GreenSquareAccord Limited (202225008)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225008

GreenSquareAccord Limited

29 April 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:
1. Repairs to gaps to doors.
2. Porch tile repairs.
3. The aerial not functioning.
4. Repairs to the electric garage door and leak into the garage.
5. Window repairs.
6. Repairs to kitchen.
7. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her 2-adult children. The resident has told us her daughter has respiratory vulnerabilities. The landlord does not hold any vulnerabilities for the household on its information systems.
On 22 October 2021 the resident reported a leak into the garage to the landlord. After 9 March 2022 the resident told the landlord her kitchen needed repair. On 24 May 2022 the resident told the landlord some of the windows in the property were letting draughts in. The resident reported on 8 August 2022 that the electric garage door was not working and had concerns that she could not use it as an emergency exit. Following each of these reports, the landlord’s records show it attended the property:
1. In November 2021 to inspect the leak into the garage.
2. On 10 June 2022 to check if kitchen repairs were needed and it adjusted a kitchen cupboard.
3. On 24 August 2022 to check the windows and install draught excluders.
4. On 7 September 2022 to inspect the electric garage door, it completed windowsill repairs, and repaired the kitchen cupboard door.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 22 November 2022 about her leak in the garage. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 24 November 2022, and it sent a ‘step 2’ complaint response on 13 December 2022. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised to her. It said there was a leak from the flat roof and a repair was scheduled for 16 January 2023. This was outside its expected timescale to complete roof repairs which was 12 months. The resident had advised that the source of the leak is the cladding/panels to the side of her home and not the flat roof. It arranged to inspect this on 5 January 2023. It awarded £50 in compensation.
The landlord was unable to access the property on 5 January 2023, but did gain access on 17 January 2023. On that day, it said the source of the leak was not the roof, but the rendering. The landlord then attended the property on 26 January 2023 to complete windowsill repairs. On this date it also attended an emergency repair for the blocked kitchen sink and leaking pipe. On 8 March 2023 the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. She complained that the:
1. Windows had a gap and there was mould in the house.
2. Kitchen needed repairs.
3. Garage door and leak in the garage needed to be repaired.
4. Porch tiles had come away.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 March 2023. The resident emailed the landlord and said that her daughter suffers with a “bad chest” and mould kept returning. She added the back doors had gaps in them. The landlord sent its step 2 complaint response on 22 March 2023. This said:
1. The landlord was unable to gain access on 5 January 2023. Due to that, it recommended a joint visit with its surveyor and its staff would contact the resident in the next 5 working days.
2. It apologised the resident had been chasing for updates on outstanding repairs.
3. It had revised its customer contact standards to improve communication with its residents.
On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said the landlord had contacted her. The landlord responded on 13 April 2023, it also attended the resident’s property on this date for a joint inspection with its surveyor.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 June 2023 and said it was escalating her complaint to senior level. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 July 2023 about the garage, she said it was not resolved, and believed it was escalated to senior level. On 28 September 2023 we sent a complaint escalation on behalf of the resident to the landlord. The following outstanding repairs complained of were escalated:
1. The kitchen.
2. The garage.
3. The windows.
On 4 October 2023 the landlord sent its ‘step 3’ complaint response to the resident. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said:
1. That on 28 June 2023 it was not the landlord’s staff’s intention to mean it was going to escalate her complaint. However, it recognised this would cause confusion and it should have checked if she wanted to escalate her complaint after her reply of 10 July 2023.
2. It tried to call the resident on 11 July 2023, but she did not answer. This was to update the resident on the surveyor’s actions.
3. Since her correspondence in July 2023, it had implemented a new process. This was to ensure follow-on communication was being checked for escalation requests.
4. Although it agreed with its step 2 complaint responses, it accepted it did not call the resident in 5 working days as it said it would in March 2023.
5. Contractors were going to carry out repairs to the side elevation above the garage and repair the electric garage door.
6. Cyclical repairs were not due until earliest 2029. However, if the resident had further repairs, it would attend, but for her to let it know.
7. In a wider business meeting, it would discuss the case to improve services and mitigate the risk of similarly poor service in future.
8. It offered a total of £900 in compensation to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £150 for its failure to escalate the complaint to step 3. It said this delayed the completion of repairs and resolution of the complaint, and the resident needed to get the Ombudsman involved.
  2. £100 for wording used in the response which led to the resident to believe her complaint was escalated when it had not been.
  3. £500 for previous failure to progress and complete garage door and side elevation repairs.
  4. £150 to apologise for multiple communication failures and lack of updates following surveyor’s visit in April 2023.
The landlord completed repairs to the electric garage door and leak into garage on 20 November 2023. The resident confirmed she wanted us to investigate her complaint on 25 January 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the timescales to action repairs.
In April 2025 the resident told this Service the issue with the windows remained unresolved and there is still mould in the property. She also told us there are gaps to the doors and since the landlord carried out some repairs, her aerial stopped functioning.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident submitted a complaint on 8 March 2023 which did not include the gaps in the property’s internal and external doors. There was mention of doors in her communication to the landlord on 19 March 2023 after it had acknowledged the complaint. Subsequently, gaps in the doors did not form part of her escalation requests prior to the landlord’s final response of 4 October 2023.
As a complaint about the issue with repairing gaps in the property’s doors has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, it falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Similarly the resident’s complaint of porch tiles was not escalated to the landlord prior to the landlord’s final response of 4 October 2023. For the same reason and in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of porch tile repairs has not exhausted the internal complaints procedure and will not be commented on by us.
Lastly, the resident told us that there is a problem with the aerial in the property. The evidence shows this was not complained of throughout the landlord’s internal complaints procedure which was exhausted on 4 October 2023. As such, it falls outside our jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.
If the resident would like to bring the above issues to us for potential investigation, she should pursue it fully through the landlord’s complaint process first.

