GreenSquareAccord Limited (202541778)

Background

1. The resident reported multiple repair issues to her landlord, including doors, mould, fencing, structural concerns, and shower faults. It was aware her son had eczema and needed to shower daily to manage his condition. She was unhappy with its response and the time taken to resolve the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Requests for repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs

5. The landlord did not complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout. It did not fully resolve the matter through its internal complaint procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident said the condition of the property impacted the health of her children. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

8. The landlord let the property to the resident through a mutual exchange. It completed an inspection in May 2025 and did not identify any issues, apart from the front door requiring renewal. The resident took over the tenancy on 11 July 2025.
9. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported several repair issues. The landlord raised an initial inspection request in July 2025 to assess the back door, second entrance door, bathroom flooring, plastering, and mould. However, this inspection did not take place until October 2025, exceeding its 28-day repairs timescale and delaying progression of multiple reported issues.
10. The landlord also raised a second inspection in August 2025 to review internal and external doors and assess fire safety requirements. It later acknowledged that it could have combined this inspection with the one referenced above. Instead, the duplication caused avoidable delay and confusion. In addition, it failed to properly confirm a September 2025 appointment, requiring the resident to rearrange her schedule at short notice. Overall, its fragmented approach and poor communication led to unnecessary disruption and delayed resolution of repairs.
11. The landlord did not properly address security concerns. The resident reported that the back gate did not latch and raised concerns about the low front boundary and people entering her garden without consent. Although it raised a work order, it incorrectly recorded the gate issue as complete. Records show she told it that the issue persisted throughout the complaints process and that her property remained insecure. It later acknowledged that it had not properly investigated or communicated with her about this matter. This failure impacted the resident’s sense of safety in her home.
12. The landlord identified further internal repairs during a September 2025 inspection and recorded that it completed these works in February 2026. This exceeded its 28-day policy timescale and occurred after the complaint process had concluded. It has not explained the delay or demonstrated that it kept the resident fully informed, indicating poor oversight and management of the repairs.
13. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of mould. Despite concerns raised in July and September 2025, it did not complete a mould wash until November 2025, exceeding its routine repair timescale. It also failed to assess whether the issue required an urgent response or to act on preventative mould measures within a reasonable period.
14. The landlord also failed to effectively resolve repeated shower faults. Although the resident had access to a bath, it did not demonstrate that it considered her son’s vulnerability or adjusted the priority of the repair. While it replaced the shower, this did not provide a timely resolution, as the issues continued. It then delayed further by not returning promptly to complete investigations after the water company assessed the water pressure, which prolonged the disruption.
15. The landlord communicated poorly throughout. It did not evidence that it consistently confirmed appointments, provided updates to the resident, maintained accurate records, or gave a written response to her lintel concerns. She had to chase progress. It also failed to provide timely information when she requested details about the property’s condition and information about the most recent stock condition survey. These failures prevented it from managing expectations or providing reassurance.
16. When taken altogether, these shortcomings had a significant effect on the resident. She experienced prolonged issues across multiple areas of her home, uncertainty about when matters would be resolved, and distress linked to security and living conditions. The ongoing disruption undermined her enjoyment of the property and likely contributed to her decision to move permanently in March 2026. The landlord has since confirmed that it intends to dispose of the property. It has not provided more information to us about this.
17. The landlord acknowledged its failings at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. It apologised for delays, poor communication, and shortcomings in its repair handling. It offered £655 compensation. This was in line with its own compensation procedure. This suggests redress in the range of £600 to £1,000 where there has been failure that severely affected the customer and where it failed to put things right. It evidenced that it paid this to the resident.
18. Our compensation guidance states that landlords should award financial redress that is fair, proportionate and reflects the impact of service failure. Although the landlord recognised failings, the amount offered does not fully reflect their duration and seriousness. The delays affected multiple parts of the home, included security concerns and damp and mould, and continued over several months.
19. Our dispute resolution principles require landlords to put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, it did not demonstrate that it had done so.
20. After considering all the evidence available, we consider than an additional £245 compensation is appropriate. This brings the total compensation to £900, which more fairly reflects the overall impact on the resident. We find this is proportionate to the extent of the landlord’s shortcomings across multiple repairs. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures which significantly impacted a resident. It is also in line with its own compensation procedure.

21. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
22. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times in its complaint procedure were in line with the Code. It responded to the complaint at both stages in line with the timescales above. Therefore, it acted in line with both its procedure and the Code.

Learning

General learning

23. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. Landlords need to set out commitments to resolve outstanding issues within the complaints process and complete them. Otherwise, it compounds the breakdown of trust and damages the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Good record keeping allows landlord to know and understand its assets generally. It ensures that it effectively manages repairs without unreasonable delays. In this case, there were repair delays perhaps impacted by record keeping. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

25. The landlord failed to consistently communicate throughout the repairs process in this case. Effective communication is vital and ensures landlords manage expectations, even when delays occur. This improves the experience of residents.