GreenSquareAccord Limited (202404691)

Decision
Case ID	202404691
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her family. Her complaint largely relates to intrusive noise from a neighbour’s home. The neighbour lives in a flat above the property. The resident’s husband is acting as her representative. For readability, this report has referred to the resident and her husband as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Concerns about communal repair issues.
   3. Request for a new kitchen.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about ASB.
   2. Concerns about communal repair issues.
   3. Request for a new kitchen.
5. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. There is no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for ASB handling failures during the relevant complaint journey.
   2. The landlord responded appropriately to the repair reports that it received.
   3. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord gave the resident conflicting information about a new kitchen.
   4. The landlord took reasonable steps to address its complaint handling delays and 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord updates the resident about its position in relation to any ongoing noise or ASB issues. If it has not done so already, it could provide her with information about ways to move home.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had complained about the neighbour’s noise for years, but nothing had been done. She said a surveyor previously investigated the noise transfer, but the landlord had declined to provide a copy of their report. Her other key points were: The block’s intercom system had been faulty for years. A communal door in the garden was broken. The landlord should replace the property’s dated kitchen.
29 January 2024	The landlord issued a response to the resident’s complaint. In it, the landlord referred to a previous complaint response. It did not uphold any aspects of the resident’s core complaint. However, it did award her £250 for a complaint handling delay. The landlord’s other key points were:   It had fully investigated the resident’s ASB concerns previously It had arranged several repairs to the block’s intercom. It had not received any recent reports about the garden door. There was no evidence it had previously discussed the kitchen with the resident. The kitchen was due to be replaced in a major works programme.
26 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. Her request focused on the property’s kitchen. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that she had not highlighted its condition previously. She felt the landlord should send a surveyor to inspect it. Her other key points were:   The property’s kitchen door was in poor condition. She urgently needed a replacement kitchen. The landlord had previously deemed that the property met legal requirements in terms of sound proofing. It should provide a copy of its corresponding survey report.
26 March 2024	The landlord issued a final response to the resident. It noted the resident had raised new issues in her escalation request. It did not change its previous complaint outcome. It did award the resident another £50 in compensation for a complaint handling delay. Its other key points were:   It had recently inspected the kitchen and repairs were pending. It was unable to provide a more specific timescale for a new kitchen. It did not have a record of the surveyor’s noise related findings. It had not received any actionable evidence of noise recently. It had completed repairs to the intercom and garden door.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In 2024 the resident told us that some of the family slept in the living room due to the noise. She also said they did not invite guests due to the condition of the kitchen. She felt the landlord should install a new kitchen and a suspended ceiling to reduce noise transfer. In November 2025, she said she had received a new kitchen but the noise issues were ongoing.

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.

Complaint	Response to concerns about ASB
Finding	No maladministration

7. In October 2022 we published a report about noise complaints. It says landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards that were applicable at the time of building. This is consistent with the government’s building regulations. However, we encourage landlords to take reasonable steps to mitigate sources of noise nuisance.
8. In October 2023 the landlord responded to a previous complaint from the resident. It said the property was in a converted Victorian house. It also said its surveyor had previously confirmed that sound proofing could not be carried out due to the age of the building and its timber flooring. This shows the landlord had explored mitigation options in line with good practice.
9. In the same response, the landlord said it had handled the resident’s ASB case in line with its relevant policy. It referenced previous warnings it had issued to the neighbour. It also confirmed the resident was using a noise monitoring app. It said that, based on her recordings, it lacked sufficient evidence to support further action against the neighbour. The landlord said the resident could escalate her complaint if she was still unhappy.
10. There is no indication the resident asked the landlord to escalate her previous complaint. Unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, we can only investigate matters that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. In this case, we have not seen evidence of a related failure. As a result, our investigation focused on the resident’s subsequent complaint and the landlord’s response to it.
11. In her related complaint to the landlord, the resident repeatedly asked for a copy of its surveyor’s previous findings. Ultimately, the landlord said it was unable to find a record of these. For clarity, it was not obliged to arrange a comprehensive survey report or share this with the resident. The landlord did reiterate its previous information about the age and construction of the building. It said these factors were a barrier to sound proofing works. This information was relevant. It is reasonable to conclude that it came from the surveyor.
12. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had recently reported ongoing noise from the neighbour. It noted that it had previously offered her mediation (to try and de-escalate the dispute between the parties). It reiterated that mediation was still available at the resident’s request. This was a reasonable step in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The policy says mediation can be effective in resolving neighbour disputes.
13. Similarly, the landlord noted that it had recently signposted the resident to the local council’s environmental health team (EH). Records show it did this on 2 November 2023 because it was “unable to hear anything” in her recordings. At this point, it said EH had specialist equipment that may help the resident to evidence the noise. The landlord’s policy says it may need to work with other agencies to help manage and address ASB.
14. Ultimately, the above shows the landlord checked whether it had signposted the resident to relevant third-party agencies in line with its ASB policy. This was a reasonable approach.
15. In its final response, the landlord told the resident it would arrange for a relevant member of staff to contact her about the ongoing noise. The landlord contacted the resident 2 days later. At this point, she confirmed that she had contacted EH and did not want mediation. In November 2025, the resident told us she had been unable to resolve matters through EH. She felt the landlord should complete works to reduce the noise.
16. Overall, the landlord supplied relevant information in its complaint responses. There is no indication it overlooked any reasonable steps that may have helped to mitigate the noise. During the relevant complaint journey, there is no evidence to show it was responsible for any ASB handling failures which adversely impacted the resident. As a result, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	Response to concerns about communal repair issues
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord’s repairs policy shows it prioritises repairs based on the level of risk. It says the landlord should complete standard repairs within 28 days. It will complete planned repairs within 84 days. These are more complex works that require additional planning. Legally, a landlord is only responsible for repairs when it is notified about an issue.
18. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said the building’s entry/intercom system had been defective for years. She also said this was inconvenient as she often opened the main door for visitors. Similarly, she said she had reported that a door to the shared garden needed to be replaced because it was in poor condition and the lock was broken.
19. From the evidence provided, there is no indication the landlord should have reasonably been on notice about these issues before the resident complained on 3 November 2023. In other words, there is a lack of evidence to show the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord had not adhered to its repair policy or obligations previously.
20. In its complaint responses, the landlord said the following about the intercom:
    1. Its local representative notified it about a repair issue on 14 November 2023.
    2. It repaired the intercom on 12 December 2023 (28 days later) and left it in working order.
    3. It received another repair report on 10 January 2024.
    4. It assessed the intercom 5 days later.
    5. It found that a planned repair was required because parts needed to be ordered.
    6. It completed the planned repair on 6 March 2024 (this was 56 days after it had received a further report).
21. The resident has not disputed this version of events and we have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord responded to the reports it received in line with its relevant policy timescales. This was appropriate.
22. In relation to the garden door, the landlord said it had raised a corresponding repair order during its investigation into the resident’s initial complaint. Repair records show it completed a repair on 2 February 2024. The notes said it had adjusted the door’s hinges and fittings. Based on the period between 29 January and 2 February 2024, the landlord responded in line with its relevant timescale.
23. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the repair reports it received. There is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was adversely impacted because it had not complied with its repair obligations previously. As a result, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	Response to request for a new kitchen
Finding	No maladministration