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of repair reports by the resident, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports. The scope of this investigation starts from October 2021 for the leak into the garage. For the electric garage door repairs, window repairs, and kitchen repairs it starts from March 2022. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner (which is 12 months since issues started) so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’. This also means the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has said the leak in the garage caused damage to personal possessions. It is not our role to determine liability for damaged possessions and the resident may wish to make an insurance claim. However, we will assess if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about damaged possessions.

Repairs to the electric garage door and leak into the garage.

The landlord accepted failings with the length of time repairs had taken and its follow-on actions. It also admitted that it failed to communicate with the resident. When investigating complaints, we will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy has the following repairs categories and timescales:
1. Emergency repairs which are attended to within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are to be completed in 7 days (introduced in December 2022).
3. Routine repairs are to be completed in 28 days. Prior to December 2022 non-emergency repairs were to be completed 28 calendar days from report. If an inspection was needed, this should be completed in the first 7 days, leaving 21 days for the repair to be completed.
4. Planned routine repairs have a deadline of 84 days (introduced in December 2022).
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s website states that maintaining garages that are part of the property is its responsibility.
It is clear from the evidence provided the resident was experiencing a leak in her garage and the garage door itself was not opening for a prolonged period.
The landlord was overdue in carrying out repairs to the resident’s garage after she put the landlord on notice of the leak on 22 October 2021. There is evidence the landlord attended the property in November 2021, but there is no evidence on which specific date and what action it had taken on the visit to contain the leak. Therefore, we cannot say if the landlord’s initial attendance of November 2021 and its actions were appropriate due to its record keeping. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
It was not until 17 January 2023 the landlord tried to attend the property to action repairs which it had documented since November 2021. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy prior to December 2022 did not have a timescale for planned repairs. Instead, it said it allows up to 12 months for this type of roof repair to be completed. This meant around 14 months had elapsed since it had taken any action since it inspected the garage in November 2021. The landlord was overdue by the time expected of it by nearly 2 calendar months. Therefore, this was inappropriate action by the landlord. Although it had acknowledged the delay in its step 2 complaint response of December 2022 and attempted to put things right by offering £50, delays continued. This demonstrates it had not learnt from outcomes.
Additionally, the resident told the landlord her electric garage door was not opening on 8 August 2022. The evidence shows the landlord did not carry out an inspection of the garage door until 7 September 2022. This was 2 calendar days outside the landlord’s 28-day timescale, the issue was not repaired at that stage and therefore inappropriate. The resident was left without a functioning garage door, which she told the landlord caused her distress as it was an exit she did not have use of.
The landlord concluded in its visit of 17 January 2023 that the garage roof was not leaking, instead there was a problem with the rendering. The landlord would then refer to it as repairs to the side elevation of the garage. Therefore, the landlord’s approach to this repair was inconsistent, as the resident had waited 15 months since her report for it to identify what the issue was. This caused her inconvenience. We acknowledge the landlord had attempted to inspect the issues on 5 January 2023 but was unable to gain access. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have attempted to identify the source of the leak sooner than it did. It would have had the opportunity to do so during its visit on 7 September 2022 when it checked the garage door.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that its surveyor would contact her about a property inspection in 5 working days. This was acknowledged as a failing by the landlord in its final response. The evidence shows this did not happen. Subsequently, the resident expended time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 11 April 2023. The property inspection was completed on 13 April 2023. However, considering that the landlord was aware repairs were overdue, the timescale to arrange this property inspection was unreasonable and the landlord was not proactive in its communication.
The evidence shows the resident continued to chase the landlord following its inspection of 13 April 2023 regarding the garage repairs. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the planned repairs for the garage after its inspection should have been completed by 6 July 2023. It is clear there was a lack of action by the landlord, and it did not start repairs until 2 November 2023 for the garage door, and leak into the garage. The repairs were completed on 20 November 2023. This was inappropriate and exceeded the 84-day timescales by 137 days. Additionally, in its final response the landlord did not make clear the timescale for repairs to the garage, so the resident would not have known when repairs would commence.
It is noted the landlord tried to call the resident once on 11 July 2023 to update her on its surveyor’s inspection from 13 April 2023. While this was positive, there were no further attempts and it did not write to the resident about any updates. There is also no further evidence sent to us about what actions it intended to take around that time. This was unreasonable by the landlord and demonstrates poor record keeping.
Under our guidance on remedies, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The guidance on remedies also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment. We have concluded the resident had experienced detriment for 2 years and 1 month regarding repairs to the garage.
It is evident the landlord attempted to put things right in its final response to the resident. It had offered £650 apportioned for its failure to carry out repairs to the garage and its communication failures since April 2023. It had previously offered £50 in delays in arranging an appointment in its step 2 complaint response of December 2022. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies for where there has been significant effect on a resident. The landlord also said it was taking learning from the complaint and discussing with its wider teams, to ensure repeat errors do not occur. As such, we have not found maladministration. However, the landlord had not acknowledged all its failings.
The resident put the landlord on notice on 19 March 2023 that her items in the garage were damaged due to the leak. The landlord made no reference to this in its internal complaint procedure. There is no evidence it provided any support about what it would or would not do. There is no evidence the landlord made the resident aware, or supported her of potentially claiming via contents insurance for personal possessions if applicable. Or via its own insurance if the issue was caused by it. This was unreasonable action by the landlord. A recommendation has been made that it contacts the resident with information on claiming through insurance, if applicable.
Had the landlord not made an attempt to put things right, which included the level of compensation, we would have found maladministration. In considering all the above, we are unable to say the complaint was resolved reasonably. Therefore, we make a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the electric garage door and leak into the garage. This is because of the poor record keeping in relation to this complaint, including the lack of clarity on when repairs would be completed. It is also because of the lack of consideration for her concerns over damaged items in the garage due to the leak. However, no additional financial order will be made. This is because its total offer of £700 was proportionate to the events. The offer of £700 has been made an order, if not paid already.

Window repairs.

