GreenSquareAccord Limited (202316198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316198

GreenSquareAccord Limited

27 February 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 response to the resident’s request for replacement doors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The tenancy started on 18 October 2021 via mutual exchange. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 4 March 2022, the resident reported that his front door and rear door were letting water into the property and his patio door was not fitting in the frame. He also reported that he wanted the utility room door blocked up as it was not being used. On 5 May 2022, the landlord surveyed the doors and reported that the front and back doors required new draught excluders.
On 15 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint about a number of repair issues including external doors.
On 6 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in providing a stage 1 complaint response
2. acknowledged service failures because its surveyor failed to report on the patio doors and utility room door
3. found that it had delayed in re raising a work order to replace draught excluders
4. said that it would be in contact with the resident in the next 7 days about the outstanding repairs
5. apologised for the service failures identified and offered £450 compensation
On 7 July 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that:
1. he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling
2. the delay was unreasonable, and the landlord only responded when his MP got involved
3. the landlord’s operatives surveyed the external doors and recommended that the doors were replaced
4. the utility door was not used and was letting water in
5. an unknown contractor attended to measure the back door and did not let him choose the style of door
On 21 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord:
1. advised that it does not offer a choice of style for back doors.
2. said it would contact him again in the near future to arrange the appointment
3. said that its records confirmed that the patio and front door have a remaining lifespan of 6-10 years and will review the condition in 2029.
4. asked the resident to continue to report repairs.
5. apologised that it had not arranged a further survey of the utility door and said it will contact him in the following week.
On 2 August 2023, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his request for replacement external doors. He said that gaps in the doors are letting water into the property and allowing heat to escape which was increasing his energy bills. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to replace all external doors and block the utility room door up.

Events after the internal complaints process.

On 7 November 2023, the landlord surveyed all external doors. It confirmed that it would not replace the patio doors or front door. It said that there was still ‘life’ left in them. It said that the water was from condensation on the door window and not coming through the door. It offered to open the utility door, but the resident refused.
On 3 January 2024, the landlord responded to a repair request for the front door. It noted that the catch was broken, the door was out of shape, and the frame was rotten. The door saw secure but was swollen and difficult to close. It raised a follow-on work order.
On 11 March 2024, the resident raised another complaint with the landlord about the delay in replacing the external doors.
On 11 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in replacing external doors. It said it would contact him about the outstanding work within 7 working days. It offered compensation of £290 compromising:
1. £240 for the repairs delay
2. £50 for the poor communication
On 15 April 2024, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord discriminated against him because he is disabled. He remained unhappy about the landlord’s response to his requests for replacing the external doors for the previous 2 years.
On 13 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that the resident felt discriminated against but clarified that it held no records of his disability. The landlord said that it had been consistent in advising the resident that it will only replace the back door. It did not offer any further compensation.
On 20 June 2024, the landlord surveyed the external doors and confirmed that the front door and patio doors do need replacing but not urgently. On 3 July 2024 it wrote to the resident and agreed to add the doors to future planned works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

After the final complaint response on 21 July 2023, the resident continued to report issues with the external doors in his property and raised a further complaint. The landlord provided a further stage 2 complaint response on 13 May 2024. It carried out a further survey of the doors on 20 June 2024. For completeness, this investigation has considered all evidence up until 20 June 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement external doors

Where a repair is reported, the law states that a landlord must inspect to determine if it is responsible to repair. Where the landlord is responsible, it must conduct a repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the facts, including the type of repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. emergency – the landlord will attend within four hours and complete within 24 hours for repairs that are an immediate danger to customers or cause severe damage to the property
2. urgent – the landlord will respond within 7 days for repairs where there is no immediate danger
3. routine – standard repairs that the landlord will complete within 28 days
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to request for replacement of 4 external doors. The front door, the back door, the patio doors, and a utility door. For clarity, this investigation will assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement of each door separately.

