GreenSquareAccord Limited (202451598)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451598

GreenSquareAccord Limited

31 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp, mould, and window issues within the property.
2. Issues concerning her neighbours.
3. The condition of the communal areas.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association and leases the building from a third-party.
The landlord advised us that the third-party wants the building back and it will not renew the lease. Throughout its submissions, it references the property as being “disposed of.”
In September 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. She outlined several problems with the single glazed windows, exterior of the building and communal areas. She also reported damp and mould within her property and highlighted several concerns about 2 of her neighbours including hoarding, self-neglect, and antisocial behaviour. She was worried about fire safety and the overall impact on her family as a result.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 4 November 2024. It acknowledged it failed to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. It said it arranged for 2 area managers to attend on 7 November 2024 to ensure it captured all the outstanding repairs. It also scheduled an inspection of the communal areas. It explained it was taking necessary action to support the resident’s neighbours in line with its safeguarding policy. It offered her £660 compensation.
On 27 November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said only 1 area manager attended on 7 November and the landlord had not updated her since about the repairs. She felt there was a lack of communication and understanding between its operatives about the disposal of the property and how this impacted repairs. Additionally, a burnt-out cooker had remained in the communal area for some time.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 December 2024. It agreed there was poor and inconsistent communication following its attendance on 7 November 2024, a failure to complete external works, and delays removing the cooker. It offered the resident additional redress of £350, resulting in a total compensation offer of £1010. It set out a list of repairs it intended to complete with a provisional date of 7 January 2025, weather dependant.
The resident raised a second complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2025 about the neighbour upstairs flooding her property and outstanding window repairs. As this complaint relates to her initial complaint, we have used our discretion to consider it within this determination. She also disputed her rent and service charge.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 May 2025. It explained it completed the works agreed within her previous complaint in early 2025 except the window repair, which it would contact her to schedule. In view of the issues from the neighbour above, it said it was looking to arrange a managed move for her to another property. It offered the resident £175 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 May 2025 as she was unhappy the landlord paid compensation to her rent account. She was also dissatisfied with the delay progressing the window repair.
On 10 June 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained compensation was paid to the resident’s rent account as she was in arrears and confirmed an operative would repair the window on 12 June 2025. It maintained its previous offer of £175 compensation.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses and referred her case to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
While the resident complained about rent and service charges in her second complaint, she told us on 27 August 2025 that she was pursuing this matter with another organisation. As such, we have not commented on this matter within this report.
In this determination, we considered events which occurred in the preceding 12 months from the resident’s initial complaint dated 30 September 2024, up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 June 2025. Reference to historic and more recent events is to provide context only.

