GreenSquareAccord Limited (202503540)

Decision
Case ID	202503540
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

The property is a ground-floor flat in a block of 6 and has a communal garden. There are leaseholders within the block.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s communal garden concerns.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s communal garden concerns.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to the resident’s communal garden concerns

The landlord has explained its position in relation to the hedge and fence.

Complaint handling

The landlord sent its complaint responses in time and addressed the complaint points reasonably.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Photos provided to us appear to show the fence in a poor condition. The landlord should arrange for a surveyor to assess the fence condition. It should then explain its position to the resident on whether/when it will install a new fence, given the resident’s security concerns.
The landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to update its repairs policy and tenancy agreements to clarify fence/hedge responsibility.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: She felt the hedge in the communal garden had been “hacked down” and it removed the last bit of security and privacy she had. She was worried residents of a new housing estate would use the communal garden as a “cut-through.”
20 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response where it did not uphold the complaint. It said: It had liaised with its grounds maintenance team and there were no issues with the work carried out to the hedge. The hedge had been cut back significantly, which was part of its commitment [to residents], but would grow back in the spring and summer months. It apologised for any frustration or inconvenience caused regarding privacy.
21 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint the next day. She said: The hedge had “not been cut like that in 25 years.” Non-residents were jumping over the fence as a short cut to a play area which infringed privacy and security. She wanted a new fence installed.
24 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, where it did not uphold the complaint. It said: The hedge had been cut to the same height as the fence to ensure ease of future maintenance. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by individuals jumping over the fence to access the play area as a shortcut. It asked the resident to report any further incidents. No issues had been identified with the existing fence so would not replace or upgrade the fence.
28 April 2025	The resident contacted us and said the existing fence was badly broken.
5 March 2026	In a call with us the resident said: The hedge had not grown back much. The fence was in a very poor condition. She still had privacy and security concerns.

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	Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property boundary.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s tenancy agreement was signed with a previous landlord that merged with the current landlord in April 2021. The tenancy agreement says:
1. The landlord will “keep shared areas… in good condition.”
2. The resident is responsible to “keep the garden and hedges properly cultivated and in a good, tidy… condition.”
Neither the tenancy agreement nor landlord’s repairs policy comment on fence repair responsibility.
It was unclear exactly when the landlord cut the hedge, however it inspected the hedge on 19 February 2025. It noted the hedge was cut to the same height of the fence. Following the complaint, the landlord used its complaints process to explain its position to the resident in relation to the hedge, which was reasonable.
It is unclear whether the tenancy agreement expects residents with a communal garden to keep the hedges tidy. However, as the hedge had not been maintained, it was reasonable for the landlord to cut it. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns in relation to privacy, particularly with her being on the ground floor. It may have been reasonable for the landlord to give notice to residents of the block about the hedge. However, overall, the landlord is responsible for shared areas, which would include the communal garden and its maintenance. There was therefore no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
The evidence showed the landlord issued both complaint responses in line with policy. The responses were reasonable and addressed the concerns raised. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable.