GreenSquareAccord Limited (202442055)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442055

GreenSquareAccord Limited

7 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 29 April 2013. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives with her child. The landlord was aware that the resident and her child have physical and mental health conditions.
On 29 October 2024 the resident reported damp in her property to the landlord. She said it had returned since the landlord completed repairs for rising damp the previous year. She said she was worried about the impact on her child’s asthma and other health conditions. The landlord raised an inspection the same day.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 October 2024. She said there was a smell of damp in the living room and the landlord initially told her it would not raise an inspection. On 7 November 2024 she told the landlord:
1. she and her child previously had a negative experience with damp and mould in the property and its return had impacted their mental health. She said she and her child had been unwell for 2 weeks due to the damp. She was concerned the landlord had not raised an urgent inspection or considered the impact on hers and her child’s health.
2. she requested to move, and for the landlord to consider the impact of the property condition on hers and her child’s health.
The landlord completed an inspection on 8 November 2024. It confirmed the damp had returned and there was mould in the lounge.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 19 November 2024. It:
1. asked whether the resident wanted it to add her child’s asthma to its records.
2. said it had identified a need for improvement from listening to its call with the resident when she reported damp on 29 October 2024. It said it had arranged training as a result. It offered £100 compensation for its poor communication and upheld the complaint for this reason.
3. said she was not a priority for a management transfer as there was no imminent risk to life. It said it could not decide whether to temporarily rehouse her until the damp survey on 3 December 2024.
4. apologised for the return of the damp and said it could not explain the reason for it. It gave the resident practical advice on minimising it.
5. said there was no evidence of mould from the photos it took during the inspection on 8 November 2024.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 December 2024. She said:
1. hers and her child’s physical and mental health had deteriorated due to ongoing damp and disrepair at the property. She asked the landlord to agree to move them permanently.
2. she had to buy a dehumidifier and put this on constantly. She said her bills had increased as a result and she was struggling to pay them.
3. she had been told during the inspection on 3 December 2024 that the floorboards in the hallway needed to be lifted and works completed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 15 January 2025. It said:
1. the damp and mould report from 3 December 2024 confirmed the damp was caused by condensation and provided advice to decrease the condensation.
2. it suggested remedial measures including installing fans and a mould wash. It confirmed it had raised orders for these works.
3. if these measures did not stop the damp, it would consider other options.
4. the property was currently habitable, and it would not offer her alternative accommodation. It provided details of other rehousing options.
5. she was misinformed that the floorboards needed removing. It apologised for this.
6. it upheld the complaint and reoffered the £100 from stage 1. It offered an additional £50 compensation for the misinformation about the floorboards and a further £50 for the distress caused.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 20 January 2025, the resident said the damp and mould remained in the property. She said the landlord had not yet installed the fans. She was concerned that the landlord had not found the cause of the damp and mould and about the impact on her child’s health. She said she wanted compensation, the landlord to complete the outstanding works, consider her household’s health, and move her.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

The resident reported that the condition of the property impacted hers and her child’s health. She confirmed that she has made a personal injury claim, and the landlord confirmed it would not address this in its complaints procedure. Unlike a court, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s action or inaction and the household’s health. We do not determine liability and award damages. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience experienced.
The resident confirmed she was unhappy with the way the landlord had responded to her reports of damp and mould since it issued its stage 2 response, and she referred the complaint to us. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s more recent concerns. The resident may wish to raise this as a separate complaint with the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good working order the structure of the property, including external and internal walls, doors, floors, ceilings, drains, internal plasterworks, kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy said it would:
1. give repairs priority based on urgency, risk, and statutory responsibility. It said it would always consider vulnerability.
2. complete emergency repairs which presented an immediate danger to residents within 24 hours.
3. complete urgent repairs to prevent future damage to property with no immediate danger within 7 days.
4. complete routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould (DAM policy) said it would:
1. determine the priority of damp and mould cases after they are reported.
2. proactively manage risks and promptly diagnose and prevent issues.
3. implement all reasonable remedial repairs and improvements to stop damp.
4. provide advice on managing and controlling condensation and mould.
5. complete all mould washes within 7 days.
The landlord’s management transfer policy said it would consider requests for a management transfer where there was evidence of threat to life or serious risk of harm.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. The landlord is therefore required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
When the resident called the landlord to report the damp in her property, it initially told her it would not raise a repair if she could only smell damp. This could have obstructed its DAM policy aim to proactively manage risks of damp and mould. The resident said this caused her distress. Her support worker confirmed this when they contacted the landlord to raise their concerns the same day. The landlord said it raised an inspection after the resident confirmed that damp was visible on the ceiling and walls. It is unclear from the evidence whether it raised this before or after her support worker contacted it and the resident made a complaint.
It raised the repair with a target date of 6 December 2024, within 38 days. There is no evidence the landlord assessed or determined the priority of the case, considering any urgency, risk or vulnerabilities. This was not in line with its DAM or repairs policies.
On 31 October 2024 the resident requested an urgent inspection as she was worried the rising damp had returned and was concerned about the impact on her child’s health. A duplicate inspection was raised on 31 October 2024 with a target date of 10 December 2024, and cancelled the previous order. The landlord did not assess or determine the priority of the case in line with its policies.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 November 2024 and confirmed it had booked an urgent inspection for 8 November 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it had booked an appointment within its timeframe for urgent repairs. However, it did not evidence how it assessed the priority in line with its DAM and repairs policies.
Following the landlord’s inspection on 8 November 2024, it said:
1. there was a strong smell and visible signs of damp.
2. there were visible signs of mould under the window in the lounge.
3. it asked the contractors that completed previous works to attend.
4. the resident’s child had breathing issues, and this was to be dealt with as soon as possible.
In November 2024 the landlord internally discussed medical evidence the resident had provided and whether it needed further evidence of the reported health conditions. It did not seek further evidence from the resident. Given her concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on hers and her child’s health, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have had regard to HHSRS and completed a risk assessment. There is no evidence it did this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord confirmed the earliest available appointment for the contractors to attend was 3 December 2024. On 15 November 2024 the landlord said the resident contacted it as she wanted an appointment sooner. It said it told the resident it could not tell the contractors when to attend. Our Spotlight report on repairs highlights that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord, not the contractor. The landlord did not assess or determine the priority of the case in line with its repair obligations, which was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
1. despite offering to add a record of the resident’s child’s asthma, it did not evidence that it included this in its decision making and did not update its records until May 2025, which was unreasonable.
2. it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer redress for its response when the resident reported damp on 29 October 2024. It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes to organise training for its staff.
3. there is no evidence the landlord carried out an assessment of whether the resident fulfilled the management transfer criteria. It said it had considered whether there was imminent risk to life. However, in not assessing whether there was a serious risk of harm, the landlord did not follow its management transfer policy.
4. the landlord said it could not assess whether to temporarily rehouse the resident until after the inspection on 3 December 2024, However, there is no evidence it assessed this during or following this inspection, which was unreasonable.
5. it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide information about other rehousing options.
6. it was in line with its DAM policy to provide advice on reducing damp.
7. it may have been confusing to say it could see no mould in the photos from the inspection on 8 November 2024, as it had confirmed there was mould present.
The damp survey completed on 3 December 2024 confirmed there was black mould and damp, and the main issue appeared to be condensation. It gave practical advice including increasing ventilation and heating. It recommended:
1. opening trickle vents and window coverings.
2. removing floor coverings to inspect the subfloor for possible moisture.
3. checking the loft ventilation when possible.
4. replastering a wall at the foot of the stairs.
5. installing extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
6. considering a ventilation unit in the loft if other measures did not work.
It was not in line with its DAM policy for the landlord not to inform the resident of all the recommended works, including when it would complete them. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why, if it was not going to complete any of the recommended works. That it did not was unreasonable.
In a report on 24 December 2024, a GP confirmed damp in the property had been causing the resident’s child’s worsening asthma and eczema. They said they seemed to have more coughs and colds, and their education was affected by their health conditions.
Our Spotlight Report on repairs recommends that landlords agree actions and timescales for responding in line with their policies and obligations and confirm these in writing. It recommends landlords inform residents of any delays and explain why these are necessary. On 14 January 2025 the landlord raised works orders to replace the bathroom and kitchen fans and complete a mould wash. This was 42 days after the inspection on 3 December 2024. It did not inform the resident of the timescales in writing, explain the reason for the delay, or keep the resident updated, which was unreasonable.
