GreenSquareAccord Limited (202503734)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202503734

GreenSquareAccord Limited

22 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports about the condition of the front door and windows.
2. Failure to recognise and record a resident’s vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 1991. The property is a 4-bedroom, mid-terraced house. The resident lives with her daughter who has additional needs.
Since around June 2022 the resident has made multiple reports to the landlord regarding the condition of the front door and windows. The landlord carried out repairs in June 2022, December 2023 and January 2024. On 4 March 2024 the resident asked that the landlord inspect the front door and windows as their condition was worsening. In July 2024 the landlord inspected the front door and window. It found that the property needed a new front door and windows because the current ones were rotten and bowed.
The resident raised her complaint on 26 February 2025. She said the landlord had breached its service level agreement because:
1. It had not painted the windows every 3 years.
2. The windows were rotting and the landlord had not done anything to fix this for over 2 years.
3. The front door was bowed and while the locks had been changed it was still letting the cold into the property.
The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 14 March 2025. It said that it had no record of any vulnerabilities or disabilities at the resident’s household. It apologised that it had not correctly raised the resident’s request for it to inspect the front door and windows on 4 March 2024. It acknowledged that this error led to the front door and windows not being inspected until 8 July 2024. It said that on 7 October 2024 the resident had made another request for it to inspect the front door and windows. It acknowledged that it had carried out this inspection on 28 November 2024, which was 10 days outside its repairs timescales. It confirmed that the windows are due to be replaced as part of a programme of works in 2027/28 and in the meantime it could treat the windows to stop them from rotting. It also said that a repair for the door had been scheduled for 28 April 2025. In recognition of its failings the landlord offered £150 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 March 2025. She said:
1. She was concerned about the landlord’s statement that it had no record of her daughters vulnerabilities. She said the house had been adapted for someone with special needs and she had provided it information on their particular vulnerabilities in the past.
2. The condition of the windows and front door continued to get worse and she was not happy that these would not be replaced until 2027/28.
3. Her gas bills had increased as a result of it being difficult to heat the property due to the condition of the windows and front door.
4. The condition of the front door meant it did not lock properly and this compromised the security of the property.
5. The offer of £150 compensation did not adequately reflect the impact, distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing issues.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2025. It said:
1. It did not have any information about the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities because she was not named on the tenancy. It confirmed it had added a note to the resident’s account to ensure this information was not missed in future.
2. It asked the resident to provide evidence of the increased gas bill so it could consider awarding additional compensation.
3. It would be carrying out a repair to the front door on 28 April 2025. It confirmed that if the door could be fixed then it would not make a referral for it to be replaced.
4. It offered an additional £425 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £100 for its failure to acknowledge her daughter’s vulnerabilities.
  2. £25 for its failure to contact her via email when it had not reached her by phone.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience.

This brought the total offer of compensation to £575.

On 28 April 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and it had breached its service level agreement. She said the issues with the front door and windows had been ongoing for several years but the landlord said it would not replace the windows until 2027/28. She said she had to keep the heating on all the time to heat the property which had led to increased bills. To resolve the complaint she said she wanted the landlord to replace the windows sooner than 2027/28 and pay more compensation.
On 15 August 2025 the landlord provided us with its case file for the complaint. Within this, it said it had reviewed the complaint and acknowledged there had been failings with its handling of the repair to the windows and door. It confirmed that it had already paid the resident the original compensation of £575. However, in recognition of its failings the landlord said it wanted to increase its previous offer of compensation by £1,680 from £575 to £2,255.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she has referred to historical issues with the front door and windows. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issues until February 2025. The Ombudsman encourages residents to bring complaints to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them. Therefore, this assessment focuses on events from February 2024 (12 months before the complaint was made). Anything that happened before this is considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Front door and windows

