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 (202405381)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405381

GreenSquareAccord Limited

19 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his personal data.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. Between 20 November 2023 and 26 February 2024, the resident made multiple reports of noise disturbance from a neighbouring flat. Reports were made through his housing officer.
  3. The landlord sent 3 letters to the neighbour during this period notifying them of the noise report. On 20 March 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to say his noise case was being closed. It explained the steps it had taken and asked him to report back if the issue was not resolved.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 3 April 2024. He said the noise was still a problem and that the landlord was not doing anything about it.
  5. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024. It said it was not upholding the complaint as it had dealt with the noise reports in line with its policies. It encouraged the resident to use the noise app for future reports. It said it would speak to his support worker to explore more support for him.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2024. He said the landlord had not been factually accurate in its response and the issue was not resolved. He said his medical data had been misused and asked for it to be removed from all records.
  7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. It said it had followed its processes correctly and it was not upholding the complaint. It found no misuse of his data and had removed all record of his health conditions from its records.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to the Service on 9 May 2024. He said the noise disturbances were ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident raised concerns about how his personal data was used. It is not the role of this Service to determine whether or not there has been misuse of his data. Our role is to investigate how the landlord responded when he raised his concerns. If the resident feels there has been a breach of any data protection legislation, he would need to bring his concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise

  1. In the landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Procedure it says it will:
    1. take timely, proportionate action to address antisocial behaviour
    2. agree an action plan with the resident when they receive a report
    3. complete a risk assessment of the reported behaviour
    4. conduct complaint monitoring calls every 10 working days
  2. In the landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy it says it will:
    1. make sure staff are properly trained in its procedures
    2. take a victim-centred approach and offer support throughout its investigations
    3. provide a number of methods for reporting concerns including by telephone, in person, on its website and through its reporting app
  3. The resident reported loud music in the middle of the night from a neighbouring flat on 20 November 2023. He sent a recording of the noise with the report and said it was happening most evenings. The landlord spoke to the resident to confirm which flat the noise was coming from and arranged to visit the resident to discuss support options. This was appropriate and showed that it intended to act in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 November 2023 to complete a risk assessment. This was appropriate and showed that it understood the importance of identifying the potential impact on the resident early in the process. It acknowledged it failed to complete a no harm assessment prior to the risk assessment as its procedure says it will. However, there was no detriment to the resident as a result since the risk assessment was completed immediately. The assessment identified a medium risk.
  5. The landlord visited the resident on 8 December 2023 to discuss his support needs. Given that it had identified a risk, it could have visited sooner. Furthermore, it failed to produce a clear plan of action during this visit as its policy says it will. This meant the resident was not given a clear understanding of how the issue would be dealt with. It has since acknowledged this failing and says training has been given to its staff, which is appropriate.
  6. Following the initial report of noise, the resident made multiple further reports to the landlord between 13 December 2023 and 26 February 2024. These included more recordings of the alleged noise. During this period, the landlord contacted the neighbour in writing 3 times which was appropriate and in line with its policy.
  7. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident regularly during this period to give him updates as its policy says it will. It could have spoken to him after each attempted contact with the neighbour to explain what it had done and what would happen next. The resident initiated most calls to the landlord and faced time and trouble as a result of irregular communication.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2023 to say that it was closing the case. It said it had taken actions to resolve the issue including interviewing the neighbour and keeping in regular contact with the resident. It said it would reopen the case if the problem continued.
  9. The resident made a formal complaint on 3 April 2024. He said he continued to suffer with noise issues from the neighbouring flat. He said that despite providing recordings of the noise, nothing was being done by the landlord.
  10. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024. It said:
    1. it was sorry that he was having issues with noise
    2. it had spoken to the neighbour following each report of noise who said they were not in the property for 2 of the alleged reports
    3. it had received a faint recording over WhatsApp and had advised the resident to use its own noise app for future recordings
    4. he had refused to use the noise app as previous reports on the app had not changed anything
    5. it was not upholding the complaint as it had dealt with the noise reports in line with its policies
  11. The landlord failed to provide enough detail about the action it had taken in its response. It did not explain how it tried to address the noise concerns with the neighbour. There is no evidence of the options it considered or if it conducted an assessment of proportional interventions as its policy says it may. The resident was not given the reassurance that enough had been done to stop the noise.
  12. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to encourage the resident to use its noise app. However, it did not explain why this could have helped the investigation. This was not appropriate. Its policies say it will take reports from a variety of sources. It could have given a clear explanation for why the noise app was its preferred means of reporting instead of pointing out his choice to rely on WhatsApp.
  13. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2024. He said:
    1. the landlord had not been factually accurate in its response
    2. he was not unhappy with the landlord but his housing officer for not resolving the issue with noise
    3. he had sent multiple recordings to the landlord and that the housing officer asked him to use WhatsApp to record noise
    4. he accepted there would always be some noise in communal flats and that the landlord had taken steps to try and have a conversation with his neighbour
  14. Evidence provided shows internal emails at the landlord from 8 May 2024. It noted that the Service had found previous failings in its record keeping. It was seeking evidence of compliance with its procedures before issuing its stage 2 response. It found that, due to issues with record keeping, it would be unable to provide clear evidence that it had followed its procedures. This lack of record keeping means the landlord has not been able to show what steps it took to resolve the resident’s concerns. It is important to keep robust records and log each action in a way that can be shared and accessed when needed.
  15. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024. It said:
    1. its housing officer responded to reports of noise appropriately
    2. it did not dispute that other noise recordings had been sent but that it was trying to encourage the resident to use its noise app for future reports
    3. it followed its antisocial behaviour process correctly
    4. it was not upholding the complaint
  16. The landlord’s response again failed to provide any detail about the steps it had taken to address the noise. It repeated that letters had been sent to the neighbour but said nothing about action it had considered or that it could take moving forwards. This was not appropriate and left the resident with no reassurance it had taken the issue seriously. He told us that this had impacted his trust in the landlord.
  17. The landlord again encouraged the resident to use the noise app. It said this was because it was designed for this purpose but gave no further explanation. It did not respond to him saying the housing officer had told him to use WhatsApp which was not appropriate. It could have explained it was trying to help him gather clearer evidence of the impact of the issue. The resident was given the impression that his evidence contributed little.
  18. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it had not followed its antisocial behaviour process correctly. Despite identifying poor record keeping, it said it was satisfied with its approach. This was not appropriate. It could have taken the opportunity to be transparent about its investigation. This could have helped repair the landlord-tenant relationship by showing the resident that his complaint was being investigated seriously.
  19. In summary, the landlord did some things well but could have gone further. It took initial steps to address the noise but could not provide evidence of a clear plan of action. Its record keeping was poor and it failed to maintain its timelines for contact with the resident. It failed to provide justification for using the noise app or support the resident with its use. It failed to show it understood the impact the noise was having on him despite completing a risk assessment. For the reasons outlined above, there has been a finding of maladministration.
  20. The landlord provided the Service with its reflections on the complaint after it was escalated to us. It identified many of the failings outlined in this report and set out the actions it had taken as a result. It said:
    1. it acknowledged errors in its record keeping
    2. its complaint responses lacked detail regarding the actions it had taken to address the noise issue
    3. it had failed to follow its processes correctly
    4. it was training all staff in the correct use of its system to ensure processes were followed
  21. We appreciate the consideration the landlord showed in its reflection on this case. It was appropriate to identify the ways in which it was seeking to improve its service. However, these steps do not lessen the impact of the issue on the resident. He experienced distress and inconvenience as he was not shown that his concerns were being properly investigated. He faced time and trouble in reporting without reliable communication from the landlord. As such, an award of compensation is considered appropriate.
  22. In considering compensation, an amount of £200 is reasonable in light of the impact the handling of the noise complaint had on the resident. This amount has been considered in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his personal data

