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 (202424976)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424976

GreenSquareAccord Limited

18 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and moved into the property in 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident ended the tenancy and moved out on 2 February 2025.
  2. The resident applied for a mutual exchange (MEX) on 7 May 2024 as she required a larger property as she had 4 children. She found another resident, with another housing association landlord, who wished to exchange.
  3. The MEX process was ongoing throughout June and July 2024. On 12 August 2024 the resident made stage 1 complaint that it had fallen through due to the landlord’s delay. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 September 2024 it apologised for its service failures, admitted poor communication and delays and offered £425 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 September 2024 and the landlord responded on 27 September 2024. It apologised again and explained the learning and improvements that had been implemented. It concluded the compensation offered at stage 1 was fair.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to us, saying she was disappointed with how the landlord handled the MEX process which had resulted in her family remaining in an overcrowded property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident spoke to the landlord about her wish to enter into a MEX, it was responsive. It sent the application form and explained it had 42 days to give a decision on approval.
  2. The resident signed and dated the form on 7 May 2024. Following this the landlord appropriately followed the process at first. It liaised with the landlord of the property the resident would be moving into. The other landlord approved the MEX on 1 July 2024. A surveyor inspected the property on 10 July 2024 and provided a report. The landlord said an electrical inspection would be done. This did not take place as it should have, which was a failure.
  3. On 25 July 2024 internal communication showed the housing officer was waiting for authorisation from management before approving the MEX. The process stopped there and there was no further progress. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s MEX procedure says it has 42 days to give the resident a decision on whether it approves the MEX application. The landlord failed to comply with this timescale. The resident did not receive any further communication from the landlord which was unacceptable.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord accepted this and apologised for poor communication. It said the delays were due to the housing officer being unwell. It offered £425 compensation (£50 for poor communication, £25 for failure to progress the application within 42 days, £250 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for time and trouble). This was a fair and proportionate sum to reflect the impact on the resident. It was in line with our remedies guidance for this level of failure. It was positive the landlord took responsibility for its inaction and recognised the effect caused.
  6. When the resident escalated the complaint, she described the situation as leaving her frustrated and helpless. She said that, due to the delays and lack of communication from the housing officer, the other housing association cancelled the MEX application. She was understandably stressed and frustrated as the property was overcrowded and she had followed the correct process to address this. The landlord did not follow its own commitment and this was unreasonable.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised and apologised for its failings. It explained there was a change of housing officer due to illness. It said the housing officer had submitted the application and was awaiting line management sign off. The landlord did not know why this had been delayed. It acknowledged how important the timescales were and the impact the delay had on the resident. It was positive it took responsibility for this.
  8. When escalating the complaint, the resident said the housing officer had spoken to her abruptly and dismissively. In its response the landlord asked the resident for times and dates of the calls so it could review them and determine any conduct matters. This was acceptable and indicated it took such reports seriously.
  9. The landlord asked the resident to accept its sincerest apologies and explained the learning and improvements it had made. The landlord felt the compensation offered at stage 1 was fair so no additional sum was offered at stage 2. This was appropriate as the compensation offered was reasonable redress for the delays that occurred.
  10. The landlord said measures had been put in place to prevent future delays in MEX applications. Cases are now reviewed by a specific team and a recording system highlights the cut off dates for decision making. The landlord has taken appropriate action to improve its process and this reflects our Dispute Resolution Principle of learning from outcomes.
  11. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  12. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £425 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her MEX application. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £425 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s MEX application.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident £425 compensation as offered during the complaints process (if not already paid). The determination of reasonable redress is made on the basis of this being paid as there were failures identified.