GreenSquareAccord Limited (202436007)

Background

1. In April 2023 the resident reported that his balcony door and several window frames were rotting. This had caused damp and mould. The landlord said it would do repairs while it waited for replacements. The landlord replaced the windows and door in October 2025. The resident is unhappy with the time it took the landlord to replace the windows and door. Within the same complaint, the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with delays in repairing his solar panels. However, as the resident has not asked us to investigate that element of the complaint, we will only refer to it for context.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair or replace his windows and door.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair or replace his windows and door.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair or replace his windows and door

5. There was an unreasonably long delay between the resident’s first report of rot and the window replacement. The landlord did not explain the delay, and there are no records to say what the root cause was. Case notes refer to holding repairs; however, there is no record of what repairs took place or when. Internal communication was confusing, and it was not clear on which department handled the repair.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s original complaint within its policy timescales. It also did not complete its proposed resolution to repair the windows in a reasonable time. Positively, it named areas for service improvement, apologised for its failures and offered compensation.

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.

7. The landlord’s repair policy says it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the home safe, secure, and weatherproof. This includes repairing or replacing windows and doors. It aims to respond within:
   1. 7 days for urgent repairs where delay could cause further damage.
   2. 28 days for standard repairs.
   3. 84 days for work requiring more planning, such as replacing windows or doors.
8. The landlord’s Cyclical and Planned Maintenance Procedure covers component replacement, including windows, and doors, when they reach the end of their useful life. It inspects homes every 5 years to assess condition, and annual programmes are based on this data. Urgent referrals outside the programme may be added to the current year’s plan.
9. The Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on repairs and severe maladministration state that when a repair issue involves windows or doors, landlords should carry out an immediate inspection and complete a risk assessment. This assessment should include hazards such as damp, mould, and excess cold. If a hazard is found, landlords should complete urgent repairs while waiting for full replacement. Where windows or doors require replacement, landlords should consider whether it is right to wait for planned works or intervene earlier.
10. The landlord attended the property 34 working days after the original report of rotten windows. This was reasonable and in line with its policy as there is no evidence that there was an immediate threat to the resident or the property.
11. However, once it confirmed that the windows and door required replacement, there was no progress for over a year. It is unclear from the evidence why there was such a delay. Records show the landlord referred the case to the assets team, but it is not clear whether on what basis the team accepted the referral.
12. Throughout the period investigated, the resident told the landlord that there was recurring damp and mould caused by excess moisture around the doors and windows. The resident removed the mould himself, so the evidence does not show how extensive it was.
13. The landlord should have assessed the damp and mould and told the resident whether it would remove it. While the resident may have chosen to remove it himself, the landlord should have confirmed this and explained how it would monitor the situation until the windows were replaced. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could offer other support, such as providing dehumidifiers, while waiting for the replacement items.
14. The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy says that when calculating discretionary compensation, it will consider the duration of any distress, the seriousness of any impact and actions which have either mitigated or contributed to the overall distress and inconvenience.
15. It offered £325 for delays and inconvenience related to the windows and door. This amount was not reflective of the resident’s experience. In deciding how much compensation to offer it should have considered:
    1. The length of time taken for the items to be replaced.
    2. The repeated surveyor appointments which all confirmed that replacement was the only option.
    3. Its poor communication throughout
    4. The lack of evidence of effective holding repairs.
16. In total, it was 33 months from the first report of rot until the landlord replaced the windows and door. We recognise that the complaint process concluded 13 months before the replacement; however, the landlord should have considered a separate offer of compensation once it completed the work. This would have acknowledged the additional time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident. We have therefore made an order for added compensation.
17. After the landlord noted that it needed a window survey, it took approximately 3 months for the appointment to take place. In that time, the resident chased the surveyor 3 times, and there was an appointment booked which the landlord did not attend. The resident had to chase the landlord on 3 further occasions after the survey as the landlord did not communicate the outcome to him and did not inform him of any plans to complete holding repairs.
18. Given the length of time this issue was ongoing, we would expect the landlord to communicate with the resident at regular intervals to update him on its progress, and to assess whether the damp and mould issues had worsened. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated by the lack of communication, and of clear direction from the landlord.
19. For the reasons above, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair or replace his windows and door. We make an order of £1200 compensation, made up of:
    1. £800 in recognition of the delay in replacing the windows, the lack of holding repairs, and the landlord’s failure to clearly confirm its position with regards to ongoing damp and mould.
    2. £400 for the communication issues including missed appointments and a failure to provide the resident with regular updates.

20. The Ombudsman’s 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.
21. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within these timescales as there was a delay of 6 working days. It confirmed this in its stage 1 response and offered compensation of £25. This level of compensation was proportionate considering the delay was minor.
22. The landlord gave detailed complaint responses which confirmed all actions it had taken to resolve the issues. It confirmed its understanding of any vulnerabilities within the household at each stage, which is a positive step as this enabled the resident to highlight any changes.
23. In its stage 1 response it highlighted areas for improvement and actions it planned to take to improve its service moving forward. This shows self-reflection and a commitment to learn from its mistakes. It said that it would review the processes within its surveying team, monitor repairs closely and improve its record keeping. We did not see any immediate improvement in these areas during the period investigated, so have recommended that the landlord review its progress.
24. For the reasons above, while there were some failures in its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged them, apologised, and offered compensation which amounts to reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The record keeping was inconsistent, as while there were clear records of discussions with the resident, repair records were less clear. It was not possible to find when and if the landlord completed holding repairs. It was also not clear whether the landlord replaced the windows and door as an emergency job or whether it was part of planned repairs. The landlord should review its record keeping in relating to both responsive and planned repairs, particularly in cases where both teams are involved.

Communication

26. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident in this case. It did not explain the reasons for any delays and did not proactively provide him with updates. This led to frustration for the resident, which is understandable. When the resident called for updates, the landlord did not always call him back. That said, it acknowledged this in the complaint and offered compensation.