  1. In the landlord’s Reasonable Adjustments Policy, it says:
    1. it will ask residents whether they have any specific needs, including those relating to health conditions, at the start of a tenancy
    2. it will use this information to meet those needs in its service delivery
  2. In the landlord’s Data Protection Policy, it says:
    1. it will be transparent about how it intends to use a resident’s data
    2. it will not use the data in a way that has adverse effects on the resident
    3. it will only process data in ways the resident would reasonably expect
    4. residents have the right to have their data erased from its records
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024, the landlord referred to its records of the resident’s health conditions. It said it was doing this to show it had considered his vulnerability in the investigation of his complaint. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. It showed that it was using the information for a reasonable purpose.
  4. The landlord also said it would contact the resident’s support worker to explore other options for support he could access. This was appropriate and showed that it was declaring how it was going to use his data, in line with policy.
  5. In his stage 2 complaint escalation on 20 April 2024, the resident raised concerns about how his data was being used. He said:
    1. the landlord had misused his data in its investigation into the noise and complaint
    2. his housing officer had responded to a report of noise by asking if he was being supported by mental health services
    3. this made him feel like his mental health was being questioned by the landlord
    4. he was withdrawing his consent to have his medical data stored, effective immediately
    5. he wanted the complaint to be judged on facts and evidence rather than his health
  6. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 9 May 2023. It said:
    1. it had planned to use the data to signpost the resident to support agencies if needed
    2. it found no evidence that it had misused his medical data and asked him to provide further evidence of this that it could investigate
    3. it had removed all record of his health conditions from its system as requested
    4. it apologised if it gave the impression the complaint relied on anything other than noise reports
  7. It was appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to act quickly in response to the resident’s complaint. It explained how it had planned on using the information as its policy says it will. It confirmed it had removed all reference to his health conditions from its records. It gave a reasonable warning that this may result in services being less tailored to any vulnerabilities in future.
  8. The landlord gave the resident the opportunity to provide further evidence of misuse that it could investigate. This was appropriate and showed that it took its obligations under data protection seriously. It also apologised if it had given the impression that it had used his data to influence its investigation. This was appropriate and showed that it understood the sensitivity of the issue.
  9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about data misuse was efficient and effective. It did not explain why he had been asked about access to mental health services in response to a noise report. However, this shortcoming is better reflected in the procedural failings identified in its investigation of the noise, rather than its data handling. For these reasons, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his personal data.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report
    2. paid compensation of £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of its handling of his reports of noise
    3. contacted the resident to discuss any ongoing noise concerns
      1. if required, it should set out any actions it will take in a plan along with a communication schedule
      2. it should give the resident a clear explanation of why use of the noise app is its preferred channel for reports