GreenSquareAccord Limited (202514443)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202514443 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
GreenSquareAccord Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 December 2025 |
Background
- In 2024 the resident reported to the landlord cracks and holes in walls at the property. He also said the floorboards needed repair. This was in addition to raising concerns about the level of loft insulation and the condition of the roof lining. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the action the landlord took to resolve these, and some of the repairs are outstanding.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cracks, holes in walls, loft insulation, roof lining, and floorboards.
- The landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cracks, holes in walls, loft insulation, roof lining, and floorboards.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cracks, holes in walls, loft insulation, roof lining, and floorboards
- While the landlord completed several repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy (“repairs policy”) there were unreasonable delays in it arranging inspections between 2024 and 2025. It also failed to respond in line with its repairs policy to reports on 26 January 2025 and 1 February 2025. It also delayed following up its attempted visit on 14 July 2025 in a timely way. While the landlord offered the resident compensation of £75 this was not proportionate to the level of failings we found.
The landlord’s complaint handling
- There were short and minor delays in the landlord’s complaint handling which it ought to have acknowledged. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about energy bills through its complaint process which was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“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.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 20 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.
|
No later than 20 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should consider compensation for any increase in heating costs during any periods of delay outlined in this report down to any failures on its part and on production of evidence from the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 April 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord about the loft insulation and roof lining. He told the landlord that the property was freezing, and his heating bills had doubled. |
|
12 May 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. |
|
4 June 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and said:
|
|
4 June 2025 |
The resident escalated the complaint and said that the landlord’s findings on the severity of the cracks contradicted what the surveyor told him. |
|
9 June 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process. |
|
4 July 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response and said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and condition of the property. The resident told us the landlord paid him the £75 compensation it had offered, but he felt that this was inadequate. The landlord inspected the property on 25 November 2025, and it has agreed to complete work. The landlord told the resident on 3 December 2025 it would repair cracks in the front bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, hall, and living room. It also agreed to renew damaged bedroom floorboards and remove any rubbish in the loft and relay insulation to a depth of 270mm. It also said it would replace the roof felt, including the removal of all tiles, in March 2026 when the weather improves. The resident agrees to the work but is concerned at the condition of his property. The resident wants compensation for his heating costs and his landlord to rehouse him. |
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 response to the resident’s concerns about cracks, holes in walls, loft insulation, roof lining, and floorboards |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not looked at
- The resident told us that the landlord’s actions had affected his mental health, given him palpitations, a nostril infection, and possibly a stroke or heart attack which led to his hospitalisation. 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 will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- The resident complained to the landlord about the condition of bedroom floorboards on 29 August 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to this on 2 October 2024. We determined this complaint (202442341) on 17 June 2025 which included an assessment of the landlord’s actions regarding bedroom floorboards. There was a gap in the resident reporting issues with the bedroom flooring (floorboards) until 1 February 2025. Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, we may not investigate matters which the resident seeks to raise which we or another Ombudsman has already determined. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of floorboards for the period we considered in our previous determination. Instead, we have investigated the landlord’s response to concerns about floorboards that the resident raised on 1 February 2025.
- The resident has raised complaint issues about the landlord not referring him to its energy hub and his high energy costs since this complaint was referred to us. We cannot investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that these complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and so we have not investigated these. The resident’s complaint on 28 April 2025 included concerns about increased energy costs. As this complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint process, we have not investigated these substantively. However, we have considered the complaint about energy costs in the context of the landlord’s complaint handling.
What we have looked at
- It is unclear when the resident first reported issues with cracks. While the resident said he reported this in February 2024 the evidence we have seen shows that the reports then related to dust and plaster.
- It took the landlord 93 days to arrange the inspection for the cracks (21 August 2024) from when it raised a job to inspect the cracks (20 May 2024). This was against a target of 28 days within its repairs policy to address routine repairs. Although this was outside the target it proceeded to complete repairs to small cracks in the bedroom on 5 September 2024 which was within the 28 days target from the inspection. It took the landlord 31 days, against a target of 28 days, to inspect the ceilings, stair, kitchen, bedroom, and living room walls for cracks (16 January 2025) from when it raised a further job (16 December 2024). While the landlord said it completed a job in relation to this on 20 January 2025 there is no evidence to explain what it did.
- The resident reported to the landlord on 26 January 2025 that there was no insulation in his loft. He also told it on 1 February 2025 that a rolled steel joist (RSJ) had lifted his bedroom floor and there were severe cracks. It took the landlord 40 and 34 days respectively to inspect the loft and bedroom floor on 7 March 2025. The absence of insulation or movement of structural parts of a property could cause future damage. The landlord should have inspected the property within 7 days in line with its repairs policy to assess the nature and severity of the reported issues.
