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 (202422349)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422349

GreenSquareAccord Limited

26 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord for a 2-bedroom house. The property’s rear garden has adjoining neighbours’ gardens.
  2. The resident reported loud music from her neighbour’s garden on 22 May 2024. The following day, the landlord wrote to all residents asking them to be mindful of playing loud music. It also spoke with the neighbour, the resident alleged was playing the music.
  3. The resident complained on 17 June 2024. She said loud noise from her neighbour had been ongoing for 5 to 6 years. She said her housing officer was rude and told her to speak to the council. She asked for them to be changed. She also complained that she received no assistance in bidding for new properties while trying to move.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 July 2024. It said it investigated her reports, visited and spoke to other neighbours and did not feel the music played was excessive. It confirmed the resident had raised an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case review, which reviews how relevant agencies have dealt with reports of ASB. It said it would not change the housing officer and asked the resident to consider a home swap.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 August. It reiterated its stage 1 finding but found no service failings. It said it would action any recommendations from the ASB case review.
  6. The ASB case review report was provided on 22 August 2024. It recommended that the landlord follow its ASB policy more closely improve its support and understanding of the resident’s health and work with the council better to resolve ASB issues.
  7. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 13 September 2024 and a stage 2 response on 4 October, due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its previous response. It found no service failures with its overall approach and confirmed it was in touch with her regularly.
  8. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in a response on 5 December 2024. It confirmed the resident said she was happy the noise issue was being dealt with. It apologised that its 13 September and 4 October responses failed to review events after its previous complaint response including the ASB case review. It confirmed it met with her on 28 August to apologise and discuss the ASB case review recommendations. It offered total compensation of £650.
  9. The resident told the Ombudsman the compensation offered was insufficient, and she had been complaining for 6 years. She said the landlord only took action after she pushed for it. She said she only recently became aware that the landlord had a dedicated ASB team. She stated there have been no further issues with the neighbour in question.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman she wanted compensation for the cost of staying away from her property. Although there is evidence the resident told the landlord she was staying away from the property on occasion, there is no evidence that she asked it for compensation for this. She has the opportunity to raise this as a further complaint with the landlord. Should she be dissatisfied with its final response, she can raise this with the Ombudsman.
  2. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that ASB had been ongoing for up to 6 years. There are time limits on complaints which the Ombudsman will investigate, which mean we will not usually consider events that the resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally 12 months of the matter arising. Therefore, this report will focus on the events in the months leading up to the resident’s initial complaint of 17 June 2024.

The resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms noise nuisance as an activity considered to be ASB. It says it will provide diary sheets and direct residents to its noise reporting app. It confirms it will create an action plan, including frequency of contact and will work with multi-agencies to find solutions. It will direct a resident to an ASB case review if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy also confirms it will identify vulnerability or additional support needs or safeguarding concerns, complete risk assessments, and make appropriate support referrals.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will investigate the cause for complaint up to 12 months of it occurring. In her complaint of 17 June 2024, the resident said the noise from her neighbour had been ongoing for 5 to 6 years. It is unclear if there were previous reports from the resident. The landlord has provided no evidence of reports from her prior to May 2024.
  4. The resident said in her 17 June 2024 complaint the landlord told her it could do nothing about the ASB. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response it had taken all actions in line with its policy. This was partly accurate as it:
    1. Issued diary sheets to the resident and investigated by visiting and speaking to other neighbours. It also sent a letter to all residents asking them to be mindful of playing loud music.
    2. Closed the ASB case on 28 May 2024, as it determined the issue was not ASB. As it did this it directed the resident to raise an ASB case review. It appropriately agreed to review any recommendations from this once completed.
    3. Advised the resident to continue to report the issue to the council, to determine if there was a statutory noise nuisance. It appropriately confirmed it did not have this expertise.
  5. However, between 3 June 2024 and the stage 2 response of 13 August 2024 the resident told the landlord she had recently been reporting noise nuisance only to the council because she could not use the landlord’s evidence upload system.
  6. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it had failed to contact the council for information about her reports. It apologised, but there is no evidence that it subsequently obtained the relevant information and assessed it.
  7. There is also no evidence of the landlord signposting the resident to sources of support, or doing a risk assessment, as its policy suggests it should do in situations where a tenant is potentially vulnerable or at risk – a situation the landlord was aware the resident might be in. The resident had raised several times the issue was affecting her health and she had been in hospital.
  8. Also, in the resident’s initial complaint she said the landlord had been ignoring her emails. In response the landlord said it had not been ignoring her emails but had grouped responses to several emails together when that had been appropriate. The evidence confirms this is accurate.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to change her housing officer as she said they were rude to her in a face-to-face meeting. The landlord said it would not change the officer, as it could find no evidence of wrongdoing. It did, however, offer alternative means of contacting it, and a manager corresponded with her in place of the housing officer, which were reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and provide alternatives.
  10. On 4 April 2025, the landlord told the Ombudsman it visited the resident in September 2024 and maintained regular contact since. There is no evidence of regular contact. Furthermore, the resident told the Ombudsman on 13 August 2025, it only contacted her twice from September 2024 about her wellbeing, and the member of staff who had done so had since left and not been replaced.
  11. Following the landlord’s stage 2 reply of 13 August 2024 the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the complaint response. The landlord agreed to open a new complaint and confirmed it would consider the ASB case review report which had been completed by that time. It failed to do this, instead it reinvestigated the earlier complaint responses.
  12. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint review on 5 December 2024. It apologised that its responses failed to acknowledge the ASB case review findings and should have focused on events after its 13 August reply. It confirmed it failed to answer enquiries about the complaint correctly and ultimately caused confusion in its complaints process.
  13. The landlord offered total compensation of £650 in its complaint review of 5 December 2024. This was relating to the failures in its complaint handling from 13 September. The amount offered was proportionate to the failings and was in accordance with a discretionary payment under its compensation policy. This acknowledged the confusion, inconvenience, and distress caused. However, as the landlord did not acknowledge or identify the failings found in this report the compensation it offered was not sufficient for the full scale of its poor handling.
  14. In summary, the landlord initially took appropriate steps to manage the noise reports. However, there is no evidence it offered support for the resident regarding her health, despite saying it would, and did not treat her new reports of noise as it should have. The nature and scale of these unacknowledged and unremedied failings were significant given the resident’s circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord must pay the resident £950 within 4 weeks of this report. This comprises:
    1. £300 for its failure to support the resident’s health and investigate her new noise reports.
    2. £650 it offered to the resident on 5 December 2024, if it has not already paid this.
  2. Given the landlord’s failure to provide the support it said it would for the resident, it must show within 6 weeks of this report evidence of it discussing with her any support she may need and which it can provide, either directly or by signposting. As part of this the landlord should undertake a risk assessment in line with its policy.
  3. Evidence of the above orders must be provided by the respective deadlines.