GreenSquareAccord Limited (202513966)

Decision
Case ID	202513966
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 March 2026

Background

The resident lives with her son. The landlord is aware she has respiratory problems, is terminally ill, and that her son receives mental health support. At the time of her complaint, she held a joint tenancy with her former partner and told the landlord he had moved out. She was unhappy with how it managed her request to change the tenancy from a joint to sole agreement and that its communication was confusing.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the tenancy agreement.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the tenancy agreement.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Request to change the tenancy agreement

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request in line with its procedure and its communication was poor. It did not show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, there is no evidence this had a significant impact on the resident at that stage. Its following actions were timely and complied with both its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord could consider reviewing its Joint to Sole Tenancy Procedure to include a clear statement on how it will support residents affected by domestic abuse. This would help staff understand how to reduce the impact on residents and ensure communication is sensitive, appropriate, and consistent.
The resident is unclear of what, if any, succession rights her son would have on the tenancy. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to explain any succession rights.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained it had limited information about the resident’s health conditions. We recommend that the landlord speaks with the resident to discuss what, if any, adjustments she may need.
The resident reported that her health had been affected. We recommend that the landlord shares its personal injury insurance details with the resident and explains the process of making a claim.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 10 and 14 April 2025	The resident made a complaint. In summary, she said: her ex-partner moved out of the property in November 2024, but the landlord did not transfer the tenancy agreement into her sole name on 7 April 2025 the Housing Officer told her the tenancy was being ended by her ex-partner and “not to worry about it” on 10 April 2025 the landlord told her to return her keys by 11 May 2025 on 14 April 2025 the landlord apologised for the distress and said it would not evict her the landlord knew she had been affected by domestic abuse, had a terminal illness, and did not find its actions to be acceptable To resolve her complaint, she asked the landlord to: confirm it had transferred the tenancy agreement into her name cancel the ex-partner’s termination request
6 May 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it understood the resident had mobility problems and a long‑term health condition but had limited information about them on 14 November 2024 the resident told it her relationship had broken down, and her partner had moved out on 25 November 2024 the Housing Officer told the resident her ex-partner needed to assign the tenancy agreement into her name, or she would need to apply for a court order between 7 and 10 April 2025 the landlord sent her a Housing Support Needs and Assessment (HSNA) form to support a sole tenancy agreement there had been a misunderstanding when the ex-partner started the termination process without a valid tenancy agreement, the resident was an unauthorised occupier an appointment was made for the resident to sign a new sole tenancy agreement on 9 May 2025 The landlord apologised for its unclear communication and the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered the resident £300 compensation, made up as follows: £150 for delays in changing the tenancy £150 for distress and inconvenience
8 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. In summary, she said: she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer and repeated that she had been affected by domestic abuse the landlord should not have made a new sole tenancy agreement and asked it to reinstate the original tenancy agreement she did not feel it had considered her vulnerabilities in its approach
27 May 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. In summary, it said: it acknowledged that the resident’s vulnerabilities and history of domestic abuse likely increased her distress it had incorrectly processed a termination request it did not clearly explain her options or safeguard her tenancy considering her circumstances the resident signed a new tenancy agreement on 12 May 2025, explaining that the tenancy ‘break’ was due to its own actions The landlord increased its compensation offer to £400.
Referral to the Ombudsman	– The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to apologise compensate her for the distress and inconvenience add her son to the tenancy agreement

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the request to change the tenancy agreement
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident raised concerns in her stage 2 escalation about repairs. This complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident then brought that complaint to us (202516253), where we found maladministration. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the tenancy from a joint to sole agreement.