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in 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 repairs policy says that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 days and planned works within 84 days. It also says it will always consider a customer’s vulnerability and information given to it at the time of reporting a repair when determining the speed of its response.
On 17 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to inspect her windows and front door because they were rotten and the door was bowed. She said the condition of the windows and door were letting draughts into the property. The landlord carried out an inspection on 8 July 2024. The records seen show the landlord found the windows all needed to be replaced because they were rotten, while the door needed to be replaced because it was rotten and bowed. However, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord carried out any temporary repairs between this inspection and the resident’s further request for an inspection in October 2024. Landlords should be proactive in seeking to resolve issues that are brought to their attention. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the replacement of windows and doors can take time to complete, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to carry out any kind of repair on them. Its failure to carry out any temporary repairs impacted the resident’s full enjoyment of the property as she has said the condition of the windows and door made it difficult for her to heat the property.
The resident made a further request for the landlord to inspect the windows and front door on 7 October 2024 as she was experiencing the same issues as previously reported. The landlord carried out the inspection on 28 November 2024 and the records show that it only took photos. This inspection took place 10 days outside the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. It also said the photos needed to be assessed to determine whether or not the windows and door could be replaced. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident asked the landlord to inspect the windows and door again. However, it has not explained why it only attended to take photos when the inspection 4 months before had already determined that they needed to be replaced. Additionally, no evidence has been seen to show the landlord took any steps to address the reported issues between the second inspection and its stage 1 complaint response 5 month later. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why there was such a delay. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable.
Overall the landlord’s failures can be summarised as failing to:
1. Adhere to its repairs policy timescales.
2. Carry out temporary repairs to the windows and door.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. 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. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In its stage 1 response the landlord the landlord acknowledged that the inspection in November 2024 took place 10 days late and confirmed that the resident’s windows were scheduled to be replaced as part of a schedule of works in 2027/28. However, it said that in the interim it could make adjustments to the windows and apply mould washes to prevent their condition deteriorating. It also said that a repair for the door had been scheduled for 28 April 2025. In recognition of its failings the landlord offered £150 compensation broken down as:
1. £25 for incorrectly raising the inspection after the resident’s call on 4 March 2024.
2. £25 for the delayed inspection on 28 November 2024.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £50 for time and trouble caused by the resident having to chase it.
The landlord then increased this offer of compensation by an additional £425 in its stage 2 response. As far as the Ombudsman is aware, £300 of this additional sum was for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures relating to the windows and door. This brought the total compensation offered for this head of complaint to £450.
Furthermore, the landlord told this Service on 15 August 2025 that it had reviewed the complaint and found that it had recorded more than once that the windows and door needed replacing but had failed to raise the appropriate referrals for this work. In addition, it said that after a referral had been approved for the replacement of the door, there was a delay in raising the job itself. It confirmed that its most recent inspections had found that the deterioration of the front door and windows needed immediate attention and it had engaged its contractors to replace these. The landlord said it wanted to increase the compensation offer from £525 to £2,250. Based on the breakdown it provided, the Ombudsman is of the understanding that £1,530 of the additional £1,680 offered relates to its handling of the windows and door:
1. £150 for missed opportunities to raise referrals for the replacement of the windows and door.
2. £260 for the delay in raising jobs for the replacement of the windows and door (£20 per month for 13 months from July 2024 to August 2025).
3. An additional £520 for distress and inconvenience (calculated at rate of £40 per month for 13 months).
4. An additional £100 for time and trouble.
5. £500 contribution towards the resident’s additional heating costs without the need for her to send supporting evidence.

Bringing the total amount offered for this head of complaint to £1,980.

This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our investigation. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate.
In view of this, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress despite the landlord now offering proportionate compensation for the failings in its handling of the repairs. Instead a finding of maladministration has been found. We have ordered the landlord to pay the additional compensation offered in its email of 15 August 2025. Additionally, the Ombudsman also orders the landlord to provide the resident and this Service with a detailed fully timed action plan for the replacement of the windows and door and any interim measures that will alleviate the adverse impacts until such time as replacement works are concluded.

