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 (202453111)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453111

GreenSquareAccord Limited

10 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 handing of damp in the property and associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began in 2003. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced house.
  2. On 8 October 2024, the resident reported damp in the property. The landlord’s surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection on 30 October 2024. They identified that the loft insulation needed replacing and the roof and damp proof course needed further inspection.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2025. He expressed dissatisfaction with its delay in completing the works identified by its surveyor.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2025. It:
    1. Acknowledged its communication with the resident since its surveyors inspection had been poor.
    2. Apologised that it had taken until 13 January 2025 to raise the works its surveyor had identified.
    3. Confirmed it was scheduled to inspect the roof on 4 February 2025.
    4. Said it had scheduled to replace the loft insulation on 17 April 2025, but the resident had told it he was not available then. It said it would contact the resident by 31 January 2025 to reschedule this.
    5. Offered the resident a total of £275 compensation.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process on 4 February 2025. He said that he had asked the landlord to confirm that it would be removing the existing loft insulation, not just overlaying it, but it had failed to respond. He also said the landlord had not addressed the concerns about the damp proof course. Finally, he expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to inspect the roof as scheduled due to its operatives being ‘stuck’ at another job.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 March 2025. It:
    1. Confirmed that it would be removing the existing loft insulation as part of the work. It said it was due to do this on 12 March 2025.
    2. Apologised for the “stress and inconvenience” caused by its operatives being unable to inspect the roof on 4 February 2025. It explained that they had been “stuck at another emergency job that day”, but it had called the resident to explain this.
    3. Said it had inspected the roof on 12 February 2025. Inspecting the damp proof course had also formed part of the works order for this appointment, but it was unclear what it had found. It said it would provide the resident with an update by 14 March 2025.
    4. Said it had now arranged to erect scaffolding on 13 May 2025 and complete roof repairs the following day.
    5. Offered the resident an additional £75 compensation.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

  1. The landlord replaced the loft insulation on 12 March 2025, as scheduled.
  2. On 18 March 2025, the landlord raised an order for a specialist contractor to inspect the cavity walls and damp proof course at the property.
  3. On 14 May 2025, the landlord began the roof repairs as scheduled. It had to return on 20 May 2025 to complete these.
  4. The specialist contractor inspected the property on 27 May 2025. They identified that the damp proof course had been installed too high. They said this meant the cavity wall insulation began below the damp proof course, which was causing water ingress to the wall.
  5. On 26 August 2025, the landlord raised an order to a different specialist contractor to resolve this issue. The contractor was scheduled to attend on 9 September 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. When referring his complaint to us, the resident said his daughter’s health had been impacted by the damp in the property. We are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. The resident also said he was seeking reimbursement for costs he incurred due to the damp in the property. These included damaged belongings, running a dehumidifier and purchasing ‘anti mould products’. We have not seen any evidence that the resident requested this from the landlord during its complaints process. As such, it has not yet had the opportunity to provide its position on this. We have made a recommendation in this regard below.