The landlord’s website sets out different types of repairs for the windows it is responsible for, this includes repairs to windowsills and frames.
Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord is to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
On 24 May 2022 the resident told the landlord at least 2 windows were letting draughts in. The evidence shows the earliest the landlord had documented repairs to the windows were 24 August 2022. This is when the landlord checked and installed draught excluders. According to the landlord’s timescales set out in its policy, it should have completed the repairs by 21 June 2022. Therefore, it was inappropriate the landlord had taken 92 days, instead of 28 days.
The evidence shows the landlord carried out further repairs to a windowsill in the property on 7 September 2022. This was first logged by the landlord on 8 August 2022. The landlord’s initial attendance was outside its repair timescales by 2 days. It should have completed the repairs by 5 September 2022. The landlord was unable to gain access to complete the repairs on 21 November 2022. Although we acknowledge the landlord required more parts and faced access issues, there is no evidence it clearly communicated with the resident its appointment time. The repair was completed on 26 January 2023, which was 143 days over the timeframe expected in its policy. This was inappropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident.
It is clear throughout the complaint that the resident expected the landlord to take further action with the windows. The evidence shows the landlord had documented that its surveyor would be looking into the windows in the property from its visit of 24 August 2022. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any further action during its internal complaints procedure which was unreasonable.
To elaborate on the above, the resident had put the landlord on notice that repairs to the windows remained outstanding in her complaint submission of 8 March 2023. The resident also told the landlord the windows were contributing to mould in the home. The landlord missed a clear escalation of risk when the resident told it on 19 March 2023 that her daughter had a respiratory condition. In the landlord’s submissions to us, it said it did not hold any records of vulnerabilities for the household. The landlord’s inspection of 13 April 2023 did not document what steps it would take, if any, for the windows in the property. This was unreasonable action by the landlord. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it was satisfied there was no action to take regarding the windows.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021 made a number of recommendations to landlords. The landlord should consider its approach to record keeping and satisfy it is accurate and robust. We would encourage the landlord to support a risk-based approach to damp and mould. Additionally, the landlord should ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s final response told the resident of cyclical upgrades to the windows and that the earliest it would be due is in 2029. The landlord also asked the resident if any repairs were due, it would complete them. This response demonstrates the landlord had not listened to the resident’s concerns and further demonstrates poor record keeping.
The resident had told the landlord as early as March 2023 that there were still gaps in the windows letting draught in and contributing to mould. The landlord failed to action any repairs by its final response. Based on the information provided by the resident, the mould was not severe or widespread in the property.
However, the landlord omitted any consideration for mould in the property. There is no evidence it had taken sufficient steps in assessing the extent of the mould in the property of a vulnerable household in line with HHSRS. It is clear the resident experienced distress and inconvenience with concerns about her daughter.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows. It has not acknowledged its failings or attempted to put things right. Orders have been made that take into consideration the initial delays to repair the windows, as well as the lack of consideration for any window repairs from March 2023 onwards.
