Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202334007)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334007

GreenSquareAccord Limited

23 April 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of
    1. the renewal of the windows and front door.
    2. floorboard repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In January 2021 the landlord replaced the back door and kitchen window of the resident’s property. The resident complained in March 2021 about the condition of other windows in the property and the front door. He also said that the window replaced in January 2021 had been poorly fitted and raised concerns about floorboards creaking.
  3. On 11 May 2021 the landlord attended the property to inspect the floorboards. The resident asked for the assessment to be rescheduled because he was unwilling to complete a disclaimer form which the landlord required in advance of the inspection.
  4. The evidence suggests a stock condition survey was completed on the property on 20 September 2021 which noted that the windows at the property had a remaining life span of 4-5 years.
  5. The resident sought updates on a number of occasions about the windows replacement and the floorboards creaking during 2022. The resident then submitted a new complaint on 24 July 2023 stating he was dissatisfied with the ongoing repair issues over past 3 years including;
    1. windows and door needed replacing.
    2. creaking floorboards.
    3. broken appointments and rude customer service.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 August 2023 advising that due to staffing pressures the response might take up to 20 working days, but it would aim to issue the response by 1 September 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 September 2023 seeking an update on the complaint response as no response had been received.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 October 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and for service failings experienced by the resident. It said that the windows and front door would be replaced in the next financial year and offered a total of £300 compensation made up of the following;
    1. £100 for lack of communication.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience while waiting for contact.
    3. £100 for delay to complaint response.
  8. The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 3 of the landlords’ complaint procedure. He said he was unhappy with customer service, was still experiencing broken appointments and the floorboards have not been addressed. He said he had been waiting over 3 years for replacement windows. He also felt there was no clear timeframe for the window replacements and that the compensation offered to date was insufficient to reflect all of the circumstances.
  9. The landlord issued it stage 3 complaint response on 22 November 2023. It confirmed that the last stock condition survey was completed in 2021 and noted the following;
    1. windows and door replacement – the landlord accepted it had failed to update him about changes to the planned maintenance programme. It advised that full replacement was scheduled to commence in January 2024.
    2. creaking floorboards – it confirmed that the scheduled inspection in May 2021 did not take place as the resident was concerned about potential cost. It offered to investigate further and consider options to address the issue.
    3. multiple service failings and delay –the landlord apologised for service failings.
    4. It offered compensation of £2,150 (which replaced the previous offer of £300). This was made up of:
      1. £1,500 for any distress or inconvenience caused by delay replacing windows and front door.
      2. £500 for the lack of communication.
      3. £150 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
  10. The resident accepted the compensation which the landlord paid him in January 2024. The landlord replaced the windows and front door in March 2024 and in April 2024 the landlord raised an order for a stock condition survey.
  11. The resident contacted us as he felt the compensation did not reflect the level of stress experienced due to the delay replacing the windows. He also states that the stock condition survey has not been completed, and the creaking floorboards have not been addressed.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that information has been provided by the landlord and the resident relating to a complaint made by the resident in March 2021. We note that that this complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint procedure. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In the interests of fairness therefore this investigation will only focus on the issues that led to the resident’s complaint of 24 July 2023 that have progressed fully through the landlord’s complaint procedures.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges them to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including windows, floors and doors. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy which details response times for the range of repair categories.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary compensation in a range of circumstances including:
    1. loss or inconvenience due to a service failure.
    2. experiencing poor complaint handling.
    3. damage to decorations.

The landlord’s handling of the renewal of the windows and front door

  1. The stock condition survey completed in September 2021 noted that the windows had a remaining life span of 4 to 5 years before needing replacement. The resident however said that the windows were in poor condition, that they were crumbling and unsafe. He said he was initially advised the windows would be replaced in 2022/2023. This is not in dispute. In the stage 3 complaint response the landlord conceded that it had told him that it would install need windows during 2021/2022 and then during 2022/2023.
  2. However following a review of the landlord’s planned maintenance programme, it rescheduled the replacement of windows and door but failed to inform the resident. Whilst planned maintenance schedules can be subject to change landlords have a responsibility to ensure timely and relevant communication with affected residents to manage expectations and minimise distress and frustration. The resident repeatedly sought updates and made the complaint in order to seek information. In the resident’s complaint on 24 July 2024 the resident describes feeling unsafe due to insecure windows and of freezing conditions due to draughts. It is clear the landlord was aware of the residents’ concerns and communication should have been better managed to assure the resident when the planned works were scheduled to take place.
  3. Because the landlord had responsibility for maintaining and repairing the windows, it should have ensured that the windows were kept in a reasonable state of repair whilst awaiting the cyclical works to replace them. There is no evidence of the landlord did so.
  4. As part of its stage 3 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the poor communication, lack of updates and the delay to completing the window and front door replacements. This caused evident stress and inconvenience to the resident. It provided clarity as to when the windows and front door would be replaced by providing a date and timescale for completion of the works which took place in March 2024.
  5. The resident also asked on several occasions when the next stock condition survey would take place. The landlord commits to completing stock condition surveys every 5 years. As the previous stock condition survey had been completed in September 2021 the next survey would not reasonably be expected until 2026. It would however be reasonable to have expected the landlord to inform the resident about this. Again, the resident has said that the lack of update and communication about this issue has caused frustration.

