GreenSquareAccord Limited (202336135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336135

GreenSquareAccord Limited

25 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs to the boiler.
2. queries about service charges.
3. reports of poor communal cleaning and maintenance.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a shared owner of the property at the time of the complaint, she has since sold the property. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In September 2023 the landlord issued its year end service charge accounts to residents. On an unknown date, it followed up with a letter to the resident. It stated there was a deficit of £19,341.74 between the estimated and actual service charge amounts which needed to be recovered.
On 27 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated that the communal boiler in the block had failed in October 2021 and the block had been relying on a temporary boiler for a prolonged period of time. The resident expressed frustration that she was not being kept up to date on the boiler replacement and that the landlord had sometimes attended without notice.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. The resident raised some additional issues:
1. She wanted a breakdown of the service charges and wanted to know why the deficit was so high.
2. She did not think she should have to pay for the boiler repairs in the service charge, because she would soon need to pay for the replacement boiler system to be installed.
3. There was no heating or hot water in the block between 4 and 15 December 2023 due to a fault with the temporary boiler.
4. The communal areas were not being cleaned and the grounds maintenance was poor, a grassed area had been dug up without notice.
5. She had previously complained in 2022 and she did not feel anything had changed.
On 9 February 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It provided a breakdown of the service charges. Its response said:
1. The deficit was payable by residents in the block and was because actual meter readings were higher than estimated.
2. It was working to install individual boilers in each property but this involved a complex scope of works.
3. It offered the resident £10 per day that she did not have heating or hot water, a total of £140.
4. It offered £36 to cover the cost of running the temporary heaters it had provided to the resident.
5. It would not charge residents for missed cleaning or ground maintenance visits.
6. A third party utility company had dug up part of a grassed area, it had asked the third party to return to rectify this. It apologised that it had not told the resident this was going to happen.
7. It offered additional compensation of:
  1. £100 for poor communication.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by not having washing facilities when the heating and hot water were not working.
  3. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the resident needing to chase for responses.
  4. £200 for its delayed response to the complaint.
On 12 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She stated that the landlord had not provided the breakdown she requested and had just resupplied the information she had received previously. She expressed frustration that the landlord spent money on repairing the boiler rather than replacing it sooner. She noted that £10 per day was not sufficient for the lack of heating and hot water. The resident requested a face to face meeting with the landlord to discuss her concerns.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord provided its response. It said:
1. A printing error meant that additional information about the service charges was not sent to the resident.
2. Staff absence had meant that the communal area had been cleaned on 11 out of 24 occasions.
3. it would remove the cost of its scheduled winter works and grass cutting from the service charge as there was no evidence this was done.
4. The service charge deficit was due to an increase in the cost of utilities, rather than the cost of the temporary boiler.
5. After the boiler upgrades, each property would have their own meter and manage their own payments.
6. It would apportion the cost of the new boilers so that residents did not have to pay the full amount.
7. Its offer of £10 per day was in line with its policy. It offered an additional sum of £325, broken down as:
  1. £50 for its late stage 2 response.
  2. £125 for its mishandling of the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance charges.
  3. £150 for the printing error and its failure to notice this.
The resident escalated the matter to us because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She requested assurances that the charges were accurate and an apology for the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is understood that the resident made a previous complaint to her landlord in 2022, the landlord provided complaint responses on 20 May 2022 and 7 July 2022. We expect and encourage responses to escalate matters to us within a reasonable time frame, up to 12 months after the landlord’s response. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from 2023 until 13 March 2024, which is the date of the landlord’s final response. This is because this is what is referenced in the resident’s complaint and what the landlord has responded to.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response.
We will not investigate complaints that concerns the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. This report will not determine whether service charges that the resident has queried are reasonable or payable but will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints concerning the level of a service charge can be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Reports of fepairs to the boiler

The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairs in the communal area and to energy generating equipment. The lease states the landlord must maintain the gas supply.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the property was serviced by a temporary communal boiler, this replaced the previous communal boiler which had failed in late 2021. In her November 2023 complaint, the resident expressed frustration at the length of time the temporary boiler had been in place. In line with the repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas, this includes the communal boiler. By providing a temporary boiler, the landlord met this responsibility and acted appropriately. Had the landlord not done so, the resident may have been without heating and hot water.
The landlord was in the process of arranging for the communal boiler system to be replaced with individual boilers for each flat. The evidence suggests the landlord told the resident its plan to replace the boiler in January 2022. In its complaint response the landlord outlined the complexity of the project, which involved disconnecting and removing the existing pipework and radiators, and the installation of new controls, radiators, flues, pipework, and boiler units. The existing plant room also needed to be decommissioned and removed. Given the extensive work required, it is reasonable that the work took an extended period of time to complete, the landlord also explained this to the resident which was appropriate.
The resident explained that the temporary boiler had not worked from 4 to 15 December 2024, and she had not had heating or washing facilities. The resident asserted that she had contacted the landlord every day, we have not been provided with evidence of this. It is also unclear when the landlord attended to inspect or attempt a repair of the temporary boiler to determine if its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord noted it provided temporary heaters to the resident on day 3 of the outage, so it is reasonable to determine that the landlord was aware of the issue at this stage. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the temporary heaters to mitigate the impact on the resident. The landlord’s policy is unclear on how it categorises a loss of heating and hot water to determine what its response timeframe is. Emergency repairs have a response time of 1 day, urgent repairs have a response time of 7 days. The landlord took 11 days to complete the repair which was not appropriate, there is no evidence available to suggest why the repair happened outside of its timeframes for urgent or emergency repairs.
The resident has expressed frustration that she was paying for the boiler repairs and asserted that the landlord should have replaced the boiler in the first instance. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration, the landlord was within its rights to carry out the repairs, and this is usually more economical than a replacement.
In its final response the landlord outlined that it would not charge the resident for the repairs to the temporary boiler because of the upcoming replacement. The landlord explained that it had miscalculated the amount due back to the resident for the reimbursement of the boiler repairs, but that it would not ask the resident to repay this because it had made the error. This was a reasonable response. It also explained that it was taking steps to ensure the cost of the replacement was reduced as much as possible.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £70 for the loss of heating and £70 for the loss of hot water. This was in line with its compensation procedure where residents are without facilities and was an appropriate response. The landlord also offered:
1. £36 reimbursement for the cost of the electricity to run the temporary heaters.
2. £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by not having washing facilities.
3. £150 compensation for poor service.
4. £100 for poor communication.
We consider that this response and compensation offer is reasonable redress in the circumstances of this case. This is because the offer amount falls in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failures which have adversely affected the resident . The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £576 for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the boiler is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Queries about service charges.

