GreenSquareAccord Limited (202417676)

Background

1. In November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that he was disappointed with the quality and standard of a recent refurbishment to his wet room. The wet room flooded, it had not been decorated, and he had expected a new toilet and sink.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to a wet room following a refurbishment.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of repairs to a wet room following a refurbishment.
4. We found service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord took too long to complete the repairs required.
   2. There was extensive evidence from December 2023 to May 2024 of poor communication, confusion, and delays regarding the resident’s complaint.
   3. From May 2024 onwards, the landlord took a reasonable approach to the resident’s repairs following the resident’s complaint. It completed the repairs required, identified where it had made mistakes, apologised and offered compensation.
   4. The landlord identified some complaint handling failures, however it failed to also acknowledge the delay to the complaint response at stage 1.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

3. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about damp and mould. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.

What we did investigate

4. The resident reported to the landlord on 11 December 2023, 23 January, 26 January and 22 March 2024 that his shower did not drain sufficiently and was causing a flood. He also reported cracks on the walls and seals that had come away from the wall. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide a quality and efficient responsive repairs service. In this case, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s requests for repairs, this caused further disrepair and the resident frustration, time, and trouble.
5. The landlord completed an inspection on 17 April 2024 and while an inspection was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, it is noted that it was attended 89 working days after the resident’s initial report. The was over the landlord’s repairs target of 28 days, the landlord has provided no explanation for this delay, therefore this was unreasonable.
6. The resident phoned the landlord on 8, 9 and 10 May 2024, he said he had not heard anything since the inspection on 17 April 2024. There is no evidence that the resident received a response or that the landlord communicated further with him until the end of May 2024, prompted by the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Therefore, we can only conclude that no further action was taken after attending the inspection. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage further with the resident, understand his frustrations, and work towards a resolution.
7. The landlord instructed the repair works to start on 15 July 2024, and it expected the works to finish on 19 July 2024. The works included the installation of 1000×1000 tuff foam, installation of a new shower rail, a weighted curtain and cut back and renew flooring. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy gives a timeframe of 84-days for planned routine works. The landlord commenced the works within 62-working days after the inspection, this was appropriate and in line with its policy.
8. The resident said that the proposed works to the wet room were unlikely to be effective and resolve the problem. His concerns were understandable due to the resident’s previous experience with the wet room refurbishment. However, the landlord was entitled to rely upon the advice provided by its surveyor, as it was the qualified expert and it had no reason to dispute the advice provided. Nonetheless, it was right of the landlord to acknowledge the concerns within its stage 2 response and reassure the resident of its actions.
9. Within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the works should not impact the resident’s use of the property, however with the resident’s disabilities in mind, it offered the resident a temporary hotel stay. This demonstrated good practice of the landlord in understanding the resident’s vulnerabilities in line with its vulnerable customers policy.
10. The resident requested that the landlord replace the sink because of the difficulties it posed with his wheelchair. The landlord declined because the sink was fit for purpose, however it suggested that the resident request an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment to assess his need and recommended the relevant adaptations. The landlord demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to direct the resident to the appropriate resource to support him with his request.
11. The resident also asked the landlord to install shelving, box-in the exposed pipes, and decorate the wet-room. The landlord declined and stated that these were either the resident’s responsibility or in the case of boxing-in pipes not necessary. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility and that the resident also has the right to make internal improvements by adding to the fixtures and fittings. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests was appropriate.
12. On the 19 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that the repair works were completed, and the resident returned home. On 7 August 2024, the landlord phoned the resident to check that he was satisfied with the works completed, there was no response so a voicemail was left. It was right of the landlord to complete a final post check with the resident and showed a good level of customer service.
13. On the 23 December 2024 the resident told us that the wet room repair works had been completed to an acceptable standard, however on 28 November 2025, he said a that further drainage issue has occurred. With that in mind, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to complete an inspection.
14. The landlord admitted failings and offered £600 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
15. Overall, it is understandable that the resident felt frustrated and disappointed regarding the landlord’s 7 month delay to the wet room repairs considering the recent refurbishment. And in this case, we would have found maladministration but for the landlord’s response to the complaint from May 2024 onwards when it identified the complaint, understood a repair remained outstanding and prioritised it accordingly. Further, it identified where it made mistakes, apologised and offered compensation.
16. Considering the above, we find reasonable redress. A recommendation has been made to pay the compensation as offered within the stage 1 and 2 complaint response.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
18. The resident attempted to raise his stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2023, and chased the landlord for a response on 5, 10, 17 and 22 April 2024. It was not until 14 May 2024, that the landlord acknowledged it. The landlord said confusion arose because of a previous complaint. Nonetheless, the resident should not have had to raise his complaint on numerous occasions for his complaint to be acknowledged. This was unreasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 14 May 2024, and on 24 May 2024 it emailed him to request an extension of an additional 10 days due to the complexity of the case. It said the response would be provided on 12 June 2024. The landlord provided its response on 21 June 2024, this was 7 days late and therefore not in line with its policy.
20. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 21 June 2024. The landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 24 June 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 17 July 2024. This was within the 5-working day and 20-working day timeframe respectively.
21. The landlord admitted a complaint handling failing regarding the resident’s difficulty in raising the complaint, it apologised and said it was not the level of service it strives to provide. It offered £100 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, it our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
22. The landlord’s apologies and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles, however it failed to also acknowledge the delay to the complaint response at stage 1. We find that the landlord’s compensation offer of £100 has failed to fully address the detriment and the offer was not proportionate to the overall failings identified by our investigation. There was service failure. The landlord should pay the resident a further £100 for the complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. The landlord should consider how it can prevent this from happening again.
24. The landlord did not act or log a repair when the resident initially reported the repairs. This shows a record keeping failing and the landlord should take time to understand how this happened to prevent a recurrence.

Communication

25. The landlord provided evidence which showed examples of unanswered communications from the resident regarding reporting a repair and raising a complaint. However, the landlord has acknowledged these failings and suggested learning.