Front door

On 5 May 2022, the landlord’s surveyor noted that a draught excluder was required for the front door and the landlord raised a repair order for this. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident disputed the landlord’s findings and refused the draught excluder. It phoned him to arrange the repair and attended twice at the property, but the records show the resident refused this. The landlord took appropriate steps to persuade the resident to allow the draught excluder installation.
On 21 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that its records show that the door is not due for renewal for another 6-10 years and that it would respond to any repair requests before this time frame. This was a reasonable response.
The landlord surveyed the front door again on 7 November 2023 and concluded that the door did not need to be replaced. It noted that the resident said water was getting in through the door. However, the surveyor reported that it was wet because of condensation from the window on the front door. It noted mould and raised a repair to carry out mould treatment. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its surveyor’s report, and it communicated these finding to the resident, which was appropriate.
On 3 January 2024, an operative for the landlord reported that rain was getting through the door, the frame was rotten, and the door was swollen and difficult to close. The repair records show that on 11 January 2024, the landlord was unable to carry out mould wash to the front door because surfaces were wet and damaged. A further repair note shows on 8 February 2024 the landlord noted the front door was wet with moisture on bottom panels.
On 16 February 2024, a further repair was raised because the door was not closing properly. On 25 March 2024, the landlord’s repaired the door and sent a referral to its major works team. This was 26 days after the repair request, which was 19 days outside of its timescales for an urgent repair. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered £240 for repair delay in its complaint response. This was a reasonable offer to put things right for the resident.
The evidence indicates that the landlord surveyed all doors again on 20 June 2024 and reported that the front door requires replacing but not urgently as it still had life in it. It said that the door will be added to future planned works and confirmed it would attend to any repairs before the door is replaced. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
When deciding on how best to proceed, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on its records and the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and surveyors. Based on the evidence the landlord appropriately surveyed the front door throughout the timeframe of the complaint and updated the resident on its findings.

Back door

The landlord surveyed the back door on 5 May 2022 and noted that a draught excluder required replacement. The landlord’s repair records state that the resident refused this work on 19 July 2022 and again on 18 January 2023. Based on the evidence, the landlord took reasonable steps to replace the draught excluder.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord surveyed the back door and referred it to its major works team. The landlord’s records are not clear, but it is not disputed that a contractor for the landlord attended in May 2023, measured the back door, and confirmed it required replacement. This was a reasonable timeframe.
When the resident complained to the landlord, he was unhappy with the communication from the landlord because he was not aware of the sub-contractor who attended to measure his door, and he was not provided with a choice for the back door replacement.
In its complaint response, the landlord apologised that its contractor had not communicated to him that it was using a sub-contractor. It clarified that it did not provide a choice for back door replacements. It advised that it would be in contact to replace the door. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
On 17 August 2023, the contractor reported to the landlord that the resident would not allow access for it to replace the back door because he said that there was asbestos around the door. On 18 September 2023, the landlord discussed the issues with the resident who reported that all external doors in the property required replacing. As a resolution, the landlord arranged a survey of all doors. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
The landlord hand delivered a letter to the resident advising that its contractor was willing to install the back door and provided a contact number for him to arrange the installation. It said that it may have to charge the resident for the materials. The resident was unhappy that the landlord asked him to contact the contractor directly and was unhappy that he could be recharged for the door.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was experiencing difficulty with access. In the circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord to provide contact details of its contractor to expedite the repair. It was also reasonable to make the resident aware that he could be recharged for the materials and time, should he refuse the work.
The landlord’s records are not clear, but it is not disputed that the landlord attended to replace the back door with its asbestos surveyor present when the contractor completed the repair. The resident refused because he said that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advised him that the landlord should complete an asbestos survey before completing the repair. As a resolution, the landlord told the resident that it would arrange an asbestos survey. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to provide assurance to the resident.
When the resident escalated his second complaint, he said that he never refused an asbestos survey. In its complaint response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s position that he never refused an asbestos survey. While internal evidence shows that it agreed to complete this survey to expedite the repair, there was no evidence that the landlord offered to complete the survey and no evidence that the resident refused it. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, there was no offer of an asbestos survey. This represents a failure by the landlord.
It is not clear if the landlord identified that it failed to follow up with its offer of an asbestos survey. However, it offered the resident the asbestos survey in its final complaint response and confirmed that it was still prepared to replace the back door. It asked the resident to confirm he was happy to proceed with the survey. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord to put things right for the resident.

