GreenSquareAccord Limited (202516593)

Decision
Case ID	202516593
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident reported that her neighbour was causing anti-social behaviour (ASB), including trespassing on her property, causing noise and failing to control her dogs. The resident also contacted the landlord about an inspection of the external walls it had carried out, which included drilling inspection holes. She wanted to know when the landlord would be carrying out work to insulate the walls. At the resident’s request, the landlord had updated its computer system to show there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
2. The resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The resident’s concerns about the lack of information regarding cavity wall insulation works.
We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a breach of the GDPR is outside of our jurisdiction.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of information regarding cavity wall insulation works.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We do not generally investigate complaints about data/GDPR breaches because such matters fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, we consider this element of the complaint to be outside of our jurisdiction.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy, including producing a risk assessment and action plan, investigating her reports of ASB and working with external partner agencies.
Although the landlord inspected the walls of the property and decided that no works were needed to the cavity wall insulation, it did not advise the resident of its findings.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales that were in line with its policy.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble caused by its response to her concerns about the lack of information regarding cavity wall insulation works. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 February 2026
3	Other orders The landlord must: Write to the resident to confirm the surveyor’s findings regarding the wall insulation. Consider whether to fill the holes that were drilled and include its decision in the letter, along with its plans, if appropriate, for filling the holes.	No later than 25 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 June 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint about: The lack of contact from her housing officer to check on her wellbeing after she reported a GDPR breach. The lack of updates from the landlord regarding her reports of ASB by a neighbour. The lack of feedback regarding cavity wall insulation works.
24 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said: The resident had contacted the landlord on 2 June 2025 and requested a callback from the Housing Officer. The Housing Officer had tried to ring the resident on 13 June 2025 but did not get a response, so she sent a text to the resident asking for further details about her enquiry. It had investigated the reported GDPR breach involving the landlord sending a referral to her GP without her consent. It had sent a response to the resident in February 2024 following its investigation. The landlord had closed the ASB case on its system in May 2024 and had sent a case closure letter to the resident. It had raised an order in January 2024 for a contractor to check the property following high damp readings. The job was marked as completed. However, the landlord said it would ask its surveyor to check the outside walls on 30 June 2025 to check that they were insulated. It partially upheld the complaint because its Housing Officer had not called the resident back within 7 working days. It offered £100 for not meeting this target.
24 June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the stage 1 reply and wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 because she said: There was mould under the toilet and in the bathroom and kitchen cupboards. The handle had come off the window in the lounge and she did not have keys to the windows. She was unhappy with the offer of £100 for the GDPR breach. The landlord had not dealt professionally with her complaints that her neighbour was causing ASB.
17 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 in which it said: The resident had reported new repair issues that had not been included in her stage 1 complaint and it had booked appointments to carry out the repairs. It acknowledged that after investigating the reported GDPR breach its staff had not contacted the resident to check on her wellbeing. It acknowledged that it should have been more proactive in this regard given her vulnerabilities. It would share the resident’s concerns about its handling of the ASB reports with the relevant team. It would also share her concerns about the lack of professional conduct with the relevant teams. It partially upheld the complaint and said it had not identified any service failures beyond those already acknowledged in the stage 1 response. However, it offered an additional £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaints about: The reported ASB by her neighbours. The reported data breach caused by the landlord approaching her GP without her consent. The outstanding repairs, including mould and internal cracks.