Damp, mould, and windows

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out response times of 4 hours for an emergency repair up to 84 days for planned routine repairs. It does not cover window improvements under this policy.
The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states where it identified properties for future disposal, it will proactively satisfy itself that residents do not receive a poorer standard of service or lower living conditions and that it regularly engages and communicates with these residents. It will attend mould washes as a priority within 7 days.
Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, it is reasonable for a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
Records show the resident informed the landlord about damp in her children’s bedroom on 12 April 2024. The call note describes water seeping through the wall from a pipe outside and that she was unable to open the sash window. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the matter to its surveying team. It completed a damp and mould survey on 29 April 2024. We find it inspected the property within a reasonable period.
The surveyor identified in their report that there was a severe impact on the property, but the landlord did not need to move the resident temporarily into alternative accommodation. In our view, it was correct for it to consider the impact on her and whether a move was necessary. It set out that the following works were required:
1. Refix the hopper to the downpipe.
2. Complete a mould wash and stain block within the bedroom.
3. Renew the kitchen extractor fan.
4. Clean the moss off the external wall.
Records show the landlord raised work orders for the above repairs on 30 April 2024; however, it failed to complete these within the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. It also did not complete a mould wash within 7 days in accordance with its mould policy or keep the resident updated with the progression of the works. These were shortcomings in its repairs service. We note the resident decided against the renewal of the extractor fan.
Following a leak from a neighbouring property, another surveyor attended on 16 August 2024. They identified various issues, including damp patches (that were dry at the time), mould to the low-level walls and a window that did not open. Records show the landlord raised the following repairs after the inspection:
1. Mould wash the bedroom.
2. Repair the sash window.
3. Install an airbrick.
4. Check the downpipe, hopper, and high-level gutter for leaks.
5. Remove moss and repoint mortar.
6. Clear the ground-floor guttering.
Despite surveys in April 2024 and August 2024 and being on notice that works were necessary, the landlord failed to proceed with the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It recognised and apologised for this within its complaint response. This has been addressed further below.
Throughout the period of complaint, there were issues with 2 neighbouring properties that may have impacted the resident’s home. Therefore, while surveyors had attended previously, we find it was appropriate within the complaint response for the landlord to appoint an area manager to inspect the property again to ensure it had identified all outstanding repairs.
Within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that 2 area managers would attend on 7 November 2024 to ensure a thorough and comprehensive visit. However, only 1 manager attended as the second was unavailable. We appreciate this was disheartening for the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest this affected its assessment of the property.
Following the inspection on 7 November 2024, the landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated effectively with the resident about the next steps, repairs, or timescales until she escalated her complaint to stage 2. We find that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on her. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord’s records dated 16 December 2024 states an operative attended a window appointment, and the resident asked them not to open it as she “felt it would cause more issues in the room”. It is unclear whether it considered any further repairs to the window at this time.
The resident confirmed to this Service that the landlord completed the agreed repairs in early 2025, excluding the installation of the air brick and window repairs. She said operatives told her that they could not install an air brick; however, its records show this work order was completed. We have ordered it to clarify its position concerning this.
Within the stage 2 letter dated 23 December 2024, the landlord explained that it would not replace the windows because of the imminent handover of the block. Additionally, it noted they were sash windows on a listed building, and it could take longer to arrange replacement, regardless of any other circumstances. It said it would do all it could to repair any broken windows and keep them in the best condition possible. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 13 May 2025, the landlord informed the resident that “the reasoning behind the window upgrades not being carried out is because the council has refused this due to the building is listed and is down for disposal”. We have not seen evidence to demonstrate the local authority refused the replacement of the window or any communication between it and the landlord concerning this matter. The lack of evidence here has impacted our consideration of this issue.
The landlord’s repair history demonstrates it installed a trickle vent in the window in June 2025 where an operative reported the “window is in such poor condition”, and “it had swelled shut due to the tenant above having multiple leaks”. They also commented that, “the rot is excessive.” They recommended the job was passed back to surveyors. It is not clear from the information available if the landlord has taken any further action concerning this repair post-complaint or considered any other options to increase ventilation in the bedroom.
While we appreciate the block is due to be handed back, the landlord has a responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement to keep the property in proper order. It also has statutory duties under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Landlords must promptly address any maintenance or repair issues covered by Section 11 to ensure the property remains in good condition. This includes fixing leaks, repairing structural damage, and ensuring essential installations are functioning correctly.In view of the outstanding repairs within the property and the situation with the neighbours (addressed below), it was appropriate for it to offer to rehouse the resident.
Within its submission to this Service, the landlord said it offered the resident a move to a 3-bedroom property on 24 March 2025 which she allegedly refused without viewing. More recently, it said it offered another 3-bedroom property which she allegedly refused as it was not in her preferred area. It is unclear whether these were offers for a permanent or temporary move. When we asked for evidence of these offers, it said it made these verbally. The resident disputes receiving any offers for 3-bedroom properties in 2025, despite the landlord stating it would arrange a managed move for her within its complaint response dated 13 May 2025. Without evidence, we cannot comment further on this.
The landlord provided copies of text messages to show it offered the resident a temporary move to 4 different 2-bedroom properties in May 2025, which she declined for several reasons. We are not disputing the reasons why she refused the offers, however we recognise that by deciding to stay in her home, she remained impacted by her neighbours, windows, and lack of ventilation. She recently informed this Service that she does not want a temporary move. The landlord said it intends to rehouse the residents of the block, although this may not be imminent. Therefore, we encourage it to communicate with the resident directly to discuss her options if it has not yet done so.
Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response dated 23 December 2024, it offered £985 compensation comprised of:
1. £280 for its delays and failures.
2. £430 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £125 for the resident’s time and trouble.
4. £50 for the poor communication following the visit from the area manager.
5. £100 for the delay in completing external works.
The compensation offered concerning the communal areas has been addressed separately in this report. In the final response letter dated 10 June 2025, the landlord offered £175 for the delay with the window repair.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. The £985 offered by the landlord in complaint 1 and £175 offered in complaint 2 amounts to a total compensation award of £1,160. The total offer falls within our highest range of compensation for situations where there has been a severe and long-term impact on the resident.
We note repairs to the window are not complete and the resident has expressed ongoing concerns about the lack of ventilation in the bedroom. And, while the landlord referenced a managed move within its letter dated 15 May 2025, it has not evidenced its claims of having made an offer. Taken altogether, while the landlord offered significant redress, we cannot determine that it resolved her complaints satisfactorily in the circumstances.
After considering the impact on the resident and the period involved, the Ombudsman finds that the amount offered in compensation is significant. Clarification about the windows, ventilation and the managed move remains outstanding. Thus, the required resolution at this stage is not more monetary compensation. We have therefore not ordered further compensation but have ordered specific action.
It would have been best if the landlord had not offset compensation against the resident’s arrears. However, as this has happened prior to the matter being referred to us, we are unable to change the situation.