 

  1. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again.
  2. In line with the dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right the landlord awarded the resident £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused due by delay to replace windows and door and £500 for poor communication. This level of compensation falls at the higher end of the landlord’s own compensation policy where ‘there has been significant detrimental impact on the customer, for a prolonged period of time, where our actions have made the situation worse, where we’ve failed to acknowledge our failures and failed to put things right’. This is also consistent with our remedies guidance which sets out that higher awards may be appropriate where the failings have been prolonged and have impacted the resident.
  3. We consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of the renewal of the windows and front door.

The landlord’s handling of the floorboard repairs

  1. The resident also repeatedly raised a concern about floorboards creaking. This was initially raised on 29 March 2021 and a contractor attended this routine repair on 11 May 2021 to inspect the floorboards. However, it is noted that before removing the flooring the contractor asked the resident to sign a disclaimer form which confirmed that the landlord would not be liable for any damage to the flooring that may occur during the inspection. The resident states that he could not afford to replace damaged flooring, so he asked that the inspection did not proceed.
  2. As detailed in the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for floors which includes ensuring the flooring is safe and free from hazards. An inspection was necessary to determine whether there was a latent hazard or a nuisance such as the reported creaking that needed to be addressed. However, prior to the inspection it placed the onus on the resident to sign a disclaimer form accepting liability for any potential damage to the flooring during the inspection. This approach was not reasonable as there is no evidence that the resident was informed in advance of this requirement.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation procedure allows for discretionary compensation where damage to ‘decoration’ happens during repair works. It allows for up to £200 per room towards for the cost of replacement flooring. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this potential avenue of assistance.
  4. In both complaint responses the landlord offered the resident the opportunity to request an inspection of the floorboards if they wished. Furthermore, it is acknowledged in the stage 3 complaint response that the resident refused the initial floorboard inspection on 11 May 20212 due to cost. There was therefore a missed opportunity in the complaint investigations for the landlord to assess why the flooring inspection did not take place and to remedy this by advising of the financial assistance available via the landlord’s compensation procedure. The landlord failed to comply with its obligations as noted in the tenancy agreement to complete necessary inspections required to maintain floors and to apply its own compensation policy that would have facilitated the completion of the inspection.
  5. The landlord failed to address the issue of floorboard repairs according to its tenancy obligations and compensation procedure. That was not appropriate. Furthermore, this matter was not resolved as part of the stage 3 complaint response which was a further missed opportunity to address the issue and bring the matter to a conclusion. As such the matter remains unresolved and the resident continues to experience inconvenience.
  6. Given the procedural failing and the ongoing impact on the resident and the unreasonable delay in resolving this, we find that maladministration in the landlords handling of the floorboard repairs. In line with our remedy’s guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 for this maladministration. This is in addition to the £2,150 compensation offered in its stage 3 response.
  7. We have made orders for the landlord to complete an inspection of the floorboards and to consider available discretionary compensation to assist the resident if the flooring is damaged during the inspection.
  8. The landlord is also required to provide refresher training to relevant staff to ensure staff are aware of assistance available under the compensation procedure.

Landlords’ complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy has 3 stages;
    1. Stage 1- for issues that can be resolved without do not require further investigation.
    2. Stage 2 – acknowledge within 2 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days.
    3. Stage 3- executive review- aim to respond within 10 days.
  2. The resident’s complaint was logged on 24 July 2023 and escalated to stage 2 for investigation as it could not be resolved within 2 days under stage 1 of the complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 August 2023, 6 working days over the 2 day acknowledgement timescale. It apologised for the delay and advised of staffing issues and that it would likely be 20 working days before a response would be issued and would aim to provide a response by 1 September 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 September to discuss the complaint. The resident then however emailed the landlord seeking an update on 13 September as no response had been received.
  4. The Complaint Code (the Code) states ‘Where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in this Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.’ The stage 2 response was issued on 13 October 2023, 30 working days after the proposed response date of 1 September 2023. Other than the contact on 4 September but there is no record of any further update about the complaint delay which was a clear communication failing.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response as he felt it lacked clarity about timescales for window replacement and that the compensation did not reflect the inconvenience experienced. It has not been possible to confirm the date of the stage 3 escalation request from the evidence provided nor to confirm if the landlord acknowledged it within timescale. Accurate record keeping about complaint handling is key to ensuring transparent and compliant processes.
  6. The stage 3 response was issued on 22 November 2023. It did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint however as it failed to adequately address the floorboard repair other than to offer a further investigation if the resident requested this. Overall, it acknowledged service failing and recognised the poor customer service, poor communication and delay experienced by the resident.
  7. The landlord sought to provide redress for complaint handling failings by offering £150 compensation for the delayed stage 2 response. This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy and our remedies guidance for service failure with no lasting impact. It is our view that the landlord has therefore provided reasonable redress for the complaint handling failings identified.

Determinations

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of floorboard repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of:
    1. renewal of the windows and front door.
    2. the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to;
    1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. pay the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the delay in addressing the creaking floorboards.
    3. with the resident’s consent, complete an inspection of the floorboards ensuring the resident is informed of relevant discretionary compensation.
    4. provide refresher training to relevant staff about the landlord’s compensation procedure and assistance available.
    5. inform the resident in writing when the next stock condition survey of the property is scheduled to take place.