Damp and associated repairs

  1. In his complaint of 24 January 2025, the resident said the damp issue in the property had been ongoing for “6-7 months”. We have not seen any evidence of the resident reporting the issue to the landlord prior to 8 October 2024. Our investigation will therefore begin at that point.
  2. On 8 October 2024, the landlord appropriately raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection. It booked this with the resident for 30 October 2024. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy at that time did not set a timeframe for it to complete an initial inspection. However, it was arranged within the landlord’s 28 day timeframe for ‘routine’ repairs.
  3. The landlord introduced a new damp, mould and condensation procedure on 16 October 2024. This was therefore in place by the time its surveyor completed the damp and mould inspection.
  4. The procedure says that during their inspection the landlord’s surveyor will complete its damp and mould inspection form and take photographs of the problem areas. The landlord has acknowledged that its surveyor failed to complete the inspection form as required. Instead, they recorded limited notes of their findings on the landlord’s repairs system.
  5. The landlord’s procedure says that its surveyors will raise any works orders required “within 48 hours” of a damp and mould inspection. It also says that “the surveyor will be required to provide the customer with a report on the findings of the investigation. The customer should be issued with a written summary of the findings of the investigation within 48 hours of the investigation concluding.”
  6. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it issued a written summary of the findings of the inspection to the resident. It also failed to raise works orders for the issues identified by the surveyor until 13 January 2025 – 75 days after the inspection.
  7. Prior to this, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 30 December 2024 for an update following the inspection. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had “raised a 7-day case over to the Surveyor to contact you…but you had no contact from him”. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 January 2025. On this occasion, the landlord “raised a 48 Hour case” for its complaints team to contact the resident back but again failed to do so.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised for failing to contact the resident on both occasions. It offered him £100 compensation for this. It also offered a further £175 for its delay raising the repairs, the distress and inconvenience caused, failing to log a complaint following his contact on 7 January 2025, and time and trouble in rearranging the insulation repair. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration and was appropriate given the circumstances of the case at that time.
  9. The landlord confirmed in its response that it had scheduled the roof inspection for 4 February 2025. It said it had originally scheduled to replace the loft insulation on 17 April 2025, but the resident had told it he was not available on that date. It said it would rearrange this and provide the resident with an update by 31 January 2025. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident on 29 January 2025 and rebooked the appointment for 12 March 2025, meeting its commitment.
  10. On 4 February 2025, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. He said that he had contacted the landlord after it had not attended by lunchtime that day, it had told him it would still be attending. The resident said the landlord had then called him later in the afternoon to advise that its operatives were ‘stuck’ at another job and unable to attend.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that its operatives had been “stuck at another emergency job that day” and were “unable to attend”. It was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise completing an emergency repair. While the knock on effect of this undoubtedly caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, it could not have been foreseen by the landlord and cannot be considered a failing. Nevertheless, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience and having to rearrange the appointment at short notice. This was reasonable.
  12. The landlord also offered to rearrange the roof inspection for the following day, but the resident was not available to give access for this. Instead, it rebooked the appointment for 12 February 2025. The landlord completed the inspection on this date. It diagnosed issues with the roof, which it needed to erect scaffolding to address.
  13. The resident also escalated his complaint on the basis that he said he had queried the scope of works for the loft insulation and the landlord had failed to respond. While we have not seen any evidence of this, the landlord did not dispute this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. In that response, the landlord confirmed that it would be removing and replacing the existing insulation, which had gotten wet. It confirmed that it would be doing this on 12 March 2025.
  15. The landlord also said it had scheduled to erect scaffolding on 13 May 2025 and carry out the roof repairs the following day. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete ‘planned’ repairs within 84 days. 13 May 2025 was 90 days after the landlord had inspected the roof. However, we note that it originally offered the resident an appointment for 30 April 2025, but he was unable to accommodate this. It was therefore not due to any failing by the landlord that it exceeded its timescale.
  16. The landlord attended these repairs as scheduled. While it had to return on 20 May 2025 to complete the roof repairs, it was able to do so without needing access to the property. Therefore, there was limited detriment to the resident by the repairs overrunning.
  17. When escalating his complaint, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to address concerns about the damp proof course, which its surveyor had identified during their inspection.
  18. The order for the roof inspection raised by the landlord on 13 January 2025 did include a request to inspect the damp proof course as well. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was unclear from its records whether it had done this on 12 February 2025. It said it would investigation this further and provide an update to the resident by 14 March 2025. It offered him £25 compensation for its “lack of clarity” about the issue.
  19. Internal landlord emails indicate that it had assigned the roof inspection job to roofers, who were not able to inspect a damp proof course. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord’s operatives to have fed this back to the landlord following their visit so that it could raise a separate order for a suitably qualified person to attend.
  20. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 March 2025 as agreed, it said it was still looking into the damp proof course issue and would provide a further update by 18 March 2025. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 18 March 2025 for a specialist contractor to inspect the damp proof course. However, it failed to update the resident of this. It was not until after he contacted it on 8 April 2025 that it informed him it had raised this order.
  21. The landlord’s specialist contractor attended the property on 27 May 2025. While this was over 2 months after the landlord had raised the order, it is evident this was at least in part due to it working around the resident’s limited availability.
  22. Following its inspection, the contractor took until 16 July 2025 to provide the landlord with a written report of its findings. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given it found issues with the damp proof course which required remedial works. In total it took almost 9 months from the landlord’s surveyor identifying the need to inspect the damp proof course at the property to its contractor completing the inspection.
  23. After receiving its contractor’s report, the landlord took a further 6 weeks to raise an order to a second contractor to address the defects identified. Internal landlord emails indicate this was due to the contractor not having current approval under its procurement process. The contractor is scheduled to complete the work on 9 September 2025.
  24. In summary, we consider the landlord’s offer of £325 compensation reasonable for the failings identified in its handing of the roof and insulation repairs. However, it failed to appropriately act upon its surveyor’s concerns about the damp proof course until after its stage 2 complaint response. There were then significant delays in the landlord’s contractor providing their report and it raising a works order to address the defects identified. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration.
  25. The landlord has provided evidence that it has paid the resident the £350 compensation offered across its 2 complaint responses (which includes £25 for the lack of clarity over the damp proof course). We order it to pay the resident a further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This is composed of:
    1. £100 for the delay in it arranging an inspection of the damp proof course.
    2. £50 for the delay in its specialist contractor providing its report following its inspection of 27 May 2025.
    3. £50 for the delay in it raising a works order to address the defects identified in its contractor’s report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp in the property and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the damp proof course.
    2. Write to the resident apologising for its delays in investigating and addressing concerns about the damp proof course.
    3. Confirm to us whether its contractor attended the property on 9 September 2025 as scheduled. The landlord should provide details of any work the contractor carried out and any further work required along with anticipated dates for this.

The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord provides the resident with details of how to make a claim for any costs he feels he incurred because of its delays in addressing the damp in the property.