GreenSquareAccord Limited (202520087)

Decision
Case ID	202520087
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 February 2026

Background

In May 2024 the resident and the landlord agreed a payment arrangement to clear her rent arrears. In November 2024 she reported damp and mould issues. Subsequent inspections by the landlord in December 2024 identified work to windows and to the roof line. In April 2025 the resident reported a leak and damage to her kitchen units. In her complaint to the landlord later in April 2025, the resident told it of her concerns about a rodent issue.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Roof line repairs.
4. Leak/drain issues and kitchen repairs.
5. Window repairs.
6. Reports of a rodent infestation.
7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Roof and guttering repairs.
4. Leak/drain issues and kitchen repairs.
5. Window repairs.
6. Reports of a rodent infestation.
7. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to:
1. Respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments or apologise for the delay in stopping these.
2. Delayed attending to inspect the resident’s damp and mould concern. It did not follow its damp and mould procedure by providing the resident with a report of findings or arrange follow up visits to ensure the issue was resolved.
3. Progress roof line repairs appropriately and did not communicate effectively with the resident during this time.
4. Progress drain repairs appropriately. It also delayed making a referral for kitchen renewal and misled the resident about this.
5. Delayed progressing window repairs.
6. Delayed responding appropriately to the resident’s concerns of a rodent infestation.
7. Did not fully respond to all the resident’s concerns during its complaint handling and did not acknowledge or identify all its failings.

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 09 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,875 made up as follows: £625 previously awarded during its complaint handling. £100 for the impact of failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments. £150 for the impact of failings in its handling of damp and mould reports. £200 for the impact of failings in its handling of roof line repairs. £350 for the impact of failings in its handling of leak/drain and kitchen repairs. £150 for the impact of failings in its handling of window repairs. £150 for the impact of failings in its handling of reports of a rodent infestation. £150 for the impact of failings in its complaint handling.	No later than 09 March 2026
3	The landlord must take all steps to ensure that outstanding repairs to the roof line, drain, kitchen and windows are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 06 April 2026
	It is ordered that the landlord review failings we have identified in this report. It must consider whether training and guidance it has in place is adequate to ensure these failings are not repeated.	No later than 06 April 2026
4	The landlord must contact the resident to address her outstanding concerns about damp/mould in line with its policies and procedures	No later than 09 March 2026
5	The landlord must contact the resident, and review pest control reports, to consider if any further action is required.	No later than 09 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She raised concerns about damp and mould, window and roof repairs. She said a drain issue was causing a leak into her house and that she had mice as holes needed to be blocked. Further, she said she believed the landlord was incorrectly taking rent arrears payments.
8 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it aimed to respond by 22 May 2025.
23 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It awarded the resident £175 for delays and lack of updates about kitchen and roof repairs.
10 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. Among other things, she said that she was unhappy with the progress of repairs and she had not heard what the landlord was doing about her kitchen, or to address the drain issue.
17 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It said it aimed to respond by 15 July 2025.
14 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said a kitchen upgrade was being considered and it would replace flooring as part of this. It said the resident should let it know if she wanted a new appointment for window repairs. It addressed the resident’s concerns about the rent arrears payments and awarded her additional compensation of £450.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she wanted it to fix roof issues. She said she also wanted a new kitchen and windows.

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 resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments
Finding	Maladministration

