GreenSquareAccord Limited (202419667)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house with her adult son and teenage daughter. She has reported problems with the bedroom windows and external doors between 2022 and 2025. In 2024 she complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to bedroom windows.
   2. Repairs to external doors.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to bedroom windows.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of repairs to external doors.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   4. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The resident frequently reported concerns with the condition of her windows. The landlord delayed unreasonably in seeking a second opinion.
5. The landlord accepted responsibility for door repairs throughout the process. It offered compensation at multiple stages and acknowledged delays and the inconvenience caused. Its offers of compensation and decision to replace both external doors put things right for the resident.
6. The landlord was responsible for addressing damp and mould reports but failed to follow its own policy and timescales. It should have completed a priority checklist, recorded readings, and monitored the situation, escalating internally if repairs were unsuccessful.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

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 sets out timescales in which it will attend repairs. For urgent repairs that require attention to prevent future damage to the property (with no immediate danger or significant inconvenience to the resident), it will attend within 7 calendar days. For other routine repairs, it will attend within 28 calendar days. Where it has identified planned repairs that fall outside the scope of its usual responsive repairs, it will attend within 84 calendar days.
9. The landlord accepted in its complaints responses that there were long delays, poor communication, and missed appointments throughout the timeline. The landlord has not disputed that it needed to repair the windows and, early in the timeline, it did repair hinges, seals, and replaced 2 windows. The resident was clear throughout that she was most concerned about the condition of the window in her daughter’s bedroom. She highlighted her vulnerabilities and her daughter’s age when making these reports. The landlord did not fully consider these vulnerabilities and allowed the repairs to drift.
10. To fairly decide if the amount of compensation the landlord offered in this case was reasonable, we have considered its offers throughout the timeline. The landlord made combined offers of £880 compensation throughout its complaint responses – £105 of this was for its missed appointments, £100 was for communication, £350 was for distress and inconvenience, and £250 was for time and trouble. A further £75 related to other failings considered below.
11. Overall, the landlord’s offers of £105 for its missed appointments (in June 2024 and February 2025) and £100 for communication failures (in early 2024) were reasonable. This reflects the landlord’s own guidance on compensation for service failures that adversely affected the resident without a permanent impact. We have separated the amounts for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble equally between our findings for repairs to bedroom windows and external doors.
12. The resident sought help from her MP in 2023 and 2024 to encourage the landlord to replace her draughty windows. The landlord responded to the MP’s reports and conducted additional surveys. Other than the 2 windows it replaced, each survey in 2023 and 2024 found the bedroom windows were in a serviceable condition. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance of its specialist services, who in this case decided to repair, rather than replace, the windows.
13. Overall, the landlord treated the resident’s concerns seriously in its complaint responses in 2024. Following its stage 1 response in May 2024, it passed her concerns to its surveyor and arranged a further inspection. In its stage 2 response in June 2024, it appropriately apologised for missing the agreed inspection and made further attempts to inspect the windows. It then followed through with the agreed actions and completed a survey in June 2024.
14. In its survey on 30 June 2024, the landlord found no issues with the bedroom windows. However, it raised an order for them to be resealed. The resident was unhappy with this decision and disputed the finding in a call with the landlord in July 2024. She then reiterated these concerns issues in her complaint in February 2025. She was still unhappy with the condition of the bedroom windows, which she reported were letting in cold air. The landlord did not do a second inspection until the resident raised the matter again in February 2025 – this was unreasonable.
15. The landlord continued to use its complaint responses to reconsider the resident’s concerns. In March 2025 it progressed her repair and scheduled a further inspection. This was broadly reasonable in the circumstances. It had conducted multiple inspections in 2024. The landlord could have reiterated its findings from June 2024. Instead, it arranged a further inspection for March 2025 to decide if there was a change to the condition of the windows.
16. The landlord decided that it would not replace the windows following its inspection in March 2025. It accepted that the resident remained unhappy with its findings regarding the windows in its April 2025 stage 2 response. It was customer focused and agreed to seek a second opinion on 11 April 2025. This was a reasonable response and offered the resident reassurance that it was taking her reports seriously.
17. However, it took around 2 months to return and complete the second opinion in June 2025. This was an unreasonable delay. Its notes show it made this decision after the resident showed photos of the condition of the windows during winter. Although it is positive that the landlord made this decision, it was nearly 2 years after the resident raised her concerns in August 2023. These delays contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
18. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance offered by specialist inspections. However, during the timeline, the resident frequently highlighted the impact the draughty windows had on her and her family. She said that her teenage daughter was often sleeping with her because her daughter’s room was so cold. Had the landlord arranged for a second opinion earlier in July 2024, it may have prevented the additional distress and inconvenience caused between April and June 2025.
19. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to bedroom windows. As described above, the landlord made reasonable offers of compensation in its complaint responses for some of its failings. It took nearly 2 years (from August 2023 to June 2025) to agree to replace the bedroom windows. The landlord fairly relied on the findings from its inspections but delayed a second opinion (including after the end of the complaints process) which prolonged the resolution. The resident repeatedly highlighted the severe impact on her and her daughter. The landlord’s offer of £300 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble therefore does not reflect the full detriment caused. It should pay the resident an additional £100, which reflects the adverse impact on the resident and the additional failings we identified.