In calculating redress, we have considered that the resident experienced repeated delays for repairs to the windows. We have also considered household vulnerabilities. The repairs completed on 24 August 2022 were 64 days over its policy. The repairs completed on 26 January 2023 were 146 days over its policy, although there was a mitigating factor with no access to the property. Combined, this was nearly 7 months of delays to repairs. Additionally, there was a lack of action by the landlord from March 2023 until October 2023 which equates to 7 months. While we acknowledge the landlord has taken further action to complete repairs to the windows the resident complained of in March 2023, it is clear detriment to the resident has continued since then. She has told us that the repairs are incomplete and there is still mould in the property. Since October 2023 18 months have passed.
This means the resident has experienced distress, inconvenience, and delays for a total of 32 months. In line with our remedies guidance, a payment of £640 has been made, which equates to £20 per month. This reflects the detriment to the resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident to explain which repairs remain outstanding in relation to the windows causing mould and assess the extent of any mould. Another order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and record any household vulnerabilities accurately on its systems.

Repairs to kitchen.

The landlord’s website states it is responsible for repairing leaking sinks and taps. It also states it is responsible for repairing kitchen cabinet doors and drawers.
The evidence shows the resident had told the landlord further repairs were required to her kitchen after 9 March 2022. The landlord changed an appointment agreed with the resident of 31 May 2022 without telling her. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate clear communication with her. The landlord did mutually agree a date with the resident of 10 June 2022. However, both its initial appointment of 31 May 2022 and 10 June 2022 were outside its 28-day timescales in its responsive repairs policy. As the landlord did not re-attend the property in 93 days, this was inappropriate action by the landlord.
On the 10 June 2022 visit, the landlord’s contractor adjusted a kitchen cupboard but found no other issues with the kitchen. The landlord is reliant on professional opinion, so it was reasonable at this stage to not take further action. While this was the case, the landlord did carry out further repairs to the kitchen cupboard doors on 7 September 2022. The resident’s report of the kitchen cupboard door dropping was logged by the landlord on 8 August 2022. This meant the landlord was over its response repair policy timescales by 2 days. This was inappropriate action by the landlord.
In contrast, on 26 January 2023 the landlord did attend an emergency repair for the blocked kitchen sink and leaking pike. The evidence shows this was appropriate action by the landlord, as it attended within 4 hours and completed the repairs on the same day.
The resident complained on 8 March 2023 that her kitchen worktops and kitchen cupboards required repairs. As above, an inspection of the property did not take place until 13 April 2024. This was 36 days after the resident’s complaint that the kitchen required repairs. The time taken to inspect the property was inappropriate and outside its 28-day timescale. However, the evidence shows there were no issues found with the kitchen. Therefore, it was reasonable the landlord did not take further action at that stage.
In the landlord’s final response, it told the resident cyclical repairs to the kitchen were not due for another 6 to 10 years. The landlord acknowledged the resident said the kitchen required attention. However, it did not set out its position on previous inspections. Instead, it asked her to report further repairs to the kitchen. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about what steps it would or would not take. However, there is no evidence that between 8 March 2023 and the landlord’s final response of 4 October 2023 that any repairs were required to the kitchen.
Overall, the landlord did not adhere to its responsive repair timescales in its attendances of 10 June 2022 (65 days over), 7 September 2022 (2 days over), and 13 April 2024 (8 days over). There was a combined delay across the 3 appointments of 75 days. It is evident there was a lack of clear communication with the resident by the landlord. The resident still felt the issues with the kitchen were unresolved after she exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and it missed an opportunity to manage her expectations and put things right after reviewing the complaint. As such, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to kitchen.
Orders have been made that consider our guidance on remedies. The delays equate to around 2 and a half months, therefore we have ordered a payment of £50, reflective of £20 per month of delays to kitchen repairs, appointments, lack of updates, and mismanagement of expectations.