- On 13 March 2025 the landlord agreed to repair the cracks, including to the bathroom ceiling, and make good the damage it made in exposing the RSJ. It also agreed on this day to clear the loft and relay any insulation, and to top it up where necessary. The landlord also agreed on this day to replace 2 damaged floorboards in the bedroom. The resident was concerned the cracks were structural and possibly caused by a nearby tree, or subsidence. The landlord acted reasonably to examine these concerns. It completed a tree condition survey on 23 October 2024, and it inspected the property on 16 January 2025, 7 March 2025, and 15 May 2025. It assessed that the cracks were not structural, but agreed to repair them. There was no evidence the property was unhabitable or that the landlord could not complete work with the resident living at the property. It was reasonable of the landlord not to offer temporary accommodation in these circumstances.
- The landlord cleared the loft and relayed loft insulation on 26 March 2025 which was within the 84–day target in its repairs policy for planned work (from the date of inspection on 7 March 2025). On 30 March 2025 the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord on the standard of work it had completed to the loft. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to rectify this, and it offered the resident 3 dates in early June 2025 to do this. The resident was unable to agree these dates.
- The landlord attended the resident’s property on 24 April 2025 when it planned to repair the cracks, floorboards, and make good the damage it caused when it inspected on 7 March 2025. The landlord said it also planned to repair ripped roof lining or felt on this day, but the resident disputed this. The landlord’s attendance was within the 84–days target (from the date of inspection on 7 March 2025) in its repairs policy for planned work. The resident asked the landlord’s surveyor to leave his property on the visit on 24 April 2024, and this led to the contractors leaving too. While the resident said he only asked the surveyor to leave it was reasonable of the contractors to leave too. This was because the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of workmanship of the landlords’ contractors previously. Under these circumstances we cannot fault the landlord for not completing the scheduled work.
- It was also reasonable of the landlord to visit the resident’s property again on 15 May 2025 to provide a full scope of the work needed to the property. Following this it agreed to attend again on 14 July 2025 to complete the outstanding jobs which it described in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord took 81 days to attend (on 14 July 2025) from when it last visited to do work on 24 April 2025. This was against a target of 84 days in its repair policy for planned work.
- The landlord was unable to complete work on 14 July 2025 as the resident told it he was unaware of the appointment and had to visit his GP. The landlord had sent an email to the resident’s correct email address on 4 July 2025 informing him of the appointment, although it could have sent a reminder by text. While we cannot determine if the resident received this email, we cannot fault the landlord for being unable to complete the work under these circumstances. However, the landlord ought to have contacted the resident in a timely way to re-arrange this. This is because it told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response it needed to visit to provide a “full resolution” to the complaint. In this response it acknowledged the resolution of the outstanding issues in the complaint was conditional on a joint inspection with its surveyor and contractor.
- The landlord experienced difficulties in obtaining positive engagement from the resident at times which led to it sending him a warning on 15 May 2025 and 22 July 2025 in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. While this policy allowed the landlord to put in place arrangements to manage behaviour it deemed unacceptable this did not remove its repair obligations. It was not until 14 November 2025 that the landlord contacted the resident to agree the scope of works which was 4 months after its last visit.
- While the landlord offered an apology and compensation of £75 in its stage 2 complaint response this was not proportionate to the level of failures found in this investigation. The compensation it paid did not consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in arranging an inspection until August 2024 or 7 March 2025. We have therefore awarded an additional £150 compensation (on top of the £75 it has already paid) for these failures, which also considers the landlord’s failure to follow up the July 2025 visit in a timely way.
- This amount is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for compensation of this amount where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failures. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident. As the landlord has recently inspected the resident’s property and agreed work with the resident we have made no further orders.
- While the resident said he wanted the landlord to rehouse him this is not an outcome we can fairly order as we do not know the availability of suitable properties or the level of local housing need compared to the resident. The resident wanted the landlord to compensate for additional heating costs he said he incurred because of the level of insulation. The landlord has agreed to consider this as part of another complaint it is currently considering and so we have made a recommendation relating to this.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
- We have found the following failures in complaint handling:
- It took the landlord 9 working days to acknowledge the complaint (12 May 2025) the resident raised on 28 April 2024, against a target of 5 working days.
- It took it 16 working days to respond at stage 1 of its complaint process (4 June 2025) from when it acknowledged it, against a target of 10 working days.
- It took the landlord 22 working days to respond at stage 2 of its complaint process (4 July 2025) from the resident’s complaint escalation (4 June 2025), against a target of 20 working days.
- It failed to address the resident’s concerns about indoor temperatures and energy bills raised in his complaint which was not in line with the expectations of the Code.
- The delays in responding to the complaint were short. However, the landlord ought to have acknowledged these failings in its complaint handling and addressed the resident’s concerns about his heating bills. The failure to do this likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have therefore awarded compensation of £50 in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for compensation of this amount where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.
Learning
- Landlords should assess all residents’ reports in an appropriate timeframe to avoid delays and to ensure compliance with their repairs policy. The positive actions to improve empathy and understanding in our spotlight report on repairing trust (published May 2025, page 57) contain good practice.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping was good, except for a lack of information about what action it completed on 20 January 2025.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident through the complaint process was good but it failed to communicate in a timely way to follow up its attendance on 14 July 2025.