20. The landlord identified issues with the front and back doors during its inspection on 19 October 2023. It recorded that the doors were warped and not sitting properly in their frames. It returned to complete the associated repairs nearly 2 months later, on 15 December 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and did not comply with its repair timescales.
21. The delays were broadly the result of communication failures which caused the landlord to reschedule appointments before attending. These contributed to the resident’s time and trouble as she called and emailed seeking updates from it.
22. The resident continued to raise concerns about the external doors in March 2024. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about a draught from the doors and installed draught strips in March 2024. However, its operatives noted that the door was very warped and bowed in the middle. Although it agreed to replace the back door, it was not clear with the resident why it was not also replacing the front door. This caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
23. There were further delays and the resident continued to chase the landlord in April 2024. In its stage 1 response in May 2024, the landlord appropriately apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs. It was resolution focused and scheduled an appointment to survey the property and explained that it would upgrade the back door.
24. The landlord followed through with its commitment and surveyed the property on 30 June 2024. It determined that the front door was secure and it did not need to replace it. It is unclear if it shared these findings with the resident. However, it followed through and replaced the back door in July 2024. This was broadly within the 84 calendar days between March and July 2024 for planned repairs as set out in its repairs policy.
25. In its stage 1 response in February 2025, the landlord said that it had submitted a referral to replace the front door following intervention from the resident’s MP. It said that it did so on 2 February 2024. If this was the case, this was an inappropriate delay of around 13 months to schedule the replacement albeit it did repairs and also found the door was secure and adequate within this period. The landlord used its response to appropriately apologise for allowing the repairs to drift. It also recognised that it had not progressed the repair and appropriately agreed to conduct a survey on 10 March 2025.
26. The landlord agreed to replace the front door in March 2025. Its records show it did so around 2 months later in May 2025. In its stage 2 response in April 2025, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and confusion caused by its decision making.
27. Overall, the landlord unreasonably prolonged the repairs and it took around 19 months (between October 2023 and May 2025) to replace the front door. Its communication and scheduling were inadequate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, it accepted responsibility for repairs in that period and there was a contradictory inspection outcome that suggested a renewal was unnecessary.
28. Throughout its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delays and missed appointments to inspect. Its combined compensation offer of £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble reflect its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected a resident. Its additional offer of £50 for delay and confusion caused in its handling of repairs to the door in April 2025 was also proportionate.
29. Alongside its apologies, learnings identified and recent completion of the door replacement, the Ombudsman is of the view that the total £350 compensation award offers sufficient redress for the landlord’s failings in its handling of repairs to external doors.

30. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that following a report of damp and mould it will complete a priority check list. Its surveyor will inspect, record readings, and put relevant information on its system. It will raise repairs and repeat the inspection until it has resolved the damp issue. If repairs were unsuccessful, it would escalate the issue internally and determine the best course of action. It shares the same timescales as set out in its repairs policy.
31. Landlords must assess the risks present in properties using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards but is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp, mould, and excess cold are all potential category 1 hazards within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should conduct additional monitoring of properties where it has identified potential hazards.
32. The resident was at increased risk of harm because she suffers from fibromyalgia and arthritis. She reported that the cold, damp, and mould most affected her daughter’s bedroom, who was between 13 and 15 years old during the timeline.
33. It is unclear exactly when the resident first reported damp and mould. During December 2023, she told the landlord she was concerned about her daughter as the bedroom was freezing cold. The landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s initial reports. It did not record a priority check list or schedule an inspection within 28 days. Instead, it attended 2 months later, on 8 February 2024, to treat mould with a wash treatment. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord failed to demonstrate how it considered the increased risks present for the resident or her daughter.
34. The landlord did conduct further repairs after the mould wash and installed a condensation fan on 20 February 2024. It did not keep detailed records on what informed this approach. There was no evidence available to us that it recorded any readings or other relevant information on its system.
35. The landlord did not fully consider these failings in its stage 1 response in May 2024. However, it appropriately requested a survey which it did on 30 June 2024. Although there was a continued failure to comply with its timescales (which it compensated for as set out in paragraph 11), it was correct to conduct the survey.
36. The surveyor who attended on 30 June 2024 raised another mould wash treatment but did not record what could be causing the problem. It noted that the cavity wall insulation may have been insufficient and agreed to follow up the inspection. It said that it would ask a contractor to inspect with a thermal imaging camera and see if there was any major heat loss. And follow up the visit to inspect the insulation further.
37. Had it followed through with these inspections, these would have been reasonable actions to show that it was taking the matter seriously. However, there is no record that it followed up on these recommendations or provided any additional monitoring of the issue. This was a failing and likely contributed to the resident’s increased distress and inconvenience.
38. The landlord’s records say it attempted a mould wash on 5 August 2024 but the resident’s son had already cleaned the mould from the walls. It noted that the windows could contribute to the damp and mould and passed work to its planners. In her reports to us, the resident said that she and her children frequently cleaned any mould that formed in the bedroom. She explained that she wanted to reduce any risks to her daughter that would result from mould exposure. The landlord did not record any follow up action or continued monitoring and this was a failing.
39. The landlord sent its healthy homes advisor to assess the property in January 2025. It scheduled a further survey following this visit and raised repairs to mould wash and paint the bedroom, which it completed on 19 February 2025. In its stage 1 response on 24 February 2025, it arranged a further survey, which it completed on 10 March 2025. It did not raise any repair for damp and mould. There was no record that it reconsidered the resident’s concerns about the lack of insulation and excess cold and this was a failing.
40. In its stage 2 response on 2 April 2025, the landlord said that it had followed up repairs after installing a new fan on 20 February 2025. It had scheduled a rewiring of the bathroom fan for 15 April 2025. It offered her £25 for poor management of the bathroom fan installation/repair. Its offer relating to the poor management of the fan repairs was reasonable. However, it failed to consider the full impact the issue had on the resident. It did not address the failure to consider the possible lack of insulation raised by the resident and its inspection in June 2024. It did not put things right or learn from outcomes as a result.
41. We find there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould. Although it conducted surveys and treatments in 2024 and 2025, it repeatedly missed timescales, failed to follow recommendations, and did not maintain adequate monitoring. It offered £25 compensation for poor fan repair management but did not fully address the broader handling of damp and mould or learn from its failings. It should pay the resident an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects our remedies guidance for a failure that affected the resident that the landlord failed to put right.

42. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. It says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will issue a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
43. Each of the landlord’s responses were issued within the timescales set out in its policy. The resident complained on 22 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 3 working days later, on 28 May 2024. She escalated her complaint on 7 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 15 working days later, on 28 June 2024.
44. The resident made her second complaint on 7 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged her complaint 1 working day later, on 10 February 2025. It issued its stage 1 response 10 working days later, on 24 February 2025. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the request 5 working days later, on 5 March 2025. It issued its second stage 2 response 20 working days later, on 2 April 2025.
45. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Learning

Repairs

46. The landlord initially complied with its repair policy but later delays and missed appointments breached its own standards, highlighting the need for consistent compliance. The landlord could review how it ensures survey recommendations are followed up.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. Although the landlord retained photos of the property, it did not fully record the outcome of its surveys or keep readings or other relevant information on its system.

Communication

48. Poor communication and unclear explanations caused repeated chasing and dissatisfaction. Clear, proactive updates could have prevented the resident needed to escalate her concerns.