From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202400610)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400610

GreenSquareAccord Limited

30 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 response to the resident’s reports of repairs including damp and mould, defective windows, and blocked guttering.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bed property and has lived there since 1996. The property is a grade two listed building. The resident has some health conditions including a lung condition.
  2. Between 2019 and 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her property to the landlord. The landlord undertook some repairs, but they did not resolve the damp. During 2020 and 2021 the landlord arranged for surveyors to inspect the property, however some of the appointments did not go ahead because of problems with access.
  3. In 2022, the resident instructed solicitors about a disrepair claim. As part of the pre-action protocol for disrepair, the parties’ surveyors attended the property in June 2022 and the resident’s surveyor prepared a report which outlined that there was damp and mould in the hallway, downstairs bathroom and bedrooms, and damp in the lounge and kitchen. It also said that there was blocked guttering, which could be contributing to the damp conditions in the property, particularly the bedroom, as blocked guttering caused rainwater to run down the walls of the property.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor responded to say that the resident had made unauthorised alterations to the property which included some replastering works, alterations to the kitchen units and the formation of a large patio area to the garden. They surmised that this could have contributed to the property condition. Since May 2023, the disrepair claim has not been progressed.
  5. In June 2023, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord to ask that it undertake repairs in the property. They also referred to the resident’s personal belongings that she had said had been damaged by the damp and mould. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property that month but, following an inspection, decided that it needed a specialist to inspect. However, the specialist was not able to arrange an appointment with the resident, and further attempts by the landlord to access the property were unsuccessful.
  6. It was not until 13 December 2023 that a surveyor was able to access the property. Following the inspection, they reported that there was damp and mould throughout the property and recorded high moisture readings. They said that the external walls were in a poor state of repair. They recommended that the landlord make the necessary contact with the local authority about the unauthorised works so that it could obtain the necessary permissions for works to proceed. The landlord did not take further action until March 2024 when it tried to arrange a further surveyor’s appointment, but the resident declined this.
  7. The resident made a complaint on 7 June 2024. She said that:
    1. There was damp in her home that was getting worse.
    2. Her windows were dilapidated and in need of repair or replacement.
    3. Blocked guttering was contributing to the damp.
    4. She felt that the situation was affecting her mental and physical health, and the damp and mould had damaged her belongings.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 1 July 2024. The resident chased this on 1 and 3 July but received no response. On 11 July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that the complaint had been reallocated to another staff member, and it would respond by 17 July 2024.
  9. On 17 July 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
    1. It had an open disrepair case brought by the resident’s solicitors and would keep her updated about the progress.
    2. It had repainted the resident’s windows on 9 October 2023.
    3. The landlord said that it attended to clear guttering on 4 January 2022 and on 10 February 2022.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered the resident £500 in compensation which included £200 for the length of time this had been ongoing, £200 for time and trouble involved in the number of surveyor visits and £100 in the delay in responding to the complaint.
  10. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day as she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed the works. The landlord acknowledged the request on 15 August 2024 and said that it would provide a response by 13 September 2024. On 3 September 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it could not uphold the points raised in her escalation request, as the disrepair team were dealing with the outstanding repairs to her home.

Post complaint

  1. The landlord adjusted the resident’s window and fittings and repainted the resident’s windows on 29 October 2024. It cleared the resident’s guttering on 9 October 2024. It did not arrange a follow up appointment for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould.
  2. Following recent contact from this Service, the landlord has undertaken a damp and mould survey which has found that the property requires extensive works and recommended that the resident be moved to temporary accommodation while contractors completed the works.
  3. The landlord’s surveyor also inspected the windows and doors in April 2025 and confirmed that 2 windows could not be opened, and the rest were very loose in the framework. They noted that this could be contributing to the damp and mould. They also said that the doors were rotten and warped, and very draughty and raised orders to replace them all.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident says that she has been reporting damp and mould problems to the landlord since 2015. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate complaints that a resident has not raised with the landlord within 12 months of the issue arising. This is because when a significant period has passed, it is difficult for the landlord and this Service to thoroughly investigate the issues raised. For this reason, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from June 2023 onwards. Any reference in this to the events that occurred prior to 2023 is to provide context only.
  2. The resident has referred to how her living conditions have affected her health and wellbeing. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any health issues. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered her vulnerabilities.
  3. Prior to this investigation, the Ombudsman had published a special report in relation to the landlord, under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 30 complaints decided by the Ombudsman between August 2023 and February 2024, to see if whether they highlighted any systemic issues that went beyond the circumstances of those individual cases. It found common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
  4. Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as that investigation, and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case. While we have referred to these findings in this report, the Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate those included in the Ombudsman’s special report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs

Damp and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises which includes drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, walls, doors windowsills and frames, internal walls, and chimneys.
  2. Social Landlords must ensure that their homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Standard says that landlords must ensure that their properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould and excess cold are listed as potential hazards.
  3. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy (Nov 2023) says that the landlord commits to providing and maintaining dry and healthy homes for residents. In doing so it will undertake effective inspections and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp.
  4. Its responsive repairs policy says that it will attend to urgent repairs in 7 days and routine repairs in 28 days. Planned repairs that fall outside of the usual time/cost scope of responsive repairs. After the MP reported the ongoing problems with damp and mould in the property in June 2023, the landlord took proper steps to arrange an inspection within its target response timescales. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a specialist to undertake a full inspection, given the age of the property. However, there have been significant delays in the landlord completing inspections and raising works, which are considered below.
  5. Throughout the period of the complaint, there have been problems with the landlord accessing the property. Between June 2023 and December 2023, the landlord arranged 4 surveyor’s inspections but only 1 went ahead on 30 June, because the resident did not allow access on the other dates. Another inspection went ahead in December 2023, but the landlord did not raise works following the inspection, and the resident did not allow access for inspections in March 2024 and June 2024.
  6. It is a term of the resident’s tenancy agreement that she must allow access to the landlord, its officers, or contractors for works on 24 hours’ notice. Delays caused by problems with access are generally outside of the landlord’s control.
  7. However, in this case there was a pattern of the landlord arranging repeat surveyors’ appointments but without arranging follow up works. On the occasions when the landlord did access the property, there were delays in it raising works following the inspection. When the resident reported the issue again, the landlord felt it necessary to arrange a further inspection. This clearly caused the resident frustration as the works were not progressed, despite a number of inspections.
  8. From the information provided to this Service, the landlord did not always clearly record the outcomes of inspections and recommendations for work. Over the period of the complaint, there were several staff changes in the surveying team. This coupled with the lack of available records meant that it did not give a clear picture of the works it needed to do and the steps to take to progress the works. This was unsatisfactory and created confusion for both resident and landlord.
  9. This reflected the themes of the Ombudsman’s ‘Special Report’ which described how the landlord “lacked a firm grasp on its record-keeping, leading it to send surveyors and contractors to assess jobs multiple times in order to know what actions to take next.” The special report also recorded that resident’s waited for extended periods between surveys and works being booked, which had led to further disrepair and work being duplicated. On at least one occasion, the landlord did not notify the resident of the inspection in advance, which was unreasonable.
  10. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) found that poor record-keeping was a key factor in service delivery failings, particularly with repairs. We encourage landlords to incorporate the recommendations from our spotlight reports when reviewing their policies and procedures.
  11. Given the ongoing reports about the condition of the property, where access had stalled, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have looked to work with the resident to clearly explain the next steps and why they were necessary, and to take legal advice where issues with access continued. A lack of communication with residents was a key theme within the Ombudsman’s special report. It found that the landlord did not place emphasis on providing updates during the repair process, leaving residents feeling ignored and unsure of what was happening with their home.
  12. Our Spotlight report on Attitudes (January 2024) outlines that that landlords should take steps to repair relationships that have broken down by improving communication with residents. In this instance, the landlord could have taken steps to provide reassurance to the resident that it was committed to addressing the conditions in the property.
  13. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the repairs to the property were complex, given its listed status coupled with the age and condition of the property. The landlord raised concerns that the resident had undertaken her own alterations to the property, for which she had not obtained the necessary permissions. It is a term of the resident’s tenancy agreement that she must obtain the landlord’s written permission for any alterations to the property, and all other necessary approvals such as planning permission and building regulations.
  14. Listed building consent (LBC) is needed for all works of demolition, alteration or extension to a listed building that affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. The landlord would have to liaise with the local authority to navigate the planning implications of the unauthorised alterations, prior to starting the works. Typically, listing buildings consent can take up to 12 weeks to obtain.
  15. The resident’s alterations to the property were likely to have caused challenges for the landlord in terms of raising works to resolve the damp and mould, particularly given the need for LBC. However, while the process of obtaining LBC was likely to be lengthy and complex, the landlord still needed to do this.
  16. The landlord must remove identified hazards in the resident’s home, not least for the resident but also to protect and maintain its housing stock. Its alterations policy outlines that, where there is a health and safety risk to an occupier, it can undertake the works to put right any alterations made by the resident and recharge any cost to them. If the costs of repairs were too high, it could have considered the property for disposal and rehoused the resident permanently. It did not take the necessary steps to progress the works, and instead deferred the decision-making, which was a failing.
  17. The landlord’s position, outlined in its complaint responses, was that there was an ongoing disrepair claim, and the landlord’s disrepair team would be arranging the works. Our guidance on pre-action protocol actions and disrepair claims says that when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from either its internal complaints procedure or the repair issue itself. It must inspect the property and raise repairs as soon as possible. Its disrepair team did not raise the damp works at this time, and the property was not inspected until 6 months later, which was unreasonable.
  18. There were other failings found during this investigation. There is no evidence that the landlord made adequate enquiries about the resident’s health condition to undertake a risk assessment. In doing so, it did not follow its own damp and mould and decant policies as this information would have informed whether the resident needed to move to temporary accommodation when this would need to happen and what type of accommodation this should be.
  19. Further, the landlord did not follow its own damp, mould and compensation policy which says that “Where extensive works may be required, we will consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move customers out of their home at an early stage.”
  20. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and an effective resolution. The evidence does not show that the landlord took this approach, and its deferment of the required works had a significant impact on the resident, as she remained living in a property with damp and mould for a further 2 years.

