Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202315773)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315773

GreenSquareAccord Limited

23 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation awarded by the landlord relating to its handling of a boiler leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house, and she lives there with her 3 children.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 August 2023. She was unhappy with its handling of a boiler leak which had left the property flooded with water. She said it had decanted (temporarily moved) her into a hotel as her home was not habitable. She said the hotel was not suitable for her and she had to pay for an alternative hotel over the weekend. She asked the landlord to move her to another property or a more suitable hotel. On 8 August 2023 the resident added that the landlord had not done much to resolve the situation at the property.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 September 2023. It apologised for its delayed response. It acknowledged it had failed to resolve a leak which she reported on 15 June 2023. It said this meant she had to repressurise the boiler and in doing so, the filling loop was accidentally left open, causing the property to flood. It listed various repairs completed following the leak on 22 July 2023 and said it had moved her to more suitable hotels following her concerns. It also outlined the further repairs scheduled to repair the property. It offered her a total of £1,414 compensation. This included:
    1. £235 towards her heating costs. It calculated this at £5 per day for 47 days between 27 July 2023 and 11 September 2023. This was due to the surveyor’s advice to heat the property to help the drying out process.
    2. £329 towards the running costs of 2 dehumidifiers. It calculated this at £3.50 per day for 47 days between 27 July 2023 and 11 September 2023.
    3. £200 towards replacing the flooring.
    4. £250 for its delay in resolving the initial leak which led to the accidental leak and flood.
    5. £200 for its miscommunication about the decant process and when this would end.
    6. £100 worth of vouchers for paint.
    7. £100 for its delayed complaint response.
  4. The landlord issued a follow-on response to the resident on 22 September 2023. It said the property no longer need the heating on and it offered her further compensation for her heating costs. It apologised for the poor service she experienced when calling its out of hours provider about the hotel it initially booked her into. It also apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord explained it had offered the highest compensation award it could for the damaged flooring. It also said it was sorry to hear that the resident and her brother received electrical shocks when the leak first occurred. It gave her advice about making a personal injury claim. It offered a further £283 compensation. This consisted of:
    1. £45 towards her heating costs. It calculated this at £5 per day for 9 days between 12 September 2023 and 20 September 2023.
    2. £91 towards the running costs of 2 dehumidifiers. It calculated this at £3.50 per day for 13 days between 12 September 2023 and 24 September 2023.
    3. £97 as a reimbursement of the hotel she had to pay for herself.
    4. £50 for the poor service received.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 2 October 2023. She said the compensation offered did not cover the damages caused. She said she had to replace furniture, clothes and flooring due to the water damage. She said she felt the landlord could have avoided the situation if it had not been “negligent”. She added she did not have contents insurance and that the situation impacted their health.
  6. On 5 October 2023 the landlord said it reviewed the complaint. It offered the resident a further £500 compensation towards her damaged possessions. It said if she did not wish to accept this amount, she should provide evidence and the costs of the items for it to consider.
  7. On 11 October 2023 during a call, the resident confirmed she did not wish to accept the £500 offer. The landlord asked her again to provide evidence of the damaged possessions for it to consider. She also mentioned her water usage increased due to the leak. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of her bills so it could consider this separately.
  8. The landlord paid the resident a further £63 for the dehumidifier running costs on 13 October 2023.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2023. It said it had reviewed its offer of compensation following the additional information she provided. It increased its offer of an additional £500 to £1000. This consisted of:
    1. £400 towards the replacement of the damaged furniture. It calculated this at 75% of the current purchase price evidenced by the resident.
    2. £200 towards the replacement of the damaged clothes and shoes. It calculated this at 50% of the estimated value given by the resident.
    3. £400 towards the replacement of the flooring.
  10. On 18 October 2023 the resident told the landlord the compensation offer was not enough to cover the cost to replace the flooring. She said the flooring costed £1,400 to replace.
