GreenSquareAccord Limited (202224842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224842

GreenSquareAccord Limited

12 June 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:
1. Request for a property move.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Request for compensation following a leak at the property.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy of a 1-bedroom first-floor flat owned by the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy for the property started in July 2007 and ended following a management transfer in June 2024. The landlord is aware of the resident’s dyslexia and mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident experienced water leaks from the property above in December 2021, April 2022, December 2022, and February 2023. The incident in April 2022 resulted in the landlord moving the resident to a hotel for 9 weeks. The landlord advised the actions of a vulnerable neighbour caused the incidents which affected the resident and other tenants of the building. The resident also made ASB reports against the same neighbour between 2018 to 2024.
The resident brought the matter straight to us before registering this complaint with the landlord. We asked the landlord to register the resident’s complaint on 6 June 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 June 2023 and said it would respond by 7 August 2023. The landlord sent a ‘step 2’ response on 25 July 2023. The landlord advised:
1. It had already received and responded to multiple identical complaints which it had not upheld.
2. It remained satisfied with its most recent response on 10 March 2023, summarising its actions to liaise with the resident’s support worker regarding ASB and the resident’s housing options.
3. The resident remained on its emergency transfer list, and it had encouraged him to also consider the local council’s housing register.
4. His disrepair claim for compensation was in the hands of his solicitor.
5. It did not uphold his complaint and advised him of his escalation options.
On 4 September 2023 we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. He said ASB and noise nuisance remained ongoing, and the landlord had not provided him with support. He also remained unhappy with the landlord’s delays to move him and repeated his claim for compensation. The landlord acknowledged the request on 5 September 2023 and sent a ‘step 3’ response on 18 September 2023. The landlord:
1. Repeated its position that it remained satisfied with its actions for each matter.
2. Encouraged the resident to discuss his compensation claim with his solicitor.
3. Said it remained satisfied with its previous responses and refuted his compensation claims.
4. Encouraged the resident to claim for any decorative or personal possession damage through his own contents insurance policy.
5. Considered all matters closed.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord’s handling of his complaint had affected his mental health conditions. He wanted compensation for the impact to his health and possessions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident states he experienced ASB and noise nuisance from a neighbour for many years. He considers the landlord’s actions affected his mental health.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident also states the landlord should pay him compensation for his water damaged possessions.
In or around March 2023, the resident made a disrepair claim for compensation through a solicitor. The landlord did not accept liability for the damage caused to the resident’s property. Nor did it agree to a settlement offer in February 2024. While the pre-action protocol commenced, we have confirmed with both parties that the solicitor is no longer acting on the resident’s behalf and the matter did not proceed to court.
We will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damaged possessions. This includes whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s home and or possessions. This requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts.