Windows

  1. The resident reported problems with the windows to the landlord as early as 2019. It is clear from the evidence seen that the resident wanted the landlord to replace the windows. Social landlords have limited resources and need to ensure best use of these. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs to the windows as part of its responsive repairs service and to plan to carry out window replacements and painting under its planned works programme. The landlord completed repairs to the windows in 2021 and 2022.
  2. However, the resident continued to raise that the windows were rotten, draughty and did not close properly which she said presented a security risk. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to review the condition of the windows to decide whether it could repair them or if it needed to replace them outside of its planned programme. The landlord recorded a follow-on surveyor’s appointment in June 2024 as ‘no access’ as the resident said that she was not aware of the appointment. The landlord did not reschedule this appointment, which was a failing.
  3. The resident raised again in August 2024 that the windows could not open and were draughty. The landlord painted and adjusted the windows and fittings in October 2024, which may have helped mitigate some of the reported issues, however it did not raise works to replace the windows at this time. Following an inspection in April 2025, the landlord has since raised works to renew the ill-fitting and rotten windows.
  4. As highlighted earlier in the report, despite the issues with access to the property, the landlord could have taken further steps to support the resident to enable it to progress the necessary works. Once again, as the property is listed, this may have required the landlord to obtain the necessary permissions, which could take weeks or months. Therefore, it would have been prudent for the landlord to consider prioritising these works given the impact on the resident over the winter months. It did not do so, which was unreasonable.

