GreenSquareAccord Limited (202341615)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor maisonette with a shared roof and loft space. In January 2023, the resident reported a roof leak affecting several areas of her property. She also reported pests in the loft space and a faulty communal access gate. The landlord completed all works by February 2025. The resident is still unhappy with the delays and lack of communication from the landlord throughout. She also made two more complaints about the same works; however, as these were not escalated through the internal complaints process, we will not investigate them. Any references to these complaints are for context only.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak which caused damp and mould, pests and a communal gate malfunction.
3. We have also investigated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak which caused damp and mould, pests and a communal gate malfunction.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any of the repairs within its published timescales. All repairs fell considerably outside the broadest timescale of 84 days, with the insulation replacement taking over 2 years. There is also no evidence that the landlord ever completed the soffit and fascia repairs. Recordkeeping and communication issues throughout the period investigated led to confusion for contractors and missed or incorrect appointments. This increased the inconvenience and frustration for the resident. The landlord offered compensation, but it did not reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, time or trouble for the resident.
7. The complaint policy was drawn-out, and it did not always meet its timescales for responses. However, it has since improved its policy, and it compensated the resident fairly for its failures.

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.

8. The landlord’s repair policy says that it handles maintenance of the structure, exterior, essential services, and communal areas in its properties. It will attend urgent repairs within 7 days, routine repairs within 28 days and planned routine repairs within 84 days.
9. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any repairs within these timescales. All repairs were significantly delayed beyond the longest timescale of 84 days, with the insulation replacement taking more than 2 years. There is also no evidence that the soffit and fascia repair has been completed.
10. The landlord attempted to carry out a mould wash in October 2023, but the appointment was rescheduled several times. On at least one occasion, the resident cancelled because she believed the mould wash would not be effective until the roof leak was repaired. It is unclear why the landlord did not proceed with the other appointments.
11. On 14 December 2023 the landlord’s records show that a contractor attended to the communal gate and found it was a more complex issue than previously thought. The landlord told the resident that this would cause a delay with works, which is positive as it demonstrates a more proactive approach to communication.
12. The landlord told the resident it would inspect the loft insulation and check for pests on 18 March 2024. However, when the contractor attended, they said they were only there for damp and mould. When the resident raised this, the landlord apologised and said there had been a miscommunication. It repaired the roof leak on 28 March 2024 by replacing tiles.
13. The landlord attended the property twice to manage pests, with the first visit on 12 April 2024. It found a light infestation during the first visit, and records show the issue was resolved by the third visit.
14. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it paid the compensation to the resident’s rent account. However, it did not always do this in a reasonable time, and the resident had to chase the landlord.
15. The resident made two further complaints on 24 June and 18 July 2024, saying the soffits and fascia, insulation, and communal gate issues had not been fully resolved. On 15 November 2024, the landlord found squirrels had entered the loft through holes that had not been filled. Its records show it filled the holes the same day to prevent further infestation.
16. The landlord replaced the loft insulation on 11 February 2025, more than 2 years after the resident reported the problem. It is unclear when, or if, the landlord replaced the fascias and soffits. The landlord said it raised a major works request to repair the entire block, but we have not seen evidence that this was booked.
17. Throughout the period investigated, the resident expressed on multiple occasions that she had lost faith in the landlord. And said this was due to the lack of communication, and confusing information given regarding repairs. In March 2024 she told it that she did not believe it would get the work done correctly or within a reasonable time. She was particularly concerned about the pests as she told the landlord she could hear squirrels and rats running around the loft. While the landlord promised to resolve the issue, it did not so do within a reasonable timescale and this led to considerable frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
18. In total, the landlord offered £1,250 compensation for repair failures, communication issues, and delays. This was consistent with its policy and our remedies guidance. However, there is no evidence that the soffit and fascia repairs have been completed or scheduled.
19. The landlord apologised and committed to improving its service, however there were more errors after that date which included:
    1. Attending the property without any warning to the resident on 2 occasions.
    2. Not raising a job to replace loft insulation.
20. For the reasons above, we cannot consider that the offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress and have found maladministration.

21. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its current complaints policy.
22. At the time of the complaint, it had a 3-stage complaint policy. As it has since moved to a 2-stage policy which is compliant with the Code, we will not be making any orders or recommendations to review its current policy.
23. There is no record of a stage 1 response following the resident’s complaint. It is not clear whether this is due to poor record keeping issue or a process failure. We will ask the landlord to review the case and consider what improvements it can make.
24. The landlord acknowledged that it did not always send its complaint responses on time and offered £100 compensation for a delayed stage 2 response. This was consistent with its policy and proportionate to the length of the delay.
25. The landlord gave detailed complaint responses and clearly said how it planned to resolve the complaint. There is evidence that the complaint handlers chased repairs teams for updates on works regularly.
26. While there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and its complaints policy was drawn-out, it apologised and offered proportionate compensation and has since made positive changes to its policy. We have therefore found that there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The record keeping in this case was poor and led to delays and frustration for the resident. The landlord’s repair records were not clear, and it sent contractors to incorrect addresses with incorrect job descriptions. There were also occasions where the landlord said it had no record of jobs being raised, such as the request for new loft insulation.

Communication

28. Communication was inconsistent throughout the period investigated. The landlord was often reactive and gave updates to the resident only once she had called for updates. Positively, however, there is evidence that several staff members were proactively providing updates, taking accountability for errors and delays, and acknowledged the distress experienced by the resident.