Request for a property move

The landlord’s relevant mutual exchange and transfer policy, explains that residents that are accepted for a transfer are able to apply for another property within its stock. It confirms that residents will receive 1 offer of a suitable property.
Following another leak in December 2022, the resident’s support worker informed the landlord of a decline in the resident’s mental health. It was therefore reasonable the landlord acknowledged the affects he was experiencing from his neighbour’s actions. It subsequently completed a housing transfer application on 16 December 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s desire to help improve things for the resident.
In early January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. At the end of January 2023, the resident’s local councillor also chased the landlord due to the resident’s decline in health. It is therefore unclear why the evidence shows the landlord took approximately 3 months to process the resident’s application, on 9 March 2023. Although the landlord’s mutual exchange and transfer policy is silent on the timescales for processing transfer applications, a period of 3 months without a reasonable explanation was unreasonable. This and caused the resident time and trouble chasing for updates.
While handling several identical complaints from the resident, the landlord wrote to him in December 2022, March 2023, and July 2023. The landlord explained the limitations of stock availability and explained the resident’s housing options. It also encouraged him to consider registering with the local council’s housing list due to his specific property and location preferences. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to manage the resident’s expectations while also supporting his desire to move.
Between March to May 2023 there is evidence the landlord was engaging with the resident’s support worker regarding a decline in his wellbeing. The landlord invited the resident to view some of its alternative housing schemes. While the resident did not consider the properties suitable, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange the viewings. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to ensure it was fully aware of the resident’s preferences. It also provided the resident with opportunity to view alternative types of accommodation.
There is further evidence the landlord continued to inform the resident and his support worker of his housing options throughout 2023. This included the benefit of broadening his search criteria and preferences. As such, the resident registered with the local council, which awarded the resident ‘Band B’ priority for a transfer. This demonstrated the landlord’s continued efforts to manage the resident’s expectations and kept him informed of his alternative housing options.
We are empathetic to the resident’s desire to secure a move at the time. However, a national housing shortage affects the length of time it can take to achieve this. The evidence shows the resident requested to remain in particular communities. It is reasonable that this would have delayed his rehousing success. This was beyond either the council’s or landlord’s control. The landlord can only advertise stock available to it at the time. It also has no control of stock availability from other registered housing providers on the council’s list.
In January 2024 the landlord identified a suitable property for the resident and authorised an emergency move. However, it explained there would be delays moving due to void repair works, which the resident accepted. Due to the delays, the landlord also informed the resident of a second property in March 2024. The evidence shows the landlord remained empathetic to his circumstances and allowed the resident to consider both properties. This showed the landlord used its discretion to offer the resident more than 1 property, as per its transfer policy, in order to help his situation.
The evidence shows that due to unexpected void works to the resident’s property of choice, he did not move until June 2024. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), landlords must ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of a tenancy and throughout. Therefore, while the delay to move would understandably have been upsetting, the landlord acted appropriately to inform the resident of its need to put right identified repairs.
Within the landlord’s correspondence to us in July 2024, it acknowledged the gap in time at the start of its transfer application process. The landlord states this was due to “significant resourcing challenges” at the time which had an impact on its case management. Given the landlord would have known about its resource management issues at the time of the resident’s complaints, it is unclear why the landlord did not address this within any of its complaint responses. Had it done so, it may have addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction in it service sooner.
While we note the resident waited a long time to secure a management transfer, there is no evidence that the landlord’s resource shortages caused further delays. The landlord continued to inform the resident of its stock shortages and encouraged him to consider alternative housing options. It provided 2 property options for him to consider and informed him of void repair delays. Although further delays would have been upsetting, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure it completed all remedial repairs to meet the requirements of LTA 1985.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter. Our determination is based on the landlord’s acceptance that its resource shortages delayed the initial application process. This caused the resident time and trouble to progress matters which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right. As such, we order it to pay £50. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has not fully put right a failure in its service.

