GreenSquareAccord Limited (202424366)

Decision
Case ID	202424366
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her son and his partner. Both the resident and her son have told us and the landlord that they are disabled. The neighbouring property is owned privately. There was an active dispute at the time of the complaint over the land between the properties, which was the resident’s driveway, and where the neighbour had erected a fence. This ultimately concluded that the land was owned by the landlord in its entirety, but there were delays in removing the fence. The resident’s housing officer was involved in this matter and the resident made several allegations about their conduct.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of poor conduct from her housing officer.
   2. The resident’s requests for updates related to the boundary dispute outcome.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct from her housing officer.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for updates related to the boundary dispute.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Housing officer conduct

5. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns through its HR processes and took appropriate action internally to prevent a reoccurrence. It also appropriately provided the resident with an interim housing officer and later appointed a permanent replacement, which demonstrated it took seriously her concerns.

Boundary dispute

6. The landlord failed to provide timely and accurate information about the boundary dispute, leading to prolonged uncertainty and avoidable distress. It took several months to confirm the legal position, did not provide promised updates, and repeatedly left the resident to chase for information. These communication failures delayed resolution, exacerbated tensions with the neighbour, and meant appropriate redress was only offered prompted by our intervention.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord delayed its stage 1 complaint acknowledgements and responses, missed clear signs that the resident was still pursuing her January 2024 complaint, and only recognised these failures after it reviewed the case when we opened our investigation. It offered compensation in its complaint responses and additional compensation when it reviewed the case, but it did not clearly allocate this so that we can assess its proportionality. It failed to identify the causes of its delays or propose learning to prevent a reoccurrence.

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: The apology is provided by a senior officer. 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 25 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £450 compensation (this is the amount it offered prior to this investigation). This is comprised of: £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delayed complaint responses and closure of her earlier complaint. £250 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the delays in providing the boundary information and poor communication from its staff. The landlord may deduct from the total any amount that it has already paid to the resident, if it provides documentary evidence of these payments. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 March 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must review this case considering the failures found in its own complaint responses, post-complaint case review and this determination to identify: The root causes for the failures identified, particularly around the poor communication and delayed complaint responses. What actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. This may include changes to processes, policies, staff training or other factors. How and when it will implement these actions.	No later than 08 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 January 2024	The resident raised a complaint on this date related to the delays in providing information about the boundary dispute and the conduct of the resident’s housing officer. The landlord’s records also showed this complaint as being withdrawn later the same day.
5 June 2024	The landlord registered the resident’s formal complaint after it collected documents from her during a home visit on this date.
13 June 2024	The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement on this date and the resident responded and confirmed the complaint points. She said that her housing officer did not investigate a boundary dispute correctly and had bullied her household, including raising a malicious anti-social behaviour (ASB) case against her. She also said that she was awaiting a legal letter from the landlord which confirmed ownership of the driveway in dispute, which the landlord had said it would send 6 months ago.
12 July 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident and said that her complaint was in a backlog. It apologised for this and said she would receive a response by 26 July 2024.
26 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: It would investigate the resident’s allegations about her housing officer under its HR policies, noting that the outcome would remain confidential. It confirmed it had instructed the officer not to contact her and would notify her of any change in officer. It had reviewed the boundary issue and land ownership and would write to her with its findings within 7 working days. It apologised for the delay in sending its complaint response and offered £100 compensation. It would update her profile with her disability information if she wished and would contact her to discuss this.
2 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, saying her housing officer had closed and suppressed her original January 2024 complaint. She said: She had previously shared her household’s medical and disability information, but believed the housing officer had removed it. She did not trust the housing officer’s manager to review her concerns, as she felt they acted in collusion. Her original housing officer had falsely opened an ASB case against her and had smirked when she told them she felt suicidal. She never received the promised letter about the driveway and boundary issue and believed there was ongoing confusion over land ownership. She no longer had a functioning housing officer, as the original officer had been removed and the interim officer was not responding.
29 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said: Its records showed the resident had withdrawn her January 2024 complaint on the same day, though it accepted that later calls referred to the same complaint and should have prompted a review. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for this, brining the compensation for its complaint handling to £200. It had investigated the housing officer’s conduct and raised concerns with their manager. It apologised if she felt unable to escalate matters and confirmed a manager had been appointed as her interim housing officer. No disability information had been removed from its systems, and it offered to update her records if she wished to add anything further. It would investigate her claim that the housing officer had shared her confidential disability information with her neighbour. It could not remove all ASB records from its system, but as no further reports had been received, it would be closing the case shortly. It had already written to confirm the driveway belonged to the landlord and acknowledged it had mistakenly given the neighbour retrospective permission for a fence. It apologised and said it had instructed the neighbour to remove the fence within 14 days.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to us on 24 September 2024 as the boundary dispute and removal of the fence was ongoing. She was seeking for her driveway to be returned to her use, disciplinary action to be taken against her housing officer and changes in the landlord’s culture to treat vulnerable residents better.
2 April 2025	After the complaint process, when this matter was referred to us for investigation, the landlord reviewed the case. It said that it had implemented a dedicated bullying and harassment policy, related to staff conduct, from April 2025. It also said it should have identified the delay in writing to the resident within its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for this and offered a further £250 compensation comprised of: £50 for the delay in sending the letter, promised in its stage 1 complaint response. £100 for distress and inconvenience. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble. This brought the total compensation offered by the landlord to £450.