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 reports of a breach of the GDPR
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident said the landlord had breached the GDPR because it had sent a referral to her GP about her wellbeing without her consent. We do not generally investigate complaints about data/GDPR breaches because such matters fall within the remit of the ICO. In this case, we consider it to be quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the ICO.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s ASB policy gives various examples of behaviour that it generally would not consider to be ASB, including parking issues, giving “dirty looks or stares”, minor garden disputes and people being unpleasant to one another where the behaviour cannot be categorised as harassment.
The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will:
1. Record reports of ASB within 2 working days of the report.
2. The case officer will make initial contact with the complainant within 2 or 5 working days, depending on its assessment of the level of harm.
3. Then carry out a risk assessment within 2 or 5 working days, depending on its assessment of the level of harm.
4. The case officer will agree an action plan with the complainant.
Our role is not to establish whether the reported ASB happened or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident advised the landlord in January 2024 that her neighbour had been causing noise problems since 2018. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the resident made her stage 1 complaint in June 2025, we consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from January 2024, when she contacted the landlord to report ASB, up to the date of its final complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2024 and said her neighbour had trespassed through her gate and climbed over her fence 3 years ago and was responsible for deliberate acts of mental abuse towards her. She also said her neighbour’s dogs had bitten other residents. The landlord phoned the resident on 16 January 2024, which was 2 working days after her contact. The landlord had therefore contacted the resident within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
During the phone conversation, the landlord requested further details about the incidents and agreed to ring the resident again the following week. As the resident had reported various incidents, some of which appeared to date back years, it was reasonable for the landlord to ring the resident to obtain further details about the incidents. This would enable it to decide whether the incidents should be recorded as ASB and investigated.
The landlord’s notes show that during the conversation on 16 January 2024 it asked the resident whether she would consider taking part in mediation with her neighbour. The resident said she was reluctant as she feared repercussions, however, she agreed to think about the idea. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the potential use of mediation as this is one of the intervention measures it encourages its staff to use in its policy. The policy says: “the case officer should offer mediation early in the case and return to this repeatedly”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 January 2024 and booked a meeting with her for 19 January 2024. During this meeting, the landlord produced a risk assessment and action plan, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to set out the action plan it had agreed with the resident. The action plan included the resident using the noise app and monitoring sheets to record any new ASB incidents. It was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident setting out the action plan as it meant the resident had a record of the agreed actions.
During the remainder of January 2024, the resident sent the landlord emails and video recordings, which she said showed her neighbour causing ASB. She said her neighbour had been slamming doors, making noise while placing rubbish in the dustbin and parking outside her property. The landlord’s records show that it considered the evidence submitted by the resident and initially decided that no “target hardening” or security measures were needed as the resident had a door camera. It was appropriate that the landlord had reviewed the evidence submitted by the resident and considered whether there were any security or safety issues.
Having considered the evidence submitted by the resident, the landlord also decided to engage with other residents in the area to check if they had witnessed any ASB. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024 to confirm its intention to contact other residents in the area. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident about the proposed action so she was aware of the steps it was taking to investigate her reports of ASB.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024 and said its Tenancy Enforcement Officer wanted to visit her on 6 February 2024. The visit was to understand the impact of the reported ASB on her and to discuss options for addressing the behaviour. It was reasonable for the landlord to have requested a meeting with the resident to understand the impact of the reported ASB. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the meeting went ahead as the evidence shows that the resident had questioned whether the meeting was necessary.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 February 2024 and said it wanted to send a referral to its ASB Risk Assessment Conference (ASBRAC) to encourage a multi-agency approach. The resident agreed to this on 9 February 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord wanted to work with other agencies as its ASB policy encourages partnership working. Furthermore, the resident had previously advised the landlord that she had spoken to the police about incidents involving the neighbour and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to work with them to find solutions.
The landlord’s records show that it attended the ASBRAC meetings on 28 February, 27 March and 24 April 24 to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB with the police and other agencies. It was reasonable that the landlord had continued working with other agencies to seek multi-agency solutions. During this period the landlord also took the following action:
1. It wrote to other residents in the area to check whether they had witnessed any ASB.
2. It wrote to the resident and confirmed it would be visiting the alleged perpetrator and other neighbours to discuss the reports of ASB.
These actions were reasonable as they showed that the landlord was continuing to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 May 2024 and said:
1. It did not consider any of the behaviours reported by the resident to be ASB under its policy.
2. Nevertheless, it had investigated the issues she had raised because of the impact she said they were having on her.
3. It had conducted a broad assessment involving surveys and visits to other residents in the area and none of the residents had raised concerns.
4. The police had confirmed at the ASBRAC meetings they had not received any reports of ASB from the resident’s neighbours.
5. The various agencies at the ASBRAC meetings had agreed that the incidents reported by the resident should not be classified as ASB.
6. The landlord was satisfied it had carried out a thorough investigation and was now closing its case.
7. It provided a link for the resident to request a community trigger (ASB case review) through the local council’s website if she was dissatisfied with the handling of her case.
The landlord’s ASB policy says: “we will proactively close cases down when we have done all that is reasonably possible”. The landlord had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and agreed with partner agencies that the reported incidents did not constitute ASB. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident it was closing the case on its system. It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the council’s website so she could make a community trigger request if she was dissatisfied. This was in line with the landlord’s policy and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The resident advised us that she had complained to the landlord that ivy from her neighbour’s garden was affecting her fence and she was concerned that it would damage the fence. As this was not raised as part of her original complaint, the landlord did not address this as part of its stage 1 or 2 responses. Therefore, we have not investigated this matter because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. It is therefore important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB because:
1. It carried out a risk assessment and produced an action plan within appropriate timescales in line with its policy.
2. It asked the resident to consider taking part in mediation.
3. It reviewed the videos and other evidence sent by the resident and considered whether additional security or safety measures were needed.
4. It contacted other residents in the area to check whether they had witnessed any ASB.
5. It offered the resident a visit from its Tenancy Enforcement Officer to understand the impact of the reported ASB on her.
6. It worked with the police and other partner agencies at multi-agency meetings.
7. It signposted her to the council’s community trigger (ASB case review) page.
Therefore, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of information regarding cavity wall insulation works
Finding	Service failure