Vulnerabilities

In January 2025 the landlord carried out a tenancy audit. The audit report shows the resident confirmed that her daughter lives with her and that she has several disabilities and vulnerabilities. She also confirmed that she herself has diabetes.
Despite the information provided during the tenancy audit, the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it did not have a record of any vulnerabilities or disabilities at the property. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord because, from at least January 2025, it was aware of the vulnerabilities and disabilities of those living at the property.
Within her escalation request the resident expressed her concern that landlord had said it did not have a record of their vulnerabilities or disabilities. She said that information had been provided to it previously and the property was specially adapted for her daughter’s additional.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that information about the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities was not included because she was not named on the tenancy. It said to prevent this information being missed in future it had put a note about her daughter’s vulnerabilities or disabilities on the resident’s account.
The landlord has confirmed it no longer has a copy of the original tenancy agreement. However, the resident has provided this Service with a copy of the original tenancy agreement and her 3 daughters were named on it. Regardless of whether or not the landlord still held a copy of the original agreement, it should have had accurate records about those living at the property. Furthermore, the resident has confirmed the property was adapted to accommodate her daughter’s additional needs. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have information about her daughter’s disabilities recorded on her account. Without good knowledge and information management a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and all those that live there safe now and in the future.
Overall the landlord’s failure can be summarised as failing to adequately record information about the disabilities and vulnerabilities of those living at the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the £100 compensation for its failure to its failure to acknowledge the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities. However, on 15 August 2025 it told this Service that it wanted to offer a further £25 for its failure to arrange an earlier review of the households vulnerabilities.
This Service has noted that the landlord revised its offer of compensation when it reviewed the case due to our investigation. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of its failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
In view of this, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress despite the landlord now offering proportionate compensation for its record keeping failures. Instead a finding of service failure has been found. We have ordered the landlord to pay the additional compensation offered in its email of 15 August 2025.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints raised at both stages of the complaints process within 5 working days. It says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed.
The resident raised her complaint on 26 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 28 February 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 14 March 2025. This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged her escalation on 27 March 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2025. While the landlord acknowledged the escalation request a day late, this was a short delay which did not impact the outcome of the complaint. It then issued the stage 2 response within its complaint policy timescales.
On 15 August 2025 the landlord told this Service that it acknowledged that there was a delay in it acknowledging the resident’s escalation request, it didn’t refer to this in its stage 2 response and it had failed to resolve the complaint. In recognition of this it said it wanted to offer:
1. £100 for its failure to resolve the complaint through its complaints procedure.
2. £25 for the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint and its failure to address this in the stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman may make a determination of reasonable redress where a landlord has offered compensation that provides redress for failures and satisfactorily resolves the complaint. This is not the case where the landlord makes an offer of compensation after its complaints procedure. Redress should be prior to when the Ombudsman accepts a complaint for investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. In this case, the landlord was prompted to reconsider its position following the Ombudsman accepting the case for investigation.
In view of this, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress despite the landlord now offering proportionate compensation for its complaint handling. Instead a finding of service failure has been found. We have ordered the landlord to pay the compensation offered on 15 August 2025.

Determination (decision)

There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports about the condition of the front door and windows.
There was a service failure by the landlord in relation to failure to recognise and record a resident’s vulnerabilities.
There was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
2. If it has not already done so, directly pay the resident the £575 compensation offered through its complaints process as well as the additional compensation amount of £1,680 offered in August 2025.
3. Write to the resident and this Service to set out its timed action plan with regard to the replacement of the windows and door. This action plan must be overseen so as to ensure the completion of works within 12 weeks of the date of this report and include at minimum the following elements:
  1. When the replacement of the windows and door will take place, how long it anticipates these works will take and whether the resident can remain in the property.
  2. What, if any, interim repairs or other measures, for example additional compensation for elevated heating usage, it intends to carry out or provide for until the windows and door are replaced and when these will happen.