Guttering

  1. The landlord’s records show that when the resident had reported blocked guttering in 2021, the landlord attended to clear the guttering on 2 occasions in January 2022 and February 2022. The solicitor’s surveyor’s report dated June 2022 recorded that guttering in the property was blocked by moss and was in a poor state.
  2. The resident raised this again in her correspondence and her later complaint of June 2024. There are no records provided to show that the landlord had taken steps to clear the gutters between June 2022 and August 2024, when it raised works which it recorded as completed in October 2024. This was a considerable delay and in the absence of an explanation, this Service finds this to be unreasonable, particularly as overflowing guttering had been highlighted in the expert’s report as being a potential cause of damp in the resident’s bedroom.

Summary

  1. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays and for the number of appointments. It offered £400 in compensation for this. It said that its disrepair team who would contact her to progress any necessary inspections and repairs. This did not happen, and it was not until 7 months after the stage 2 response that the landlord reinspected the property and raised works.
  2. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer of £400 to have been proportionate to the detriment and disruption experienced by the resident over a long period of time. The resident has said that she had to sleep on her bedroom floor on a mattress, because her bed was damaged by damp and mould. Her kitchen cupboards became rotten due to the damp conditions, and there was an unpleasant damp smell throughout the property. She spent time cleaning mould from walls and windows. She said that the windows were very draughty and did not close properly which presented a security risk.
  3. The resident has also reported that she has been in poor health during this period with a lung condition. She has spent time and effort in following this up with the landlord, involving solicitors, her MP and raising complaints without the repairs being progressed satisfactorily. The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was maladministration and has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident further compensation to put things right.
  4. In assessing the level of compensation, the Ombudsman has considered mitigating factors, including the resident’s unauthorised alterations to the property and problems with access to the property leading to further delays. However, even considering mitigating factors, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s overall approach to the works was unsatisfactory, because of the impact on the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay a further amount of £1417 to the resident in compensation. This includes:
    1. Loss of amenity based on 20% of the rent for the period June 2023 to April 2025, which has been reduced to 10% of the rent to take into account mitigating factors such as the ongoing access issues. This amounts to £1017.
    2. An additional £400 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble because of the landlord’s failings. This award is within the range of financial redress in our remedies guidance for a service failure that has had a significant impact on the resident and takes into consideration the added impact on the resident because of her health needs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgment and will seek the agreement of the resident if it needs to extend the response deadline for any reasons. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of a resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated.
  2.  The resident’s MP complained to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 27 June 2023 about damp and mould. The landlord has said in correspondence with this Service that it did not treat MP enquiries as a complaint. However, at the time the landlord told the MP that it would investigate and responded to them in line with its complaints procedure. Further, its complaints procedure does not differentiate between a MP enquiry and a complaint. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time, which was unreasonable.
  3. The resident made a new complaint 12 months later. The landlord told her that she would receive a response on 1 July, but despite chasing this on 1 and 3 July the resident received no response. On 11 July 2024, the complaint handler informed the resident that the case would be reallocated as they were moving to another job. The response was issued 16 days later. The response was issued 26 days outside of its published response timescales and it did not seek the agreement of the resident to extend the deadline, which was a failing. It also issued its stage 2 response 14 days outside of its published response timescales, which was unsatisfactory.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these delays and offered an apology and compensation to the resident. The compensation of £100 was within the range of remedies in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure that had an impact on the resident. Therefore, for this reason, the Ombudsman considers that the redress offered by the landlord for its complaints handling was reasonable and satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs, including damp and mould, defective windows, and guttering.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling, it has made an offer of redress prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Arrange for a senior officer to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay compensation of £1817 to the resident which includes:
      1. £400 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s delays and poor communication regarding the repairs to her home.
      2. £400 it had previously offered to the resident if it has not paid this already.
      3. £1017 for loss of amenity at 10% of the rent June 2023 to April 2025.
    3. Confirm with this Service once it has paid the compensation to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident to provide details of its insurers so that she can consider making a claim for damage to her personal belongings caused by the damp conditions in the property and confirm with this Service once it has done this.
  2. Within 5 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of works to fully resolve any damp issues in the property following its recent inspections, including estimated timescales for completion.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the amount of £100 it had offered her in compensation for its complaint handling failings at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.