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 (202426225)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426225

GreenSquareAccord Limited

27 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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The increased cost of the property’s building insurance.
    2. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the building insurance.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme, they have held the lease since 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom house, the landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 23 February 2024 the landlord notified the resident of changes to the cost of their rent and service charges for the upcoming financial year. On 4 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to send them a hard copy of the building insurance policy. The landlord provided an insurance document which related to all of the properties it managed via email.
  3. On 7 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident said:
    1. In April 2023 they were notified that the monthly building insurance costs would be increasing from £3.34 to £8.33.
    2. They were very shocked at the increased cost as they had been advised insurance costs for the property would be cheap because the landlord was a housing association.
    3. They had asked the landlord to provide a copy of the insurance policy, and the landlord sent them a summary document. They asked for the insurance policy a second time and they were sent the summary again.
  4. On 17 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage one response, which said:
    1. On 4 April 2024 the resident asked for a hard copy of the buildings insurance policy. The landlord provided an electronic copy of this document on 15 April 2024. It apologised for sending an electronic copy rather than a hard copy.
    2. On 15 April 2024 the resident asked for a copy of the buildings insurance to be sent in the post. The landlord passed this request onto the wrong department in error.
    3. On 25 April 2024 the task was assigned to the correct department, and the document was posted on the same day. The landlord apologised for this delay.
    4. Also on 25 April 2024 the resident called the landlord to enquire about when it would send the documents.
    5. On 1 May 2024 the resident asked for someone to contact them to discuss the buildings insurance, this occurred on 8 May 2024. During this call the landlord said it had previously sent the resident details of the building insurance. The document it had sent related to all the properties the landlord managed, so there was no policy document which was specific to the resident’s property.
  5. On 24 June 2024 the resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord had not addressed their concerns. The resident felt the landlord had miss-sold the building insurance, as the policy covered areas which were not relevant to their property.
  6. On 11 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
    1. Shared owners are not able to obtain their own building insurance, as under the lease the property must be insured by the landlord.
    2. It buys buildings insurance in bulk and the insurance covers all the properties it manages. It said this leads to lower costs than insuring properties individually.
    3. It apologised if the resident felt misled when they purchased the lease if they were advised that the insurance costs would be low. The landlord noted that at the time of purchase it was not possible to predict what future costs for insurance would be.
    4. Its buildings insurance is designed to cover all of the properties the landlord owns. Therefore, the wording in the document is not specific to the resident’s property and the policy may cover facilities the resident’s property does not have. It said it understood why this might be confusing.
    5. It said it was in the process of re-tendering its insurance policies, so it provided an explanation of how it was planning to calculate its future insurance costs.
  7. On 29 July 2024 the resident contacted this Service as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident said the landlord had acted inappropriately by increasing the costs, and by not being transparent about the increased costs.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme notes as follows:

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

  1. The resident has raised concerns about increased costs for the property’s buildings insurance. As the costs for the building insurance is collected via the resident’s service charge the Ombudsman is unable to consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This is because the complaint is about an increase in a service charge.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the scheme, the resident’s concerns about the increase in their service charge are outside the jurisdiction of this Service. Should the resident continue to be concerned about their service charges, then the resident should consider bringing a case to the property division of the first-tier tribunal. The resident can also obtain free and independent advice from The Leasehold Advisory Scheme.

The landlord’s communication around the building insurance costs

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy says that for most of its leasehold and shared ownership properties it is responsible for arranging and managing building insurance.
  2. The resident’s lease says it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the property insured. The landlord is required to produce the policy at the resident’s request.
  3. On 23 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident of the upcoming changes to the cost of their service charge via letter. This letter outlined what the service charge would cost in the next financial year, and it contained details around how much of the service charge was being used to fund the cost of the property’s building insurance.
  4. On 4 April 2024 the resident called the landlord and asked for a copy of the landlord’s building insurance. They asked for the document to be provided by post. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the insurance policy via email on 15 April 2024.
  5. The landlord fulfilled its obligations under the lease by providing a copy of the building insurance. However, it did not provide the document in line with the resident’s communication preferences. The landlord’s service in this regard required improvement. In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged its shortcomings, and it apologised to the resident. This was appropriate.
  6. On 15 April 2024 the resident phoned the landlord to ask for the insurance document to be sent in the post. This task was assigned to an incorrect department, and when the landlord identified this on 25 April 2024 it sent out the insurance details on the same day. The landlord apologised for this delay when it sent the document to the resident. Additionally, the landlord also apologised for this error in its stage one response. This was appropriate.
  7. When the resident received the insurance document they asked to discuss it with the landlord. The landlord arranged to speak with the resident on 8 May 2024, and it provided the resident with a summary of this call. The notes say the landlord discussed:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the policy being a summary. The landlord said it was in the process of finalising the contracts and would provide the resident with a copy once this was completed.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the policy covering facilities which were not relevant to the property. The resident felt this meant they were paying for coverage they did not need. The landlord said the policy was designed to cover all the properties it had in its portfolio, and it was not specific to the resident’s home.
  8. The landlord’s actions in speaking with the resident about their concerns, and the details of its insurance policy, was indicative of good customer service.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 June 2024 and expressed concern about the landlord’s communications about the increased cost of buildings insurance. In its stage two response the landlord explained how its insurance coverage worked and how the costs were calculated. This was appropriate.
  10. In this instance the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failings to be limited to it not using the resident’s preferred communication method on one occasion, and that it assigned a task to an incorrect department. The landlord identified and apologised for these failings. The landlord’s actions would have likely caused inconvenience to the resident. However, when considering the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s apology to be appropriate redress as it was proportionate to address the failings and inconvenience caused.
  11. As such the Ombudsman has made a finding that the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.d. of the Scheme the resident’s concerns around the increased cost of building insurance is outside the jurisdiction of this service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint in respect of its communication with the resident about buildings insurance.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not provided the resident with its latest insurance policy document, then it should do so.
  2. The landlord should outline its responsibilities when it comes to buildings insurance with the resident, and include if it or the resident would be responsible for filing a claim under the buildings insurance as the resident has expressed to us that they are unclear about how the insurance would work if it needed to be utilised in future.