GreenSquareAccord Limited (202509140)

Background

1. The resident has been a joint-tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2018. Her daughter, who is disabled, lives with her. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to carry out prompt repairs, its poor communication, and the trouble, upset, and inconvenience caused. It offered proportionate redress and took steps to improve its service and prevent a repeat of its mistakes.
6. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy. There was a small delay in its response at stage 2 but there was no significant adverse impact on the resident of this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the landlord. The landlord told us it registered a new complaint under its reference 7108 on 31 July 2025. We can only consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its internal complaint process. We do not generally investigate live issues or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations. Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint, and once this has completed the landlord’s internal process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 May 2025.
8. The resident said her family’s health was impacted by the landlord’s failure to carry out prompt repairs. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions caused more general distress and inconvenience.
9. The landlord has fully accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. It has sincerely apologised and paid compensation. It agreed to paint doors which were not its responsibility, and offered to investigate further once more information was provided. This was a suitable response to the identified failures. Overall, our investigation found the same failings; there is nothing further we can usefully add to that.
10. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, the question before us is whether these failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
11. The resident has been candid about the impact on her, and her family, as someone responsible for a vulnerable child. She had to chase and explain the situation repeatedly to the landlord, which did not give prompt updates to explain its delays. There is no doubt it has been difficult for the resident, and the landlord’s failures added to her stress, upset, trouble, and inconvenience.
12. However, 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.
13. Our own remedies guidance indicates that an award of £450 compensation might be appropriate where there was a failure/s which adversely affected the resident and redress is needed to put things right. Having considered the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we find that this sum was proportionate to the failings identified.
14. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of repairs. We have seen evidence that the compensation awarded by the landlord has been paid to the resident, so no recommendation is made in that regard.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.” The policy set out a 2-stage complaint process with timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
16. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued its response 3 working days later. At stage 2, it acknowledged the complaint within 7 working days and issued its response 20 working days later. This was broadly in line with its complaint policy and the advised response times.
17. While there was a small delay in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2, this did not have a material adverse impact on the resident. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.

Communication

19. The landlord did not explain the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation. It is reminded of the importance of ensuring it updates residents and/or explains delays, however small. Not only is this good customer service, but it also prevents added trouble and inconvenience being caused during an already upsetting situation.