The lease states that the resident must pay a service charge. As soon as practical after the end of each account year, the landlord shall determine whether the actual costs exceed or fall short of the estimated costs.
The resident received details of the service charge deficit for the year 2022 to 2023 in September 2023 which showed a significant increase in cost for communal utilities and heating charges.
The resident has provided a timeline of her correspondence with the landlord. While this is useful to provide context to the matter, we rely on contemporaneous evidence to assess the landlord’s handling. For example, we need copies of emails, landlord logs, and letters to assert what has happened.
The landlord wrote to the resident on an unknown date to explain the difference between the estimated and actual service charges. It provided actual consumption figures for electricity and gas and the estimated figures to demonstrate the difference. This letter is undated which means it is not possible to ascertain whether the landlord provided this information within a reasonable timeframe after the resident was alerted to the deficit.
The landlord outlined that the deficit for heating costs was based on actual meter readings rather than estimated costs. It explained that energy prices had risen and that the deficit was payable by the resident and others in the block. It provided this information 15 working days after the resident had requested it, which was a reasonable timeframe. In line with the lease, the landlord is entitled to collect the deficit from the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord phoned the resident on 19 January 2024, and the resident asked for a breakdown of the service charges and details of why the deficit for heating costs was so high. While the landlord did provide more information in its complaint response, it only provided information the resident had already received which was not appropriate. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord for this information. In its final complaint response it attributed this to a printing error and provided the further information that the resident had asked for. It also offered £150 compensation for the distress caused and for not providing this information at the earliest opportunity, which was a reasonable response.
Overall, the landlord clearly outlined what the increase was for and provided a breakdown of costs for the resident. There was a delay in the resident receiving this breakdown, but the landlord apologised for its error and offered compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer of compensation was a reasonable offer of redress for the failure identified and in line with our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact on the resident.
A finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £150 offered is paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Communal cleaning and maintenance.

The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the communal areas. As part of her complaint, the resident stated that the communal cleaning and maintenance in the block was poor. The resident paid for communal cleaning and maintenance as part of her service charge.
In the landlord’s complaint response it acknowledged that communal cleaning had not been completed on several occasions. It attributed this to staff absences and explained it would only charge the resident for the cleaning that actually took place. It also explained it would not charge the resident for grass cutting and scheduled winter works, because it could not evidence this had taken place. This meant the resident was reimbursed £259.33. This was an appropriate and reasonable response because it meant the resident only paid for the service provided. The landlord also offered £125 compensation to reflect the error it had made by charging the resident for services that were not completed.
Part of the communal area appears to have been dug up by a third party utilities company. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising that the resident was not given notice of this and asking the utilities company to repair the grassed area. It is unclear if this was completed before the resident left the property. There is no evidence to suggest that any detriment was caused by the grass being dug up.
Following the landlord’s final complaint response, we can see that it raised works for the communal spaces. This included removing moss from the brickwork, cleaning the guttering, and repairing the bin storage room roof. It is unclear if or when this work took place. The resident no longer lives in the property so it is not possible for us to act further on this element of the complaint.
The landlord’s adjustment of the service charge and offer of compensation was a reasonable offer of redress to the issues the resident raised and is in line with our remedies guidance. A finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £125 offered and the service charge reimbursement of £259.33 is paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint process at the time of the resident’s complaint had 3 steps. At stage 1, the landlord would contact the resident to attempt to resolve the matter immediately. Stage 2 involved a review of the complaint usually within 10 working days but no more than 20 working days, stage 3 was an executive review within 20 working days.
When the resident raised her complaint on 27 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged it as a stage 2 complaint. It is unclear why the landlord appears to have missed stage 1 of its process.
On at least 6 occasions the landlord wrote to the resident to extend its timeframe for a stage 2 response. While it was appropriate that the landlord kept the resident informed, it did not always explain the reasons for the extension in order to assure the resident it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord took 51 days to respond to the resident’s complaint which is outside of its advertised timeframes.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised and apologised for the delay in responding. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the delay, this was an appropriate response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 February 2024 and the landlord took 22 working days to respond. This was 2 days outside of its advertised timeframe. To reflect the delay, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation.
While the landlord failed to provide its responses on time in line with its process, we consider that the compensation offer is a reasonable redress because it is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount offered falls in line with what we would award in the circumstances and is reflective of our remedies guidance.
The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communal cleaning and maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident its previous compensation offer, if it has not already done so. The offer comprised of:
1. £576 for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the boiler.
2. £150 for its handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge.
3. £125 compensation and the service charge reimbursement of £259.33 for its handling of the communal cleaning and maintenance.
4. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.