or that any delay caused additional distress, inconvenience or risk.
  7. There were failures with communication and record keeping which the landlord identified in its complaint responses. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation at stage 2 of the complaint for service failures relating to the kitchen works. It acknowledged that it had not contacted the resident within the 7 days it promised after ordering the new kitchen, and that its communication had been poor.
  8. For the reasons above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of repairs ordered as part of a disrepair claim

Finding

Reasonable redress 
  1. The resident and landlord settled a disrepair claim on 3 September 2024. The settlement covered several repair items, including leak damage and poor ventilation. As part of the agreement, the landlord committed to completing the outstanding repairs by 28 November 2024.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2024 to confirm that it had been trying to book the agreed repairs. Between October and December 2024, it attempted to complete the works on 6 occasions but was unable to gain access to the property. It made 2 further attempts in January 2025 and sent a follow‑up letter on 13 January 2025 asking the resident to contact it to arrange appointments.
  3. On 25 April 2025 the landlord carried out a post‑disrepair inspection. This confirmed that all works had been completed except the treatment of damp and mould around a window frame, glass replacement, and refixing a ceiling light. The landlord attempted to complete these remaining items on 6 occasions in May and June 2025 but again could not access the property.
  4. The landlord repaired the damp and mould on 19 August 2025. On 24 September 2025 it repaired the window hinges and handle and ordered new glass, which it installed on 17 November 2025. There is evidence that an appointment on 28 October 2025 to install the glass did not go ahead because it was unable to gain access.
  5. Although the landlord did not complete the works within the timeframe set out in the disrepair settlement, the evidence shows that the delays were not within its control. It made repeated attempts to access the property, and when it could not arrange appointments, it wrote to the resident to request contact. Its actions were proactive and consistent with its obligations under the term of the settlement.
  6. We note that during the disrepair works the landlord found mould under the bathroom floor coverings. It did not raise a repair order following this discovery, and this resulted in a delay with the issue being fixed. It offered £160 compensation as it did not order repairs quickly enough in line with its repairs policy. This was reasonable, and consistent with its policy and our remedies guidance.
  7. For the reasons above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs ordered as part of a disrepair claim. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £160 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

No maladministration
  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses on time. It also sent its formal responses appropriately within the timescales listed in its policy and our Code.
  3. We have seen evidence that its complaint investigation was thorough and clear, and its responses clearly set out the complaint. It informed the resident of her rights to contact us if she was unhappy with its investigation.
  4. We therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

General learning

  1. The landlord relied on disrepair surveys when considering whether it should attend to remove mice. While it is positive it considered earlier records, it should have visited to check whether there had been changes, or whether the original survey missed any access points. This could have led to an earlier resolution for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping of communication with the resident was clear and detailed. However, at times it was difficult to assess when it did repairs, in particular the kitchen repairs.

Communication

  1. The landlord proactively communicated with the resident through a variety of methods. Its complaint responses were clear and well laid out.