What we have investigated

In her complaint, the resident said she had told the landlord in November 2024 that her ex-partner, who was also a joint tenant, had moved out. She said he had keys to the property and raised safety concerns. At the time, the landlord explained it could only assign the tenancy agreement to the resident if her ex-partner agreed to remove his name from the tenancy agreement. Alternatively, she would need to obtain a court order.
This was consistent with its Joint to Sole Tenancy Procedure, which requires joint tenants to decide who remains in the property after a relationship breakdown. If they cannot agree, they must seek legal advice as the landlord cannot decide for them. The landlord will speak to each tenant privately and must be satisfied that any request is voluntary and understood.
However, the landlord did not show how it satisfied itself that both tenants understood the implications. It did not record any conversations on its Housing Management System (HMS), as its procedure required. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
Accurate records are essential for the landlord to reflect on what has happened during the tenancy. Good tenancy case management also supports consistent, timely and safe decision‑making. Failing to keep clear records limits a landlord’s ability to show that it met its responsibilities or managed the tenancy properly.
In December 2024, the resident said she had sent the landlord a copy of a court order, which prevented her ex-partner from living at the property. The landlord does not dispute this. It missed the opportunity to amend the joint tenancy in line with its procedure. This sets out that it will comply with the court order without the need for an assignment.
By not acting on the court order, the landlord left the joint tenancy in place. This meant the ex‑partner kept legal rights as a joint tenant, including the ability to end the tenancy, which created a clear risk.
The landlord also failed to carry out a risk assessment as required under its Domestic Abuse policy. Acting promptly on the court order could have reduced the risk and provided the resident with greater certainty and safety. This was not reflective of its policy’s ‘victim-centred approach.’
There is no evidence the landlord followed up on the resident’s contact until she contacted it again between 21 March and 7 April 2025. This was an unreasonable delay and likely made the resident feel her request had been overlooked. She said the landlord had contacted her about changing the tenancy agreement, but there is no record of the email.
There is no evidence the landlord considered refusing her ex‑partner’s request to end the tenancy when he gave notice on or around 7 April 2025. Its procedure allows this when it has reasonable belief there has been a relationship breakdown, harassment, or reported domestic abuse. The resident had told the landlord about domestic abuse. It is unclear how the landlord used this information to inform its decisions.
On 7 and 8 April 2025 the resident contacted the landlord again about its email. As required under its Joint to Sole procedure, the landlord sent her a Housing Support Needs and Assessment (HSNA) form. This is completed when a joint tenant leaves the property and to assess whether the property is suitable and affordable for the remaining resident. If it is suitable, the landlord will process an application for a new sole tenancy.
However, the landlord did not call her until 14 April 2025. During that call, she reported that the landlord told her “not to worry” about her ex-partner ending the tenancy. It missed the opportunity to explain what practical steps it would take to support her. The delay in responding, and the lack of clear information about what the landlord would do to help, caused her avoidable confusion and uncertainty.
On 10 April 2025 the resident received an email which said she needed to return her keys by 11 May 2025. She had not been warned that the landlord would send this email, despite it previously telling her “not to worry”. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this likely increased the impact of the unexpected and conflicting information.
She also complained and said the landlord’s internal communication was poor. The lack of prior warning, together with the contradictory message, caused her significant distress. She thought that she and her son would be homeless.
On 11 April 2025 the resident asked the landlord to clarify if she needed to return the keys, or if she was starting a sole tenancy. The landlord apologised and confirmed she did not need to leave the property. It acknowledged in its complaint responses that its communication was confusing and caused her distress and inconvenience. This was reasonable.
There is no evidence that the landlord’s internal communications were proactive. Had its communication been clear and timely, it could have reduced the impact on the resident. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble, who had contacted the landlord several times to explain the impact the situation had on her health and wellbeing.
On 14 April 2025 the resident complained again about the confusing information she had received. She reminded the landlord that it had known about her history of domestic abuse and her terminal illness. She asked it to confirm that it transferred the tenancy agreement into her name and cancelled the tenancy termination request.
Between 22 and 28 April 2025 the landlord met with the resident to discuss the tenancy agreement change. It wrote to her and confirmed the tenancy termination form was valid. It explained that the ex-partner had the legal right under the tenancy agreement to end the tenancy at any time. It explained that it was reviewing her HSNA form to understand her needs. She did not need to leave on 11 May 2025, but she would become an unauthorised occupier.
It was appropriate for the landlord to explain why the ex-partner had the legal right to end the tenancy. However, it did not acknowledge that it missed opportunities to assign or transfer the tenancy agreement, rather than create a new sole tenancy. The resident had explained she sent it the court order paperwork in December 2024 which prevented her ex-partner from living at the property.
The landlord could not legally cancel the ex-partners notice to end the tenancy, as it only needed a valid notice from 1 joint tenant. However, it could have clearly communicated the steps it was taking to support the resident. Telling her she would be an ‘unauthorised occupier’ likely added to her confusion and distress.
The landlord’s Tenancy Policy says it will provide support with housing options, help residents sustain their tenancy, and consider their needs and vulnerabilities. It did not demonstrate this approach here. It did not explain what, if any, implications of a new sole tenancy, such as whether the rent charge would increase, or any succession rights.
In landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 6 May 2025, it confirmed that it had reviewed its records and had spoken to the relevant staff members. It set out its understanding of her complaint and a timeline of events since 14 November 2024. These were reasonable steps to show it understood the resident’s complaint and events that had taken place. This would have helped it identify any failings and missed opportunities.