Reports of ASB

Our role is not to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrator amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this in accordance with its ASB policy and procedures, and in a manner that was reasonable overall.
The Crime and Policing Act 2014 states that ASB is conduct which:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the above definition. It says it works with other agencies such as the police and will use a range of informal and formal intervention measures that are reasonable and proportionate to the ASB.
The landlord’s relevant ASB policy and procedures state the landlord would:
1. Assess the priority of a case based on a ‘harm assessment’ score.
2. Respond to high harm cases within 24 hours, and to low and medium harm cases within 5 days.
3. Carry out and regularly review a risk assessment matrix (RAM) to identify support needs of complainants.
4. Agree an action plan and frequency of contact with the complainant.
5. Work with other agencies including the police.
6. Deal with security issues quickly.
7. Update the complainant “a minimum of weekly” and act on “vulnerability or support needs.”
8. Carry out a case review on a monthly basis.
The landlord does not dispute that the resident reported loud music, noise, ASB, and issues with the neighbour’s attitude towards disposing of household rubbish from around February 2018. While the landlord demonstrates its awareness of the resident’s mental health support worker, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord completed a RAM following the resident’s reports. It is therefore unclear how the landlord determined the resident’s support needs or the priority of the case. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s relevant ASB policy and procedures.
Prior to the resident’s June 2023 complaint, the landlord’s records state that it issued warning letters to the neighbour, unsuccessfully attempted home visits, and discuss the ASB reports with the neighbour’s parent for support. Its records also state that it issued the neighbour with acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) in November 2021 and May 2022.
It was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy to use a variety of interventions to address the resident’s concerns. That said, there is no evidence that shows the landlord achieved engagement from the neighbour. Nor did it evidence successfully meeting with the neighbour to discuss or gain a signature for the ABCs. It is therefore unclear how effective the interventions were. Particularly as the resident and other tenants continued to make ASB reports.
In December 2022 the landlord recorded new ASB and noise complaints from more than one address affected by the resident’s neighbour. The landlord recorded comments which included that noise continued day and night. It also acknowledged its awareness of recurring issues over a period of 3 years. The landlord further recorded the incidents had affected the resident’s sleep and mental health.
While the landlord’s records indicate it reopened an ASB case, there is again no evidence of a RAM. Given the new health information presented to it, this was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedures.
In January 2023 there is evidence the landlord shared safeguarding concerns regarding the resident’s neighbour during a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) meeting. While this demonstrates the landlord appropriately engaged with external partners, it remains unclear why it did not demonstrate completing a RAM to assess the neighbour’s effect on the resident.
Risk assessments are a valuable tool in ASB case management and allow landlords to understand the risks posed to an ASB victim and respond appropriately. It is of concern that the landlord has not demonstrated completing formal assessments. Particularly given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s deteriorating mental health and wellbeing concerns from his support worker and a local councillor in January 2023.
In January 2023 the landlord submitted a disclosure request to the police. It sought information regarding the resident’s neighbour to support any enforcement action. This showed the landlord acted on the resident’s reports. And it engaged with its external partners which was consistent with its ASB policy and procedures.
Furthermore, the landlord continued to record conversations with the neighbour’s parent to encourage modified behaviour, issued warning letters, and attempted visits. These were reasonable and proportionate steps to take while the landlord gathered evidence.
On 1 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident with his support worker to discuss his ASB concerns. We note the landlord recorded the resident’s comments regarding loud music and shouting. And it also made attempts to explain the difference between ASB and daily living noise. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to manage the resident’s expectations.
During March 2023, the landlord also recorded an action plan to support the resident with his wellbeing, housing, and ASB concerns. This led to the completion of the resident’s transfer application. There is further evidence the landlord regularly updated the resident’s support worker in the weeks following this visit. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedures.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s learning disabilities and the difficulties he had completing diary sheets. The landlord suggested the resident report incidents to his support worker. It would then discuss matters with them during frequent meetings agreed as part of its action plan. This was a reasonable suggestion and demonstrated the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
That said, the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities from the start of his tenancy. And in December 2022, it recognised that neither the resident nor another tenant of the building affected by the ASB, had the capacity to complete diary sheets themselves. Given the landlord’s need for evidence to support any enforcement action, it is unclear why it did not consider alternative evidence gathering approaches to support the resident’s vulnerabilities sooner. This may have included installing sound monitoring equipment. Had it done so, it may have secured evidence to inform its use of enforcement action earlier.
During the same meeting the support worker informed the landlord that the resident had not changed his clothes, not bathed or shaven, or eaten. This was “out of character” and was attributed by the support worker to the effects of the ASB. While the landlord demonstrated working with the support worker to arrange a doctor’s appointment, it still did not demonstrate completing or updating a RAM. Given this clear change in the resident’s circumstances, it is unclear why this action did not form part of the landlord’s case management process.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord and tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. While we can see the landlord did not ignore the resident’s reports, its records do not demonstrate a clear assessment of the risks. This was not appropriate and not consistent with its ASB policy and procedures.
In May 2023 the landlord recorded the resident expressing suicidal thoughts. It is again of concern that there is no evidence of a RAM which documents the consideration of safeguarding. That said, we acknowledge the landlord remained in regular contact with the resident’s support worker. It also assisted the resident to secure priority Band B for the local council’s housing list based on his change in circumstances.
In July 2023 the landlord arranged a multi-agency meeting. It discussed the need for evidence of noise and ASB. And it asked the resident’s support worker if he could use a noise recording application on his phone. While this was a reasonable step to take, it remains unclear why the landlord had not suggested this in December 2022. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its arrangement for the resident’s support worker to provide reports in March 2023 were not enough for it to commence enforcement action.
While it is clear the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of his ASB reports, the landlord did require evidence to start enforcement action. At the time of this complaint, there was insufficient evidence for the landlord to act on. It did, however, demonstrate engagement with external partners to identify ways to offer support and to progress enforcement. The landlord also demonstrated working with the resident’s support worker and secured him alternative accommodation. This was consistent with its ASB and transfer policies and procedures.
However, we have identified a recurring gap in the landlord’s records to evidence completion of risk assessments. This was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its ASB policy. It is essential that the landlord accurately records and updates these steps as circumstances change.
It is also unclear, given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and deteriorating wellbeing, why it did not consider the use of noise monitoring equipment sooner. The landlord’s complaint responses repeatedly explained it had insufficient evidence, yet it did not demonstrate taking steps until July 2023 to offer the use of a noise recording application.
Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or because of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Therefore, based on the time period, recurring gaps in the landlord’s RAM records, and aggravating factors, we find maladministration.
We order the landlord to pay £150 compensation to put right the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This sum is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Special investigation