The associated complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaints of November 2022 and March 2023, the landlord’s complaints policy referred to its first formal complaint response as step 2, and its final response as step 3. The step 2 response would be issued in 10 working days or up to 20 working days from complaint acknowledgement (it acknowledged complaints in 2 working days). The step 3 would be sent within 10 working days from the complaint escalation.
The resident’s first complaint was made on 22 November 2022 and acknowledged by the landlord on 24 November 2022. The landlord sent its step 2 response 13 working days after acknowledgement, which was on 13 December 2022. In its complaint acknowledgement it had told the resident it would issue a response by 15 December 2023. Ultimately, this was inside the timescales set out in its complaints policy, therefore this was appropriate action by it.
The resident’s second complaint which was submitted on 8 March 2023 was acknowledged by the landlord on 9 March 2023. The step 2 response was sent by the landlord 9 working days after on 22 March 2023. Therefore, its timeliness was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord accepted in its final response it miscommunicated to the resident about escalating her complaint. The resident received an email from the landlord on 28 June 2023 which said it was escalating to senior level. The landlord apologised for this. It also noted that it could have asked if the resident wanted to escalate her complaint when it received her email of 10 July 2023.
As the landlord failed to do so, the resident approached us for help in escalating her complaint, which was submitted to the landlord on 28 September 2023. This was more than 2 months after her email of 10 July 2023. The landlord’s response was provided 4 working days later, which was in line with its policy. However, it should have escalated the resident’s complaint from 10 July 2023 onwards as she said issues had not been resolved and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions. Its complaints policy said if the resident was unhappy with the step 2 response, it would consider escalating the complaint, so it was not appropriate the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint until our intervention.
The landlord acknowledged the above errors in its step 3 complaint response and attempted to put things right by offering a total of £250 for its handling of the complaint. The award of £250 is in line with our guidance on remedies and reflects the time and trouble expended by the resident, and the 2-month delay to her complaint journey. It also identified learning from its handling of the complaint, since the resident’s email of 10 July 2023 it had implemented new processes. It said it had staff allocated to reviewing follow-on communication from residents once a step 2 response was issued. This would allow it to not miss escalation requests.
While there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the events. As above, it demonstrated learning from the complaint. As such, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. A finding of reasonable redress is based on the £250 financial remedy offered being paid to the resident, if not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to gaps in the property’s doors.
2. The landlord’s handling of porch tile repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the aerial not functioning.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the electric garage door and leak into the garage.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs that were required to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for:
  1. Its poor record keeping in relation to her complaints about outstanding repairs.
  2. The delays to repair the windows and delays to repair the kitchen as identified in this report.
  3. Its failure to assess the extent of mould in the property.
2. Contact the resident to explain which repairs remain outstanding in relation to the windows causing mould, and assess the extent of any mould.
3. Contact the resident to record household vulnerabilities.
4. Pay the resident a total of £1,390, comprised of:
  1. £700 for its failings with repairs to the garage, its poor communication and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. This amount is made up of the £650 offered in its step 3 complaint response of October 2023 and the £50 in its step 2 complaint response of December 2022.
  2. £640 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of action by the landlord regarding repairs to the windows.
  3. £50 for the delays outside the agreed timescales in its responsive repairs policy for repairs to the kitchen.
  4. If any amount previously offered in its complaint responses, excluding the £250 offered for complaint handling have been paid, it can be deducted from this total of £1,390.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to pay the £250 it offered in its step 3 complaint response of 4 October 2023 for its complaint handling, if it has not done so already. This amount should not be offset against the total compensation ordered above.
The landlord is also recommended to contact the resident about her options and direct her to its insurance, to submit a claim for damaged possessions which were in the garage.