Issues with neighbours

The resident made several reports to the landlord regarding her concerns about 2 neighbours. Neighbour A lives in the flat above and neighbour B lives next door.
In recent years, the resident informed the landlord on several occasions that neighbour A purposefully flooded their home, causing leaks into her flat below. She also reported aggressive behaviour, and a strong sewerage smell entering her property from their flat.
The resident reported significant concerns about neighbour B, describing extreme hoarding combined with the presence of old rotting food, pests, flies, dampness, and mould. She was also concerned about the fire risk posed to her and her children.
We look to see that when a landlord receives a complaint about fire safety, it reviews the concerns and takes the necessary steps to mitigate the risks. Our Spotlight report on cladding and fire safety says an absence of information can cause significant distress for residents; therefore, landlords should be proactive and update residents regularly, even where there is little or no change.
We recognise that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage. It needed to balance its obligations to ensure residents safety in the block with its social obligations to support the vulnerable neighbours, alongside its repairing obligations. It also needed to respect the confidentiality of personal data. As such, this impacted the extent of information it was able to disclose to the resident and this Service.
The records provided by the landlord demonstrate it was aware that neighbour A and neighbour B were extremely vulnerable, and their living conditions were unsanitary. It explained that in the years prior to the period of this complaint, it had obtained an injunction against neighbour A and arranged an “acceptable behaviour contract” with neighbour B. It also said it spent thousands of pounds deep cleaning neighbour B’s home, removing clutter, and making it safe to live in. While we are not assessing its actions during this time, this background information shows the resident had been living in challenging circumstances for some time, which the landlord had attempted to resolve.
The landlord has not submitted a copy of its vulnerable customers policy, health and safety policy or access policy to this Service. Moreover, due to data protection reasons, it has not provided full details of its communication with various third parties concerning these individuals, or copies of all its interactions with the neighbours. That notwithstanding, the limited information we have seen demonstrates it was collaborating withexternal professionals including Adult Social Care and a hoarding charity, in addition to its tenancy enforcement team and disposals team. This is what we would reasonably expect in the circumstances. The resident has recently informed us that around August 2025, neighbour B vacated the flat next door.
While there was limited information the landlord could share with the resident, it has not evidenced that it responded to her in terms of her concerns about fire risks and health and safety. This was a shortcoming.
Within the landlord’s internal communication, it demonstrated it was aware in May 2025 that neighbour A was continually blocking their toilet “causing effluent/toilet waste to run down the windows/walls of the flat below”. This was a significant health hazard to the resident and her family. It has not evidenced that it completed a risk assessment or offered professional cleaning of her home, despite being aware that the leak soaked her carpets and she was constantly living with the smell from above, with limited ventilation due to the window issues. This was a significant failing.
The landlord said in an email from May 2025 that “this has been going on for over 3 years ”and we have raised 15 jobs for the same issues time and time again”. This highlights the repeated occurrences. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the previous leaks were of the same nature or if it properly informed the resident at the earliest opportunity that human waste was leaking into her home. This is an example of a further serious failing. Without full disclosure of the issues, the resident was unable to take precautions to protect her health.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint about the issues concerning her neighbours, it said it would arrange a managed move to stop the ongoing health issues. We have previously addressed the landlord’s offers of a move within the repairs section of this report, so we have not repeated it here. However, we will add that the resident told this Service about the offer of a move around 2023. So, while the landlord has not fully evidenced all the offers of accommodation it made, we are minded it gave her opportunities to move in 2023 and 2025.
We do not underestimate the tremendous impact the leaks had on the resident and the enjoyment of her home for a significant period, combined with the flies, odours and issues caused by the hoarding taking place in the property next door. She informed the landlord that her “constant battle” to maintain a clean and liveable home and manage her family’s well-being caused substantial emotional exhaustion. Within her initial complaint, she described increased social isolation as she was hesitant to have guests due to the unsanitary conditions. She also said she was constantly anxious and on edge in her home, awaiting the next incident.
Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, it must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. In this case, we find the landlord has not demonstrated that it appropriately considered the risk at the earliest opportunity. And, while it evidenced some interactions with third-party professionals concerning the neighbours, it has not demonstrated that it offered support to the resident. Furthermore, the evidence provided concerning offers of a move is minimal and so it is unclear how it explained this to the resident. The lack of evidence here has impacted our consideration of this matter.
Overall, while it is evident the landlord has referred to Adult Social Care and professionals when dealing with the issues, from the limited information available, it is unclear whether there were any avoidable delays in making referrals and arranging meetings. Besides, it failed to evidence that it adequately considered the risk to the resident, disclosed that the leak was contaminated with human waste, offered professional cleaning, or responded to her concerns about fire safety. Cumulatively, its failings in this matter were significant and we have made orders taking this into consideration.