In October 2024 the Ombudsman published a special investigation report on the landlord. We required the landlord to make changes to its complaint handling and we made recommendations based on our findings. In this investigation, we have found similar failures. However, as the landlord has demonstrated compliance with earlier wider orders, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Request for compensation following a leak at the property

The landlord’s compensation procedure states it expects residents to have their own contents insurance policy. As such, before it will consider any discretionary compensation offer, it will assess if the resident should make a claim for damaged belongings through their own policy.
The landlord’s compensation procedure also states that if the resident involves a solicitor and is making a legal claim, its legal team will handle the matter as a disrepair claim.
Following the resident’s move to temporary accommodation, the resident sought compensation for damaged possessions and distress and inconvenience as a result of a leak. The resident engaged a solicitor to pursue a claim for compensation and damages. While the landlord refuted the resident’s claim for damages, as part of its investigation of the resident’s complaint, it considered its handling of his period of temporary accommodation.
On 30 April 2022 the landlord moved the resident to a hotel following a leak. The landlord identified the resident’s vulnerable neighbour had left a tap running for at least 24 hours, causing damage to other properties in the building and communal areas. During the resident’s 9-week stay, the landlord contributed towards the resident’s daily food costs. While the landlord’s decant policy is silent on such circumstances, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
That said, we have identified evidence where the landlord reviewed its handling of the leaks. For the April 2022 incident, the landlord said it had responded to the report promptly and addressed the issues the same day. However, it also identified poor internal communication and ineffective communication with the resident. It also considered the time taken to complete the remedial work “unacceptable.”
Given this information, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider this within its complaint handling responses either at the time, or later after review. This demonstrates the landlord recognised its service had fallen short of its expectations. Yet, although the resident experienced inconvenience due to an extended hotel stay, it has made no offer of redress to put things right.
It is understandable that the resident may have experienced distress following repeat incidents of leaks in December 2022 and April 2023. While this is upsetting, we have identified no evidence of poor workmanship or negligence by the landlord. It has demonstrated responding to the reported incidents as emergency repairs, and completed remedial work caused by the actions of a vulnerable neighbour. Furthermore, it has demonstrated that it has encouraged the resident to claim via his own contents insurance policy. This was appropriate and consistent with its compensation procedure.
It is understandable that any damage to personal possessions or the decoration of a home would cause upset. However, the landlord has provided evidence that it has repeatedly refuted the resident’s claims that it was responsible for any damage caused.
Furthermore, the landlord’s legal team informed the resident in 2023 and 2024 of its intention to defend his disrepair claim when he sought legal representation. While we note the resident’s solicitor is no longer representing him, he will need to seek independent legal advice if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision.
Based on our findings, we find service failure. We may have made a lesser finding but for the landlord’s own assessment on its handling of the matter. While we have not identified evidence of poor workmanship or negligence, the landlord’s own review of its handling demonstrates failings in its services.
Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This is to recognise its actions may have unnecessarily extended the resident’s hotel stay causing avoidable distress and inconvenience. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures delayed resolving matters for the resident.

Associated complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 4-step complaint process. Its initial step was to resolve the complaint informally within 2 days. In steps 2 and 3 it would investigate and respond within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. Step 4 refers to the right to bring the matter to us. Since the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory in April 2024, the landlord has published a revised 2-stage complaints process which is now compliant with the Code.
Given the resident asked us to raise his complaint on his behalf, it is reasonable that the landlord opted to respond at step 2 of its complaints policy. However, it was appropriate the landlord apologised to the resident for sending its step 2 acknowledgement late.
It is unclear why the landlord’s acknowledgement letter said it would send a step 2 response by 7 August 2023. This was 34 working days later than its 10 working day response time. While it did send its response earlier on 25 July 2023, this was still 25 working days late. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s step 2 response expressed empathy for the resident’s situation. And it demonstrated a thorough effort to respond to each of the resident’s complaint points. This was appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the Code.
The landlord sent an escalation acknowledgment and step 3 response on time. It repeated its position on each of the resident’s complaint points and directed him to his support worker, who the landlord regularly engaged with. It also encouraged him to discuss his legal claims with his solicitor. While this was reasonable in the circumstances, the landlord did not acknowledge or put right the delayed complaint handling at step 2.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord complaint handling. There was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge. Therefore, we order it to pay £25 to recognise the resident’s time and trouble caused by the landlord’s delayed complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the findings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £325 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property move.
  2. £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak at the property.
  4. £25 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reminds its ASB teams of the importance of recording accurate risk assessments.