  11. The landlord revised its offer of compensation again on 19 October 2023. It offered the resident a further £200 for the flooring, totalling £800 overall. It confirmed its additional offer of compensation was therefore £1,200 in addition to the £1,760 it had already offered and paid her. This totalled £2,960 compensation.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. She said this did not cover the extent of the damages and the impact the situation had caused to the family. The complaint became one we could consider on 6 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered towards her damaged belongings and the impact caused to her. It is important to note that we cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made by the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has such cover in place) or via the courts. Instead, we will consider how the landlord responded to her concerns and whether it acted appropriately and followed its policies and procedures.
  2. Similarly, the resident said that the landlord’s handling of the boiler leak impacted the household’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. After the complaints process ended, the resident said she experienced issues with the boiler up until early 2025. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The level of compensation awarded by the landlord relating to its handling of a boiler leak

  1. The landlord acknowledged it was responsible for failures in its handling of a boiler leak. It acknowledged that this caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  2. During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident a total of £2,860 compensation for its handling of a boiler leak. The resident believed the amount offered by the landlord was not enough to cover the costs incurred when replacing damaged furniture and belongings. She told the landlord that she felt she would not be in this position if it had managed the repairs appropriately. She said it should have acted sooner when she first reported the initial leak on 15 June 2023. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to do so.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out how it will respond to requests for compensation. It will say sorry and “look to put things right” as soon as possible when it has failed to meet its service standards. It expects residents to have their own insurance policies to cover any home contents or personal belongings. However, where it agrees to do so, it will offer to pay to replace the belongings on a like-for-like basis rather than a new-for-old basis. It will ask for evidence of the damaged items. It will then consider the cost of the item and the age and condition of the damaged item.
  4. The resident told the landlord she did not have contents insurance. The landlord therefore agreed to offer compensation towards the damaged items. This was appropriate in the circumstances given it had acknowledged that its failure to respond to the initial leak later caused the property to flood.
  5. The landlord offered a total of £1,400 towards the resident’s damaged belongings. This was for the costs of replacing the flooring, furniture and her clothing. The landlord followed its policy by requesting evidence of the damaged items and making what it considered to be a reasonable offer. It explained how it calculated the amounts, which was appropriate for it to do as it showed transparency in its calculations. In addition, it offered her £100 in vouchers to use towards buying paint. The landlord also offered to paint the walls to its standard magnolia paint colour after completing the repairs. This was reasonable.
  6. It is also evident that the landlord followed its policy by considering the cost of the items on a like-for-like basis. However, we note the resident’s concerns of being out-of-pocket for the costs incurred to replace the flooring. She has told us that she paid approximately £2,520 to replace the flooring throughout the house. As explained above, we cannot make a finding over liability and so we cannot order the landlord to reimburse her for this cost. Instead, we have made a recommendation below about this.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to also offer amounts towards the resident’s increased utility costs. It paid her a total of £763 to ensure she was not inconvenienced or at a loss while using the dehumidifiers and the heating. It again explained its calculations, which was good practice.
  8. As part of the landlord’s compensation offer, it included £500 for its service failures. This was for its handling of the initial leak, its poor communication during the decant period and the poor service received from its out of hours provider. This reflected the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount was broadly in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident.
  9. During the decant period, the landlord covered the full cost of the accommodation. This included breakfast and a £20 per person dinner allowance each day. In addition, it offered to reimburse her for the cost of the hotel which she had to pay for following the poor service from its out of hours provider. This was appropriate to put things right and to ensure the resident was not further inconvenienced during this time.
  10. The resident was concerned about the injury she experienced on the day that the property flooded. When trying to turn off the boiler and the lights, the resident said that her and her brother were “electrocuted”. The resident said she sought hospital treatment. This is a significant concern. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the flood as an emergency on the same day to ensure it was safe. When it arrived, the electric company had already isolated the electrics.
  11. Within the complaint responses, the landlord said it was “sorry to hear” that the resident and her brother received shocks. It gave her advice about how to make a personal injury claim. By doing so, it acted in line with its compensation policy. Its policy states that such claims should be referred to its insurers for investigation. This was appropriate as the process would allow for an independent investigation into the resident’s concerns. As explained above, we cannot make awards for the impact caused to the resident’s health or the health of her family. It is evident the landlord followed its policy and best practice in providing this advice.