The resident and the landlord agreed a payment plan for clearing rent arrears in May 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 May 2024. It said this would continue until her account was paid 1 month in advance. This was in line with the tenancy agreement, which sets out that rent was due in advance.
The resident called the landlord on 17 March 2025. She said she believed the arrears were now paid off. The landlord returned the resident’s call on 21 March 2025. It told her it would send her a rent statement and a letter outlining the requirement for rent to be paid in advance. However, we have seen no evidence it then did so. That was a failing. It should have taken this action having agreed it with the resident.
The landlord noted internally on 17 April 2025 that the account should be in advance by the time of the next arrears payment. It noted it would then cancel the arrears payment. When the resident complained to the landlord on 24 April 2025, she said arrears payments were still being taken. She said she had been trying to resolve this with the landlord but had heard nothing.
The landlord did not respond to this concern in its stage 1 complaint response. It only did so in July 2025, when it provided its stage 2 complaint response. That was nearly 3 months after she raised her ongoing concerns. The landlord acknowledged this failing. Its £100 award in recognition of this was appropriate.
Records show the landlord detailed internally on 9 July 2025 that it had not stopped collecting arrears payments. That was despite noting in April 2025 that the account would be a month in credit after the next payment. It wrote to the resident on 11 July 2025 to arrange to refund the available credit on the account and confirmed it had now stopped arrears payments. It confirmed at that time that rent was due in advance. That was appropriate.
We acknowledge that the resident is concerned that the refund of £204 she later received did not reflect the level of overpayment she believed she had made. In November 2025, the landlord provided her with details of payments and a rent account statement. It also confirmed on 11 November 2025 that her rent account balance at that time was -£18.
We have seen no evidence additional refund is due to the resident. But the landlord missed the opportunity to provide a timely response to her earlier concerns that her rent arrears payments should have stopped.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these concerns. It appropriately acknowledged its failure to address the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of the complaint handling. But it did not identify or apologise for its earlier failure to respond adequately to her concerns. It also did not apologise for its failure to stop collection of arrears payments.
As a result of these failings, the resident experienced additional concern and inconvenience. The landlord awarded the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience in its stage 2 complaint. But it did not specify whether any of this was in recognition of the rent arrears payments concerns. With consideration of all the circumstances, we have ordered that it make further award to the resident of £100. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of failings in its handling of her concerns about rent arrears payments. This award is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 5 November 2024. In line with its damp and mould policy and procedure it should have arranged to inspect issues within 14 days. It raised the inspection that day, but the appointment was not until 2 December 2024. That was 13 days outside its target timeframe. Given that it was aware from the outset that it would be delayed attending, it should reasonably have considered other action it could take. In line with its damp and mould policy and procedure, it could have raised a mould wash in advance of the inspection. That there is no evidence it considered this action is a failing.
The landlord noted during its visit of 2 December 2024 that it had observed the resident drying clothes inside. It detailed advice it had provided to her. This included that she dry washing in the bathroom with the fan on, and that she keep vents within the property open. That was reasonable. The landlord also raised a mould wash. This was completed on 9 December 2024, which was in line with the timescales set out in the damp and mould procedure. This states that a mould wash should be raised within 48 hours of the inspection, for completion within 5 days.
The landlord later said in its complaint response that the resident had not raised further damp/mould issues. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed any follow up checks after its visit of 2 December 2024 in line with its damp and mould procedure. This says it will do so to see if the repair/advice has resolved issues. There is also no evidence it provided the resident with a report of its findings in line with its procedure. These were failings in its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
The resident reported damp and mould issues to the landlord again on 9 April 2025. She said she had cleaned mould, but it would return. Had the landlord followed its own procedure previously, it would have proactively identified that issues were ongoing. It did not attend to inspect issues until 3 June 2025. That was nearly 6 weeks outside the 14-day timescale set out in its damp and mould procedure. Again, there is no evidence it shared its findings with resident. These were failings.
During its visit on 3 June 2025, the landlord identified work to install a vent to the resident’s living room wall. It raised the work on 23 June 2025, but it is unclear why it waited nearly 3 weeks before doing so. It should have done so promptly to avoid delays in work. It targeted this work for completion within 84-calendar days. This was the timescale for planned routine repairs. It completed this work on 21 August 2025, which was within that target timeframe overall. However, while it was in its timeframes for planned routine repairs, it was excessive considering the reported issues.
The resident told the landlord during a further inspection on 29 October 2025 that she was unhappy with this vent, and the landlord agreed it would install an alternative one. The resident told us this work has since been completed.
We acknowledge the landlord took some action to respond to and address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. However, as set out above, we have found some delays and failings in its actions. In addition, it did not act in line with its procedure to check if damp/mould issues had been resolved following its attendance in December 2024. These failings amount to maladministration. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that it make an award to the resident of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
While we note the landlord has completed a further mould treatment on 12 December 2025, the resident told us she remains concerns about damp and mould. We have recommended that the landlord contact her to address these in line with its policies and procedures.

Complaint	Roof line repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord noted the resident’s property needed roof line repairs on 2 January 2025 as a tree had fallen onto it. It raised an order for this work that day with a target of 27 March 2025. That was in line with its 84-calendar day target for planned routine repairs. But it made poor progress with this repair. It attended on 19 May 2025 and noted scaffolding was required. But by then it was already beyond its target timescale for completing the work.
The landlord did not record what it was doing to arrange scaffolding work between May and October 2025. That was despite telling the resident on 8 August 2025 that it had obtained quotes for work. Its contractor sent it a quote for scaffolding work on 6 October 2025. Later, on 18 November 2025, it noted nothing had been done to progress this.
The landlord recorded on 4 December 2025 that it had booked work to erect scaffolding for early January 2026 so that roof line repairs could be completed. The resident told us in January 2026 that this work had begun. But because of the landlord’s delays and poor management of work, these repairs have been prolonged far beyond its target timescale for planned repairs. During that time, it failed to appropriately communicate with the resident about progress. Instead, she had to repeatedly chase it for updates. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof line repairs.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged and identified delays in these repairs. It awarded the resident £50 in recognition of this. It also awarded her a total of £250 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. However, it is unclear if any of this related to failings in its handling of roof line repairs. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £200. This is aimed at fully recognising the extent of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Leak/drain and kitchen repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Leak/drain repairs

