GreenSquareAccord Limited (202530333)

Decision
Case ID	202530333
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	GreenSquareAccord Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

In September andOctober 2024 the landlord repairedthe heating and an extractor fan in the property. On 13 November 2024 the resident reported a leak and damp and mould. On 15 November 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that there was damp in several rooms, and furniture and personal items were being damaged by mould. During the complaint process the landlord carried out further repairs to the property to resolve damp and mould, but the resident remains dissatisfied because she says the issues are continuing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord offered proportionate compensation for failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould that it identified during the complaint process. However, it missed an opportunity to identify and address the source of damp and mould during the property’s void period, resulting in the issues experienced during the resident’s tenancy. While the landlord took actions during the complaint process to inspect and repair the property, the resident’s reports of recurring mould a few months later indicate that the landlord had not put things right and had not adequately identified and addressed the underlying cause.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 7 days after the landlord’s stated timescale and the requirement set out in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The resident referred her complaint to us 11 months later when the landlord refused to open a new complaint about damp and mould. While the resident was complaining about the same issue, the events and timeframes were new. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have also opened a new complaint.

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 provided by a manager. 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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £775 made up as follows: · £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. · £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This amount includes additional compensation of £250. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. The landlord’s offer of compensation for damaged belongings after the complaint process is excluded from this calculation. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. An independent damp and mould surveyor should complete the inspection. If the independent surveyor cannot gain access to complete the inspection, the landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the independent surveyor inspects the property and produces a written report with photographs. A copy of the report should be sent to the resident and to this Service. The survey report must set out: · whether the property is fit for human habitation and if there are any hazards, · the most likely cause of the damp and mould, · whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible, · a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible), · whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 27 May 2026
4	Communication order Following the independent damp and mould survey, the landlord should write to the resident and set out its position on how it will achieve a lasting and effective repair to prevent damp and mould. It should communicate to the resident what works it is arranging following any recommendations in the survey and the likely timescales to complete the work.	No later than 24 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that mould was growing on windows, walls, the front door, personal items and furniture in the property. The resident asked the landlord for urgent action.
9 December 2024	The landlord logged the complaint and spoke to the resident about it.
7 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the damp and mould had not been resolved effectively because the issue remained. The landlord also recognised that the resident’s personal items had been damaged. It apologised for delays in repairs and poor communication. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £425, which included £25 for a complaint handling delay. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day because the issues had not been resolved.
7 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It identified poor record keeping relating to the rescheduling of a surveyor’s inspection. The landlord confirmed that several repairs had been raised since the inspection. It offered further compensation to the resident of £100 and offered to consider compensation for damaged belongings if the resident sent photographs showing what had been damaged. The landlord promised that it would monitor the agreed actions until completed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 13 October 2025 the resident referred her complaint to us. She told us that she had been experiencing damp and mould since moving into the property in August 2024. She said that the landlord had carried out mould washes, but the mould returned soon after. She wanted to be moved to a property without mould.

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 reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

When bringing the complaint to us, the resident said that she wanted to be moved to a property free from damp. We would not order a landlord to rehouse a resident. This is because we do not know the local housing need or available properties.
The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the issues outlined in her complaint had a detrimental impact on her household’s health and wellbeing. 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.