Patio Door

On 7 July 2023, the resident complained that he had been told by an operative for the landlord that the patio door needed to be replaced. The landlord advised that its records showed that the doors had a remaining life of 6-10 years and that it would continue to respond to any repairs that was required. This was inappropriate. Its complaint investigation identified that its surveyor had failed to report on the patio doors. The landlord should have raised a new survey of the patio doors. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 7 November 2023, after a further discussion about the external doors with the resident, the landlord surveyed the patio doors and noted that it would not refer the doors for replacement as they still have life in them. The landlord confirmed this in writing on 27 November 2023. This was appropriate.
On 20 June 2024, the landlord surveyed the patio doors, and it wrote to the resident on 3 July 2024 and advised that the patio do need replaced but not urgently. It confirmed that his patio doors will be added to the planned works programme. This was reasonable.

Utility Door

The resident wanted the utility door blocked up. He reported that he does not use the door and there is no key. The landlord was consistent in advising the resident that it would not block the door up. It offered to open this door up for the resident and highlighted that the next occupant of the property may wish to use the door. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take and it communicated its position appropriately.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the resident disputed the findings of the landlord’s surveyors. However, it was reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff. In this case, the landlord’s surveyors concluded that the only external door that required replacement was the back door, which the landlord offered.
The landlord continued to respond to the resident’s requests for replacement doors and concluded that it would replace the front door and patio door in future planned works. However, the decision to not install a new front door and patio doors earlier was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s initial complaint investigation was in response to a number of issues including its response to repairs for his front path, windows, and external doors. It made an offer of £450 compensation for a number of service failures identified for all the issues. In its second complaint investigation, the landlord identified delay in repairing the front door and communication failings for which it apologised and offered compensation of £290.
When the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s first offer of compensation included separate issues. However, taking everything into consideration, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable when considering the service failures identified.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident when it identified service failures in its response to his request for replacement doors. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process when a complaint could not be resolved informally in the first instance (step 1). At stage 1 (step 2), it aimed to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 (step 3), it intended to respond within 20 working days. These timeframes align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The evidence indicates that the resident had experienced considerable difficulty navigating the landlord’s complaint process. On 15 March 2023, he raised a number of complaints which included the external doors. The resident asked for assistance from his MP, who corresponded with the landlord.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023, which was 77 working days later. This was not appropriate, because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 July 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023, which was 10 working days later. This was appropriate and consistent with its policy.
While the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay, it should have considered compensation, given the significant delay. This was failure and represents service failure.
When the resident raised a second complaint on 11 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint appropriately and confirmed that it would respond within 20 working days because it was experiencing increased demand on its service and reduced capacity. On 11 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It missed the deadline by 1 day on and apologised. An offer of an apology was reasonable in this circumstance.
The resident escalated his complaint on 15 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 19 working days later on 13 May 2024. This was appropriate because it was consistent with its policy.
The Code says that, while responding to some concerns from residents quickly and informally without use of the complaints procedure can sometimes be appropriate, “landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents”. It is recognised that the landlord has since updated its complaints procedure in line with the Code and eliminated its step 1 complaint response.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint response. This is because when it identified its initial stage 1 complaint response delay it failed to offer compensation to consider the time, trouble, and delay. Given the extent of the delay, the Ombudsman considers that compensation was appropriate in this circumstance. An order of compensation of £100 has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Guidance on Remedies.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence indicates a lack of access to its contractor’s records and a lack of records of attendance with the resident. In this investigation the landlord refers to a number of instances where the resident refused access, however, there was no evidence provided to the Ombudsman from its contractors. This was particularly evident when the resident disputed an attendance from its asbestos contractor on 18 October 2023. The Ombudsman could not determine if this attendance took place.
Furthermore, internal correspondence on 11 January 2024 refers to the resident refusing access to replace the back door on 4 occasions. While the evidence indicates that the landlord may have had access issues, there was no evidence of contact with the resident or record of refused access.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its response to the resident’s request for replacement doors, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Order

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £100, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, for the service failure identified in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

The determination of reasonable redress was made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £740 is paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.