The resident asked us to investigate various repairs that she said were outstanding in her property. These included mould and internal cracks. However, the resident did not include these matters as part of her stage 1 complaint. Consequently, there was no mention of them in the landlord’s stage 1 response and minimal reference to them in its stage 2 reply. As previously stated, a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. In this case, we do not consider it is fair and reasonable to investigate these matters as the landlord has not had an adequate opportunity to fully consider them as part of its complaint process.
As part of her stage 1 complaint on 4 June 2025, the resident said the landlord had not sorted out the cavity wall insulation despite previously drilling holes in the wall. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord had drilled the holes in the wall. However, as part of the stage 1 investigation, the landlord advised the resident that a surveyor was due to attend the property on 30 June 2025 and therefore it would also ask the surveyor to inspect the walls. It used its stage 1 response dated 24 June 2025 to confirm the surveyor was due to inspect the walls on 30 June 2025.
As the landlord had already made an appointment for a surveyor to attend the property, it was reasonable for the surveyor to also check the walls as part of the visit. The landlord’s records show the surveyor carried out the inspection and noted that the main property had solid brick walls and the rear extension had cavity walls. He said that the cavity walls were filled with ‘blown fibre’ and he could not see any issues with this insulation.
As the surveyor had inspected the walls and found no issues with the insulation, the landlord was entitled to rely on his findings. However, as part of the information sent to us by the landlord, it accepted that it had not written to the resident to confirm the surveyor’s findings. We have therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of information regarding cavity wall insulation works.
The landlord’s failure to communicate its findings would not have changed the outcome for the resident because the landlord had decided that it did not need to carry out any insulation work to the cavity walls. However, the lack of communication led to the resident raising the matter with us in October 2025 and therefore involved her in additional time and trouble in seeking a response. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to recognise the resident’s additional time and trouble. The amount is within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for service failures that the landlord has not acknowledged with the resident.
We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident to confirm the surveyor’s findings. We have also ordered the landlord to consider whether to fill the holes that it drilled. It should then include its decision in the letter and, if appropriate, its plans for filling the holes.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales if necessary. However, the extensions will only exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 if necessary due to the complexity of the complaint. The landlord will explain the reason for the extension to the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 June 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 working days later on 10 June 2025, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. It sent its stage 1 response on 24 June 2025, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It had therefore responded within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 24 June 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 5 working days later on 1 July 2025, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. It sent its stage 2 response on 17 July 2025, which was 12 working days after acknowledging the complaint. It had therefore responded within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and therefore we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord used its dedicated ASB computer system to keep clear records of contact and actions taken in relation to the reports of ASB.

Communication

The landlord’s communications in relation to its response to the reported ASB was generally good. However, in terms of the inspection of the external walls, it did not communicate its findings or decision to the resident. The landlord should ensure it always provides residents with feedback following an inspection so they are clear about the findings and the next steps.