It also set out that it had told the resident to contact the police. It explained it could only assign the tenancy agreement to the resident if her ex-partner agreed to remove his name from the tenancy agreement. Alternatively, she would need to obtain a court order. This was appropriate and consistent with its procedure.
The landlord apologised for its misunderstanding and lack of clarity about the implications when the ex-partner began the tenancy termination process. It acknowledged that it caused the resident considerable unnecessary distress. It offered her a total of £300 compensation for its delays and impact. This would have gone someway in reassuring the resident that her concerns were taken seriously.
Its £300 compensation offer was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy range and our remedies guidance. These set out that payments between £100 and £600 are appropriate where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident. However, its offer did not go far enough to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities or the extended period of uncertainty.
On 8 May 2025 the resident refused the landlord’s compensation offer and asked to escalate her complaint. She asked the landlord to reinstate the original tenancy that began in 2015. She said that the landlord had caused the error and had not considered her vulnerabilities. She told it she had dyslexia and needed time and help to aid her understanding.
On 12 May 2025 the resident signed a new sole tenancy agreement. However, the landlord contacted her later that day to advise there was an error in the tenancy agreement, and she needed to re-sign it within 48 hours. If she did not do so, she would be an unauthorised occupier. This likely compounded the resident’s distress in relation to the security of her tenure at the property.
That day, the resident told the landlord she felt forced to sign the new tenancy agreement. She repeated the events that had taken place since November 2024 and that her health had deteriorated from the stress. She asked the landlord to reinstate the original tenancy agreement.
The landlord did not assign the tenancy agreement, which would have kept the resident on the existing terms. It also did not explain that once the joint tenant had ended the tenancy, it could not reinstate it. Her ex-partner’s notice meant he had relinquished his rights, and the original tenancy agreement had legally ended. The landlord missed the opportunity to explain this clearly to the resident.
When the landlord gave its stage 2 response, dated 27 May 2025, it repeated its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident’s terminal illness, vulnerabilities, and history of domestic abuse. This was reasonable to acknowledge as the resident had been raising concerns about the impact on her health.
However, the landlord did not provide its insurance details. This was not consistent with its Compensation Policy, which says it will refer personal injury claims to its insurers. This would have been appropriate given the resident said the landlord had impacted on her health conditions. This was a shortcoming.
We cannot assess or award compensation for personal injury or matters which are better handled by insurers. However, we can assess how the landlord communicated about these issues and the impact this reasonably had on the resident, including any time, trouble, distress or inconvenience. By delaying action, overlooking her health concerns, and causing uncertainty about the security of her tenancy, the landlord added to her distress.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not take appropriate steps to reduce the impact on the resident when the ex-partner gave notice to end the tenancy. It apologised for this and assured the resident she now had a sole tenancy that was effective from 12 May 2025. It appropriately accepted the ‘break’ in the tenancy was because of its own actions.
Overall, the landlord failed to follow its Joint to Sole Tenancy Procedure, Domestic Abuse Policy and Tenancy Policy. It missed opportunities to reduce the impact of its actions on the resident. Had the landlord referred to these, it could have taken steps to put things right sooner.
However, its response went far enough in recognising the impact of its failings. It accepted that the resident’s vulnerabilities and history of domestic abuse increased the distress and complexity of the situation.
While it did not show that it had carefully considered these vulnerabilities during the complaint, its responses did acknowledge that it had inadequately safeguarded her tenancy. It also accepted that telling her she would be an “unauthorised occupier”, despite living in the property since 2015, caused emotional distress.
The landlord increased its stage 1 offer of £300 to £400 in recognition of the unnecessary distress and inconvenience that it caused. This amount aligned with both its policy and our remedies guidance. The resident accepted the offer of £400.
We consider this sum is appropriate redress for the impact on the resident as a result of the failings identified above.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint dated 10 and 14 April 2025 within 5 working days on 17 April 2025. This met the 5-working day acknowledgement timeframe set out the landlord’s policy and Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 6 May 2025, was 11 working days after its acknowledgement. This was 1 day outside of the 10-working day timeframe set out in the Code and its policy. However, there is no evidence this had an impact on the resident. The landlord’s complaint definition also complied with the Code.
On 8 May 2025 the resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged 9 working days later, on 21 May 2025. This exceeded the 5 working day timeframe. However, there is no evidence this impacted the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 27 May 2025, 4 working days later. This met the Code and its policy which require a response within 20 working days of the escalation.

Learning

The landlord has told us this complaint covered a period when there was limited oversight of its Housing Management Team. This contributed to delays, inconsistent record‑keeping, and unclear decision‑making about the tenancy change. The landlord has since introduced measures to improve staff oversight, including closer monitoring of cases involving tenancy changes. This is a positive step, as stronger operational oversight helps identify risks earlier and reduce avoidable impact on residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Both us and the landlord identified a lack of records when the resident initially contacted the landlord in November 2024. Landlords should maintain accurate and clear records of the outcome of all repairs to avoid future delays and confusion. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may wish to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

Clear and early communication is essential for managing residents’ expectations. When landlords explain what will happen, when, and why, residents understand the process and the reasons behind any decisions. This transparency helps build trust and confidence in the landlord’s service delivery and helps reduce uncertainty.
Acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.