The landlord recorded an uncontainable leak from under the resident’s kitchen sink on 25 April 2025. It noted the drain contractor had found this when attending to clear the drain. The landlord attended that day, in line with its target timescales for responding to emergency repairs. It noted that the leak was repaired but that there was damage to the kitchen flooring and a base unit.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 10 June 2025, she said that she had not heard anything about the drain contractor returning to clear her drains. oHowveeThe landlord noted this concern in its stage 2 complaint response of 14 July 2025, but it did not address it. Instead, the resident had to raise the matter again in August 2025. At this time, she said the drain contactor had told her in April 2025 that the containable leak needed to be resolved first. It was only following the resident’s further contact that the landlord attempted to progress the repair. That it did not do so sooner is a failing.
Contact between the drain contractor and the landlord in August and September 2025 shows it had difficulty tracing the contractor’s previous attendance. The landlord should have made clear record of this so it could track work completed to resolve issues. That it did not was a record keeping failing. This would have impacted on how effectively it managed the repair through to conclusion.
The landlord arranged for the drain contractor to reattend on 9 October 2025 to quote for work. The landlord told us that the contractor attended again on 8 December 2025. It said the contractor identified further work to address damage to the drain which was causing intermittent blockages. It told the resident on 12 December 2025 that this work would be completed by 19 December 2025. It told us in January 2026 that this work was now to be completed after scaffolding had been removed. But the landlord should have arranged and progressed drain repairs much sooner.
Given it required inspection and work by a specialist contactor, it is likely work would fall into the 84-calendar day timescale of planned repairs. But the landlord’s failings have resulted in the repair being prolonged far in excess of this timeframe. During that time the resident has experienced additional distress and inconvenience chasing work. We have ordered that the landlord check that all work has now been completed to resolve drain issues.