The landlord raised a mould wash order with a target date of 23 January 2025, within 9 days, and did not attend until after this date. This was not in line with its DAM policy timescale. The landlord raised the fan replacement order with a target date of 21 February 2025. It is unclear how it prioritised these works, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response:
1. it was appropriate for the landlord to relay the practical advice outlined in the damp survey to the resident and confirm the damp was likely caused by condensation.
2. it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it had raised works to complete a mould wash and instal fans and that it would consider other options if this did not stop the damp.
3. it may have been confusing to say that the floorboards did not need to be removed, given that the damp survey recommended removing floor coverings to inspect the subfloor.
4. it is unclear how the landlord assessed that the property was habitable, or whether it took the household’s reported health conditions and the impact of the condition of the property into account. This was unreasonable.
5. it was appropriate for the landlord to provide information about other rehousing options.
6. it was appropriate for the landlord to offer additional redress for miscommunication and the distress caused. However, it did not identify or apologise for all its failures.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 17 January 2025 the landlord booked an appointment to replace the fans on 31 January 2025. When it attended on this date, it said the resident was unavailable for the appointment as she was ill and had received a call to say they would be installed on 3 February 2025. The landlord said it would rebook the appointment. The resident confirmed the fans are yet to be installed.
When the landlord attended to complete the mould wash on 3 February 2025, the resident said it did not complete the mould wash, and the landlord said there was no visible mould in the property.
The landlord completed an inspection on 7 May 2025 and found multiple defects including rising damp in the hallway into the lounge and kitchen. It said it needed to lift the floorboards to inspect the foundations and top up the loft insulation. It said the impact on the resident was moderate and she did not require temporary rehousing. On 20 May 2025 the landlord agreed to a management transfer.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. assess or determine the priority of the reported damp and mould and required works.
2. have regard to HHSRS and complete a risk assessment considering the reported impact of the property condition on the household’s health.
3. assess whether the resident was eligible for a management transfer in line with its policy or assess whether to temporarily rehouse the resident.
4. give clear information about mould in the property, and the works recommended on 3 December 2024.
5. complete the works recommended on 3 December 2024 in line with its DAM policy or explain why it would not complete them.
6. follow recommendations to consider its repair obligations when contracting out works, agree timescales in writing, and explain the reason for any delays, which may have prevented failures of service.
The resident said she felt the landlord did not take her concerns about hers and her child’s health seriously. She said it affected her child’s school attendance and caused her and her child poor sleep. She said the smell of damp and worry about the impact on hers and her child’s health caused significant distress. She said they had to stay with friends or family due to the condition of the property.
The landlord showed some learning and implemented training for the way it responded to the resident’s report of damp at stage 1. It also offered some redress for its miscommunication and distress and inconvenience. However, it did not identify, offer redress for, or learn from all its failures, and the £200 compensation it offered was not proportionate. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £900 compensation, inclusive of the £200 it offered at stage 2 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a risk assessment and a schedule of works for any outstanding repairs in the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure was in line with the Complaint Handling Code and says it will:
1. acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 5 working days of receipt.
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 November 2024, in line with its complaints procedure. It issued a stage 1 response 11 working days after, which was 1 day outside its complaints procedure timescales. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 16 December 2024, in line with its complaints procedure. It issued a stage 2 response 19 working days after this, in line with its complaints procedure timescales.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to consider the impact of the property condition on hers and her child’s health at stage 1. Nor did it respond to her concerns about the cost of buying and running a dehumidifier at stage 2, which was unreasonable.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for these failings. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its position on the resident’s reported costs of buying and running a dehumidifier.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. pay the resident a total of £975 compensation, made up of:
  1. the £200 it offered in its complaint responses and an additional £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. the landlord may deduct the £200 it previously offered if it can provide evidence it has already paid this.
4. complete and send the resident a written risk assessment that:
  1. establishes the risks to the household, considering the condition of the property and any relevant vulnerabilities of the household.
  2. assesses whether the property is habitable for the household.
  3. outlines the actions it is taking to mitigate or reduce any risks.
  4. assesses if the household requires temporary rehousing.
5. send the resident a written schedule for the outstanding works including:
  1. details of the works to be completed.
  2. when it will complete them.
  3. how long they will take.
  4. whether it will temporarily rehouse the household while it completes the works.
6. set out its position on the resident’s reported costs of buying and running a dehumidifier.
7. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.