What we have considered

The resident moved into the property in August 2024. In September and October 2024 the landlord carried out repairs to the kitchen extractor fan and storage heaters. The landlord attended within its stated timescales for these repairs.
On 13 November 2024 the resident reported a leak and damp and mould. On 15 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord with a complaint about damp and mould growing in several areas of the property, and she was worried because her baby has allergies. She also told the landlord that mould had damaged her personal items and furniture. Four days later the resident had not received a response and sent another message about black mould on the front door.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that the landlord must investigate causes of damp and mould within 14 days of a notification and provide the resident with a report on the findings within a further 48 hours.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s original report of damp and mould, or her follow up message 4 days later. It is evident that the landlord did not assess the severity of the mould and carry out an investigation within its stated timescales.
On 9 December 2024 the landlord logged the resident’s complaint. On 12 December 2024 the landlord completed the leak repair and a mould wash. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. It was a failing by the landlord that it did not follow the procedure set out in its policy by investigating the cause of damp and mould.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The resident had reported to the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. The landlord concluded that:
1. it had failed to investigate the underlying issue,
2. the resident should not have to pay to replace personal items damaged by the condition of the property,
3. there were delays in communication which affected the timeliness of repairs,
4. the unresolved issues were causing the resident distress and inconvenience.
In recognition of these failings, the landlord apologised and offered compensation to the resident of £400. The landlord also raised a damp and mould inspection. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to investigate the underlying cause of the issue. The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident was an appropriate remedy for its failings to assess and address the damp and mould effectively, and for the resident’s likely distress and inconvenience at that time. The landlord’s complaint response was not clear about what the resident should do to make a claim for compensation for damaged belongings.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on the same day that the stage 1 complaint response was issued. She told the landlord that she was unhappy that the mould had returned despite a mould wash and repairs that the landlord had completed. She described the impact that the property condition was having on her household. The resident explained that she thought the previous residents had moved out because of damp and mould, and the issues should have been resolved before moving her young family into the property.
The experience of the previous resident at the property is outside of the scope of this investigation. However, it is evident that the landlord carried out repairs to the property during the void period, including treating and stain blocking mould. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will ensure that damp and mould issues are resolved before the property is ready for a new customer. The recurring damp and mould issues experienced by the resident since she moved into the property indicates that the landlord missed the opportunity to successfully identify the root cause of damp and mould while the property was empty.
The landlord rescheduled a damp and mould inspection from 16 January 2025 to 3 February 2025, but it is unclear from the evidence whether this was because of the landlord or the resident’s availability. Three days after the inspection it raised several repairs.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that additional effort should be made to resolve damp and mould quickly where there are children in the property. The landlord completed the repairs within its stated timescales following the inspection. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered whether it ought to carry out the repairs sooner because there was a baby in the property.
On 7 February 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that it had not kept an adequate record of the appointment scheduling for the damp and mould inspection. It listed the repairs that had been raised following the inspection. It offered compensation of £25 for poor record keeping, £25 for its failure to consider compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings, and a further £50 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. The landlord told the resident that it would monitor the completion of all agreed repairs and actions.
The landlord’s compensation was appropriate for the failings that it had identified during its stage 2 complaint investigation.
Ten days after the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, it offered the resident further compensation of £526.45 for damaged belongings based on photographic evidence supplied by the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says that discretionary compensation may be awarded for quantifiable loss as a direct result of service failure by the landlord. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord made a reimbursement for damaged belongings.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the repairs listed in its stage 2 response were completed. The evidence indicates that the landlord sent the resident a routine follow up letter on 3 September 2025 to ask the resident if damp and mould issues had returned.
On 13 October 2025 the resident complained to the landlord that damp and mould in the property had returned, and she referred her complaint to us to investigate. This investigation is focussed on the events that were addressed in the landlord’s 2-stage complaint process. However, while the landlord’s actions during the complaint process appeared to have removed mould in the short-term, it did not resolve the underlying cause of damp and mould.
Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. Although the landlord provided reasonable redress for failings it identified during its complaint process, it did not adequately identify and resolve the issue of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord told us that it carried out a further damp and mould inspection in April 2026 and follow-on repairs have been raised. Because the landlord has carried out several internal damp and mould inspections and not identified and addressed the underlying cause, we have made an order for the landlord to arrange an independent damp and mould survey. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident and to us. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its position on any recommendations following the survey, to state what repairs it will be carrying out.
Also, we order the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to identify the cause of damp and mould during the void and complaint processes. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance for a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s 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 Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure refers to those in the Code.
The landlord told us that it received the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2024, which it acknowledged 1 working day later. However, the evidence shows that the resident complained to the landlord on 15 November 2024 and sent a further expression of dissatisfaction on 19 November 2024. This delay caused the complaint to be acknowledged 7 working days after the landlord’s stated timescales.
The landlord sent an extension request to the resident on 7 January 2025, which was 2 weeks after its stage 1 complaint response deadline. However, the landlord’s 10-working day extension was backdated to its stage 1 complaint response deadline, which reduced the impact that may have been caused to the resident. Also, the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £25 in its stage 1 complaint response for this delay, which we consider reasonable redress for the impact caused.
On 13 October 2025 the resident sent a new complaint to the landlord about mould in the property. The landlord told the resident that it could not reinvestigate matters that had already been considered. It told the resident that she could refer the original complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it may not consider a complaint if it relates to issues which have already been fully investigated through its complaint procedure. However, it had been 8 months since its final complaint response. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have opened a new complaint to investigate the events that had taken place since its final response of the previous complaint.
The landlord has since carried out a further damp and mould survey and repairs. The resident followed the landlord’s advice and referred her complaint to us for investigation. Therefore, the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to open a new complaint is lower than it would have been if the landlord had taken no further action.
We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and order the landlord to pay the resident £50. This is within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance where there were minor failures by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or put them right.

Learning

The landlord carried out several damp and mould surveys in the property and arranged repairs. However, the damp and mould has been a recurring issue. This indicates that the procedure of in-house surveys and follow-on repairs has not resolved the issue in this property.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will ensure that damp and mould issues are resolved before the property is ready for a new customer during the void period. However, treating and stain blocking may not necessarily resolve the issue. The landlord may find it helpful to consider the comments in our spotlight report on damp and mould around landlords ensuring that they thoroughly inspect void properties and considering whether works are needed to bring them to reasonable standard before they are re-let.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord acknowledged poor record keeping during the complaint process and offered the resident appropriate compensation.

Communication

The landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s damaged belongings was sympathetic and proportionate. In the circumstances of the case, it was appropriate that the landlord offered to compensate the resident directly rather than ask her to make an insurance claim.