  12. The resident has told us that she remains concerned with her increased utility bills. She has said that her water bills increased due to the flood within the property, and she remains in debt with the provider. When the resident raised this concern to the landlord at the time, it offered to pay for the increased water usage on the provision of evidence. This was reasonable and the landlord was entitled to ask for such evidence when considering whether to make an offer. It is unclear what happened after this. Nevertheless, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident to offer support with her utility bill costs, for example, from its tenancy sustainment teams or similar. We have also made another relevant recommendation below about this.
  13. Overall, the landlord failed to act appropriately in responding to the initial boiler leak and in its handling of the decant process. However, the landlord acknowledged this, and the impact caused to the resident as well as the damages caused to her belongings. It offered a total of £2,860 compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified. We consider this is a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances. The overall amount was in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We therefore have found the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.

The complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out how it would respond to complaints. At the time of the complaint, it used a 3-step process:
    1. At step 1, it would try to resolve the problem immediately within 2 working days.
    2. At step 2, it would investigate the complaint and respond within 10 working days. This was the same as a stage 1 response.
    3. At step 3, it would complete an executive review and respond within 10 working days. This was the same as a stage 2 response.
  2. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 3 August 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded. It therefore did not act in line with its procedure. This caused the resident to experience time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 8 August 2023. This was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 August 2023. It said it would respond within 20 working days. This was not in line with the timescales set out in its procedure. However, it was appropriate for it to be transparent on its increased timescales to manage her expectations of when it would respond. It was also good practice that it explained this delay was due to an increased demand on its service.
  4. Despite the landlord advising it would respond by 7 September 2023, it actually did so on 11 September 2023. However, the landlord kept the resident updated about the delay, which was appropriate. By doing so, it mitigated the impact caused by its delay. Within its response, it appropriately apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint. It offered her £100 compensation for this. This was a fair amount to reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings which did not have an overall impact on the resident.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint after the stage 1 response was confusing. It:
    1. Issued a follow-on response to the resident on 22 September 2023. It reviewed its handling of the boiler leak and increased its compensation offer.
    2. Responded to the resident’s escalation request informally by email on 5 October 2023. Within this, it noted its executive team had “reviewed” the complaint and it offered her more compensation for the substantive issue.
    3. Provided its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023.
  6. As a result of providing 3 responses after the initial stage 1 response, the landlord understandably caused avoidable confusion. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have spoken to the resident to understand why she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. This would have allowed it to gather evidence of the damaged belongings sooner, and it could have issued a comprehensive response which addressed all issues that had been raised.
  7. However, we also note that the landlord responded in a timely manner both overall at stage 2 and for each response. Its actions also showed it considered the resident’s concerns and took accountability in offering redress for the additional factors identified. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that its complaint handling at stage 2 had any significant detrimental impact on the resident or the complaint. Nevertheless, to learn from this, we recommend the landlord reviews its handling of this complaint. It should then identify opportunities for learning to prevent this from occurring in the future.
  8. Overall, the landlord did not respond to the initial complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint’s procedure. However, the landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failing identified. While it did not follow its policy in responding to the stage 2 complaint, there is no evidence of significant detriment caused to the resident. We therefore have found the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its level of compensation awarded relating to its handling of a boiler leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord asks for evidence of the amounts paid by the resident for her flooring. It should then consider whether to pay the difference of the resident’s costs minus the £800 already offered to her.
  2. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to offer support with her utility bill costs. This could be from its tenancy sustainment teams or similar.
  3. We recommend that the landlord asks for evidence of the resident’s increased water bills. Subject to the provision of accurate evidence, it should then consider paying the resident’s increased water usage charges as it agreed to.
  4. We recommend the landlord reviews its handling of this complaint. This is to identify opportunities for learning to prevent its multiple responses occurring in the future.