24. The resident’s tenancy agreement details the landlord’s repair obligations. It says the landlord is obliged to keep the property’s installations in good repair and proper working order. It does not include any provisions about periodic improvements to these. In other words, the landlord is not obliged to replace the kitchen within a certain timeframe.
25. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said it had previously told her that the kitchen needed to be replaced. We have not seen any other evidence to support this assertion. We have seen the landlord’s findings from an inspection in March 2024. Its surveyor did not say that the property’s kitchen was in poor condition or beyond repair. The landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s professional opinion.
26. The surveyor did recommend some repairs to the kitchen. These included a number of replacement drawer fronts and some draft strips for the door. Repair records show the landlord attempted to complete the repairs in line with its relevant timescale. Call records show the resident cancelled these in June 2024 because she wanted a new kitchen.
27. During its complaints process, the landlord told the resident that the kitchen was due to be upgraded as part of a major works programme in 2025. In November 2025, the resident told us that a new kitchen had been installed at the property. This shows the landlord gave the resident accurate information in its complaint responses.
28. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord gave her conflicting information about a replacement kitchen. Similarly, there is no indication that it was responsible for any other related failures. Given the above, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

29. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective October 2023) says it complies with the applicable Code. We have also seen its related complaints procedure and compensation policy. Its compensation policy does not include any guidance about proportionate award levels.
30. The Code says complaints must be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt at stage 1. A landlord should then issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days afterwards. At stage 2, landlords should issue a response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request. More investigation time is available at each stage as long as the resident is kept updated. The landlord’s documents contain similar provisions.
31. In this case, the resident complained on 3 November 2023. The landlord issued its initial response on 29 January 2024. This was around 58 working days later. It updated the resident during the interim period. However, it also missed 2 revised deadlines. For example, on 15 January 2024 it told the resident it would issue a response by 19 January 2024. It subsequently failed to do this. This may have been distressing for the resident.
32. Based on the period between 26 February and 26 March 2024, it took the landlord 21 working days to issue its final response. It updated the resident during the interim period. It also adhered to a revised deadline it had provided. This approach was consistent with its complaints process and the Code. That said, the landlord had departed from its stated response timescale (20 working days).
33. The landlord acknowledged the delays at each stage. In total, it awarded the resident £300 to address these. It also apologised. Given the overall duration of the delays and the adverse impact to the resident, this was a reasonable and proportionate approach. The landlord’s calculation was also consistent with our own guidance on remedies. We have seen evidence that shows it has already made the related payments to the resident.
34. Overall, the landlord considered its own complaint handling at each stage. Having done so, it took reasonable steps to address the procedural delays and failures it identified. This was appropriate complaint handling. There is no indication it has overlooked any additional failures which adversely impacted the resident. As a result, we find there was reasonable redress by the landlord. In other words, it did enough to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord was unable to locate a historical inspection record. The landlord could remind its staff about the importance of recording key actions in its relevant systems.

Communication

36. Our investigation did not highlight any issues with the landlord’s communication.