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 response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct from her housing officer.
Finding	No maladministration

What we will not investigate

8. A substantial part of the resident’s complaint about the housing officer’s conduct included concerns about the handling of her data and records. This included information being shared incorrectly with her neighbour, generated without cause (ASB concerns) and deleted without justification (previous health and disability notes).
9. How the landlord interprets the legal requirements of the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider. We cannot consider complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body and therefore these aspects of the resident’s complaint are not ones which we can investigate. Should the resident want to pursue this, she should do so by contacting the ICO.
10. It is also noted that the resident has raised new complaints in late 2024 related to the handling and delays with the boundary dispute resolution and delays with this complaint and about data protection concerns in late 2025. This investigation will only consider the initial complaint, as set out in the table above, and the events which preceded it, as it is unclear if the other complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and these matters have not been referred to us for investigation. If the resident feels that the matters raised in her two further complaints have not been addressed, these should be escalated to us for consideration as separate investigations.

Housing officer’s conduct

11. Within her complaint the resident raised several concerns about her housing officer’s conduct. This included accusations of threatening behaviour, sharing confidential information with her neighbour, falsely opening an ASB case, removing health and disability data intentionally, and a general lack of action around the boundary dispute. As mentioned above we will not look at the handling of data particularly, and the action around the boundary dispute will be investigated in the relevant section below. However, we will look at whether the landlord’s action in investigating the staff conduct was appropriate.
12. The landlord told us that it did not have a dedicated bully and harassment policy in place at the time of this complaint and instead used line management and HR processes to manage concerns. It has since implemented a new dedicated policy, which is positive to note.
13. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord told the resident that it had investigated the matters and provided feedback to the housing officer’s line manager. It explained at both stages of its complaint process that the outcome of these investigations, and any action taken, would be confidential. It also appointed an interim housing officer until a permanent replacement was appointed on 25 November 2024. This showed a customer focused and resolution-oriented approach.
14. We have seen evidence that the landlord did consider the concerns raised and took appropriate action in relation to the member of staff complained of. While the specific actions remain confidential because they relate to an individual staff member and the landlord’s internal HR processes, we consider this appropriate in the circumstances to demonstrate that the landlord complied with its policies and took appropriate steps to prevent a reoccurrence in future.
15. One of the resident’s specific concerns was that her housing officer had opened an ASB case against her without evidence, however the records we have seen do indicate reports from the resident’s neighbour and corroborating evidence from the police that concerns were reported to the housing officer. While we cannot comment on the substance or foundation of these claims, it does not appear that the housing officer generated this information or claim himself. It is also noted that the resident made similar reports about her neighbour, which the landlord’s records indicate it addressed with the neighbour and referred or liaised with the police about where appropriate. This was reasonable in the circumstances to investigate and address both party’s concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for updates related to the boundary dispute
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 31 January 2024 to raise a complaint regarding an ongoing boundary dispute related to her driveway and a fence that her neighbour had erected. Practically, the resident said that the fence prevented her household from accessing their car, as the area was not wide enough to open a car door, or to manoeuvre walking aids or a wheelchair (which both the resident’s son and his partner relied on). This dispute also contributed to wider reported ASB, including threats of violence, racist comments and harassment, as previously mentioned.
17. The landlord’s records indicate that there were various discussions internally. This included with the landlord’s legal team and with the neighbour and his solicitor directly. The landlord’s surveyor also attended on 14 February 2024 and referred the matter for legal advice. The surveyor noted that the driveway was not wide enough to open a car door. These were appropriate steps to take, given the legal dispute raised.
18. The root of the issue was conflicting transfer and Land Registry documentation between what the neighbour had received and what the landlord had in its possession. Both party’s documents appeared to show ownership of the land in question. Ultimately, it was resolved on 28 August 2024, when the landlord asserted that it owned the land and requested that the neighbour removed the fence within 14 days. It is not clear from the landlord’s records how it came to these findings specifically, however this was not challenged by the neighbour or his solicitor. The landlord also wrote to the resident on the same day to provide this update.
19. It is acknowledged that between the resident’s report in January 2024 and its letter confirming the legal position in August 2024, there is evidence of the resident repeatedly chasing for updates and asking for specific information, such as the surveyor’s report. The landlord also committed in its stage 1 complaint response to provide a written update within 7 working days, which it did not do. These were significant communication failures which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the delay taken to identify the legal ownership of the land and for granting initial retrospective permission for the neighbour to erect a fence. However, it did not offer compensation or other redress during its process and as such did not acknowledge the extend of the inconvenience this caused the resident.
21. Following the landlord’s letter to the neighbour, there were further delays in the neighbour removing the fence, which ultimately was not removed until 6 November 2024. There is evidence of the landlord’s solicitor chasing the neighbour’s solicitor for updates during the intervening period on at least 3 occasions. The landlord also arranged for works to make good the driveway, as the fence removal had left holes. These works were completed on 3 February 2025.
22. The landlord’s review from 2 April 2025, prompted by our involvement, did provide a remedy. However, this was delayed by around 8 months after its stage 2 response and the landlord missed an opportunity for an early resolution and to use its process effectively. The case review also noted failures in the landlord’s complaint handling (discussed in the following section), and it is unclear how it intended the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble compensation to be allocated between these issues. As we cannot assess the proportionality of the compensation due to the lack of clear break down, we have made the above compensation order to explain what level we consider appropriate for each aspect of the complaint.
23. Overall, there were substantial delays in the landlord providing information, which was exacerbated by poor communication with the resident, even after she was chasing for updates. This worsened an already fractious relationship with the resident’s neighbour, which included elements of ASB. Ultimately the matter was resolved, but the redress offered was not timely and was only brought about by our intervention, which should not be required.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

24. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which is in line with the Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. The policy says that residents should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
25. The records show that the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 June 2024, which was 6 working days after receipt. It then provided its stage 1 response 31 working days later.
    2. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 5 August 2024, which was 1 working day after receipt. It then provided its stage 2 response 18 working days later.
26. This means that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement was very slightly delayed (1 day) and its complaint response was issued 21 working days outside of its policy timescales and the timescales set out in the Code. This was a failing, which delayed the resident progressing her complaint. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £100 compensation in respect of this.
27. More widely, the resident told the landlord that she had raised her complaint on 31 January 2024, but that it had been deliberately closed by her housing officer. The landlord said that its records indicated the resident had withdrawn her complaint. The landlord’s records show that the resident called to chase progress on her complaint on 6 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it should have reviewed the complaint at this point. It apologised that it did not do this and offered a further £100 compensation for this.
28. After the complaint process, when the case was referred to us for investigation, the landlord reviewed the case again and noted that it was “clear that [the resident] continued to pursue the matter with us on several occasions.” It apologised for this and offered further compensation as explained above.
29. While the landlord delayed the further redress offered for several months after the complaint process, we consider the compensation it offered at stage 2 (£200) to be sufficient to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident. This is also in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affect the resident, which says a figure between £100 and £600 will usually be appropriate.
30. While the landlord has made efforts to provide redress for its complaint handling failures, it has not identified the root causes of these delays or proposed any changes to its policy, practices or staff training to prevent a reoccurrence. This is a missed opportunity to utilise the complaints process for learning, and this was a service failure.

Learning

31. We have made a learning order for the landlord to assess what further actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures we have identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not follow up on reports from the resident which indicated that she wished for her earlier January 2024 complaint to be open or re-opened. This delayed the resident’s complaint being progressed and indicates that the landlord’s systems are not robust in identifying trends or flagging previous concerns or complaints.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication in this case related to the boundary issue was considerably delayed and required repeated prompting by the resident. This included both its written letter summarising its legal position and updates from the interim housing officer. Its complaint response at stage 1 was also delayed, although it was positive to note the landlord did provide an interim update about this.