The condition of the communal areas

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord is responsible for communal areas including common entrance halls, stairways, and any common parts including their electrical wiring. It states it will maintain and decorate the common parts as and when it believes it is necessary.
Within the resident’s initial complaint, she reported that other residents were leaving rubbish, animal waste, and faeces in the communal areas. She felt the communal areas were poorly maintained and said the landlord did not dry it properly following leaks, leaving a dirty carpet and musty smell. She also said the garden was overgrown.
As part of the landlord’s investigation, it obtained copies of the cleaning records and photos of the communal areas. This was reasonable. Within an internal email, it said the cleaning service consists of wiping down of surfaces, vacuum cleaning carpeted areas, mopping tiled flooring and clearing cobwebs. The team would report any faeces or items in communal area, and this would be forwarded on to its localities team. Extra works, such as a carpet clean, would be rechargeable as this was not included in the service charge for cleaning that residents pay for.
The landlord has not provided copies of all correspondence from the cleaning team or demonstrated all actions taken by the localities team. This was a shortcoming which has impacted our assessment of this issue. It identified that cleaners refused to clean outside neighbour B’s flat due to the smell. It apologised for this in its stage 1 complaint response dated 4 November 2024 and said it needed to be proactively cleaning this area.
In our view, the landlord acted positively when managing the complaint by arranging a joint inspection of the garden and communal areas with a senior member of the estates team and housing officer on 12 November 2024. It was a shortcoming that it failed to update the resident following its inspection until she escalated her complaint. It would be reasonable for a landlord to update a resident after completing an inspection to manage expectations and demonstrate it took the matter seriously.
The landlord evidenced that it asked its cleaners to pay specific attention to the carpet in the communal areas and it spoke to the resident’s neighbour about allowing pets in the hallway. Additionally, it sent reminder letters to residents reminding them to keep communal areas clean and tidy.
Within its final complaint response of 23 December 2024, the landlord recognised there were avoidable delays removing a burnt-out cooker from the communal areas. It was appropriate for it to apologise and compensate the resident £25 for the inconvenience caused. It also confirmed that it attended on 4 December 2024 to cut back any overgrowth and clean all pathways. Finally, it explained that it would not undertake solely cosmetic repairs to the communal areas in view of the block being disposed of. This was in line with its policy which gives it the discretion to decide when it is necessary to decorate common parts.
Overall, while the landlord took some reasonable actions, we find there were several shortcomings. Considering it was aware of the challenges with some of the neighbours and the impact on the smell and overall cleanliness of the communal areas, it ought to have provided more robust records to evidence its actions in maintaining the cleanliness of block, particularly when cleaners referred issues. Combined with the lack of updates to the resident during a stressful time, we conclude that there were failings which warrants further redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp, mould, and window issues within the property.
2. The condition of the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues concerning her neighbours.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £1,860 compensation. It may deduct the amount already paid. The remainder must be paid to her directly. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £1,010 previously offered within complaint 1.
  2. £175 previously offered within complaint 2.
  3. £600 to reflect the distress caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of issues concerning her neighbours.
  4. £75 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the shortcomings in its communication concerning the communal areas.
3. Write to the resident to set out its position concerning its intention to offer her a managed move and what this entails. It must provide her with a copy of the relevant policy.
4. Write to the resident to set out its final position concerning the window repairs, airbrick, and ventilation within the bedroom. If it is unable to complete further works, it must explain why.

Recommendations

When making future offers of rehousing, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, we recommend the landlord does this in writing so there is a clear record of events.