Kitchen repairs

After it had attended at the end of April and beginning of May 2025 the landlord identified repairs to the kitchen following the leak. It attended on 20 May 2025 to attempt to complete work. That was within its 28-day target for routine repairs. But it noted then that the resident said she wanted to wait for a new kitchen. The landlord told the resident when it responded to her complaint on 23 May 2025 that it had liaised with the surveyor, who had said a referral had been made for renewal of the kitchen. It said it would contact her about this in the next 30 days. The resident told the landlord on 27 June 2025 that she was still waiting to hear about this.
In its stage 2 complaint response of July 2025 the landlord said the kitchen was being considered for upgrade as part of the 2025-26 programme. It said it could not give her a specific date for this work. It subsequently told her in August and September 2025 that kitchen renewal was still being considered. But internal records show its planned maintenance team said at the end of September 2025 that it was yet to be sent a referral for this. It said, without this, it could not make an assessment.
When it attended to inspect the kitchen at the end of October 2025 it noted the kitchen was 12 years old and so within the expected 20-year lifespan. It detailed that it would complete work to replace 2 base units, all cupboard doors and plinth instead. It emailed the resident on 17 November 2025 setting out the work it would complete to her kitchen. It said then that there was no confirmation she had been promised kitchen renewal. However, it is clear it had delayed in appropriately making the referral. It misled the resident about this by stating it was being considered as part of the 2025/26 programme when it had not made the referral. These were failings.
The landlord told the resident in July 2025 that her floor would be replaced during the kitchen replacement. But its delay in providing her with a decision about the kitchen renewal left her with uncertainty about this and how to proceed with interim kitchen repairs. These had been outstanding since April 2025. The resident told us and the landlord that she has since purchased replacement floor to repair damage areas. We have ordered that the landlord contact her to obtain details of this cost. It should then consider reimbursement in line with its remedies and compensation policy.
The resident told us that she was still waiting for confirmation from the landlord about when kitchen repairs would be completed. When it wrote to her on 12 December 2025, it made no reference to this work. The landlord should reasonably have maintained clear communication about this following its inspection at the end of October 2025. That it has not done so is a further failing. We have set out an order about the completion of this work.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leak/drain and kitchen repairs. So far, it has awarded her £25 for delays in updates/repairs to the kitchen. We acknowledge it also awarded the resident a total of £250 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble during its complaint handing. It did not specify whether any part if this was for failings in its handling of leak/drain and kitchen repairs. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that it make an additional award to her of £350. This is aimed at fully recognising the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failings. This award is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Window repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord noted during its inspection of 2 December 2024 some gaps in the resident’s windows. It appropriately requested a surveyor assess these. It completed a timely inspection on 30 December 2024 and following this it raised work on 2 January 2025 to overhaul all windows. It is unclear from records what timescale for work was identified by the landlord. However, it should reasonably have been able to complete these within its 84-calendar day timescale for planned repairs. The landlord subsequently booked an appointment to complete this work on 26 February 2025. While the resident said an operative attended that day, she said they were unable to complete work as it was a 2-man job. The landlord should have identified the extent of work prior to the appointment to avoid delay and inconvenience to the resident. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord attended again on 19 March 2025. However, it subsequently identified that the resident had cancelled the appointment as she was unwell. The landlord said it then closed the appointment on 26 March 2025 as the resident had not made contact to rebook. However, its repairs policy states that it will attempt to contact the resident to rebook the appointment. There is no evidence it did so or told the resident it had cancelled the repair. That was a failing.
When the resident complained to the landlord, she said she wanted new windows. The landlord told her in its stage 2 complaint response of July 2025 that its stock condition survey of 2021 indicated that windows were not due to be replaced for 6 to 10 years. It said that it would complete repairs during this time and directed her to make contact to book a new appointment for work. The landlord noted internally on 19 September 2025 that the resident had requested work be rebooked. The landlord raised this work on 14 October 2025, but it has made no clear progress with repairs. It told the resident on 12 December 2025 that it aimed to completed work to replace 2 windows by 19 December 2025. But the resident told us in January 2026 that she was still waiting for details of when the landlord would complete work
In internal communication on 26 January 2026 the landlord noted that it had now advised the resident it would complete full window replacement under a planned programme. It said this would start some time after April 2026. It noted that it should contact the resident to discuss repairs needed in the interim. But it should have been taking appropriate action to progress these since September 2025. That there is inadequate evidence it has done so is a failing. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to provided her with a clear timeframe for completing interim repairs.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs. The landlord awarded the resident £25 for incorrectly recording the appointment of February 2025 as no access. It awarded a further £25 for attending on 19 March 2025 despite the resident advising that she was unwell. That was appropriate. We have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by additional failings we have found. This award is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Reports of a rodent infestation
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told the landlord in her complaint of 24 April 2025 that she had a rodent issue. She said she believed this was due to holes at the back of her kitchen cupboard. But the landlord did not address this point at all during its complaint handling. As a result, the resident had to raise the matter again on 16 September 2025. In line with its pest control policy, it should have provided advice to the resident as well as considering action it needed to take to address holes/structural damage. That it did not take this action when the resident raised concerns in April 2025 was a failing. As a result, she had to wait longer for it to address issues.
The landlord noted that it found no signs of pests during its inspection on 29 October 2025. Later, it raised pest control contractor attendance. That was appropriate. We have seen records of 2 attendances by the contractor in November 2025. At this time, it identified droppings, but no entry points. The resident told us that a third visit has since been completed, which identified no ongoing issue. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident, and review pest control reports, to consider if further action is required.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s delayed response to the concerns the resident raised about a rodent issue. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £150 in recognition of the impact of these failings. This in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in April 2025, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
1. The landlord’s published complaint policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales and its definition of a complaint.
2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial complaint on 8 May 2025, but this was 5 working days outside the timeframe set out in the Code and its own complaints policy. That was a failing.
3. It appropriately contacted the resident on 16 May 2025 to advise her of the delay providing its stage 1 complaint response. It provided its response on 23 May 2025, which was within the extended timescale for response.
4. Its stage 2 complaint response was provided within target response timescales.
We have outlined earlier that the landlord failed to address a number of issues during its complaint handling. It did not address the resident’s concerns about rent arrears payments in its stage 1 consideration. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response. The £100 it awarded in recognition of this was appropriate. Further, it was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord awarded the resident £100 as it did not have accurate record of her vulnerabilities.
As noted earlier, the landlord did not adequately address her concerns about outstanding drain issues. It did not identify the failings in its handling of damp and mould reports. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about a rodent issue. It also did not put in place any effective monitoring of all repairs to ensure they were progressed and monitored to conclusion. That was despite saying it would do so. As a result, the resident is still waiting for some repairs to be completed.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that it make an award to the resident of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to her as a result of these failings.
The landlord has provided us with details of training it has since provided to staff about learning it can take from its handling of this complaint. That was positive action by the landlord. We have ordered that it review failings we have identified in this report and that it considers whether training and guidance it now has in place is adequate to ensure these failings are not repeated.

Learning

The landlord did not manage and monitor all repair issues to ensure these were progressed without delay.
The landlord delayed making a referral for kitchen renewal and misled the resident about the position with this.
The landlord did not put in place effective mechanisms to ensure repairs were progressed and monitored to conclusion following conclusion of its complaints procedure.
The landlord should ensure it maintains communication about the progress of repairs, particularly when these are complex or when there are a number outstanding.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not maintain clear records of drain repairs. It should have done so it could effectively monitor work to conclusion.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident to keep her updated about the progress of repairs. It did not provide clear and accurate communication about the position with its renewal of her kitchen.