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

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202334620)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334620

GreenSquareAccord Limited

20 December 2024


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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A blockage under the kitchen sink.
    2. Damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. At the time of the resident’s initial complaint the landlord had a 3–stage complaints process with step 1 being an attempt to resolve the issue within 2 working days and steps 2 and 3 being formal responses. It revised its complaints policy on 1 April 2024 to a 2–stage complaints process which brought it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The resident’s first complaint was raised by the landlord after he sent it an email requesting compensation on 19 December 2023 which he followed up on 8 January 2024 with further information. The complaint contained 2 elements:
    1. His kitchen sink was blocked and had repeatedly become blocked over previous years. The landlord had delayed in resolving the repeated blockages.
    2. His reports of damp and mould in the property including time taken to resolve the reported issues.
  4. The landlord issued its step 2 response on 15 April 2024. It detailed the appointments it had made in its attempts to resolve the issue with the kitchen sink and said it was unable to find a record of previous reports of damp, but did raise a job in January 2024 for its surveying team to assess the damp and mould. It upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £120.
  5. The resident requested the complaint to be escalated to step 3 on 15 April 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its step 3 response on 8 May 2024. Its findings from the step 2 response remained unchanged but provided an update following the surveyor inspection on 15 April 2024.  It addressed the resident’s concerns over appointments made and offered an additional £430 compensation.
  7. The resident made a new complaint on 17 October 2024. He said he was waiting for his kitchen sink pipe to be fixed, was living with mould and due to the issue of his kitchen sink blockage, his washing machine had broken down.
  8. The resident made a further complaint on 23 October 2024 regarding the landlord’s operative attending a scheduled appointment late. It issued a stage 1 response to that complaint on 30 October 2024. It upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 November 2024 to the complaint raised on 17 October 2024. It provided the outcome of appointments it had recently conducted for the kitchen sink blockage, damp, and mould. It upheld his complaint based on delays in resolving the cause to the blocked sink and damage to his washing machine. It offered £200 compensation and £279 to cover the cost of replacing the washing machine.
  10. The resident escalated both his complaints due to not being happy with the time taken to resolve the issues, requesting further compensation and refunds.
  11. The landlord issued 2 separate stage 2 responses on 21 November 2024. In both responses it said it had responded comprehensively to the matters the resident had raised. It confirmed his complaints had been partially upheld as it missed opportunities to resolve the issue with his drainage earlier and there was a significant delay in arranging the damp and mould inspection. It had offered him a total of £1,179 in compensation since April 2024 for the matters raised and could not see that any further offer would be appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, he said that the outstanding repairs in the property were affecting his mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health or wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has informed the Ombudsman he has been reporting the issues to the landlord for over 5 years. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Although it is acknowledged that he raised issues going back to at least 2019, the last report of the sink blockage was in January 2022 which is more than 12 months before his more recent 2023 report. This investigation has primarily focused on its handling of his recent reports from October 2023 onwards that it considered during its complaint responses.

The Kitchen Sink

  1. For the period considered in this investigation, the resident reported a blockage in the kitchen sink on 9 October 2023. The landlord’s records show works raised and an appointment booked for 26 October 2023. Its operative failed to attend the appointment and a follow up appointment was booked for 16 November 2023, but no access was given. A further appointment was made for 30 November 2023, but the resident contacted it on 21 November 2023 to say the works were no longer required.
  2. The landlord raised a further repair for the blocked sink on 4 December 2023. There were however delays in the repairs taking place due to staff sickness on 18 December 2023 and an operative’s vehicle breakdown on 19 December 2023. Its operative did attend on 20 December 2023 and noted the works required a plumber meaning a further appointment was necessary. The operative also noted the resident was not happy as the issue had been ongoing for several years.
  3. The resident made a request for compensation to the landlord on 19 December 2023 for missed appointments and buying products to unblock his sink as the pipe underneath needed replacing. It requested more information about his claim on 8 January 2024. He confirmed details of his request including those appointments missed and included dates in October and December 2023.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 12 January 2024 and noted that his sink was blocked, and he was unable to use his washing machine. They stated he was using the bathroom to wash up and there was a bad smell in his property due to the issue. They drained wastewater from the waste pipes and removed a visible section of waste and fittings from the sink base unit. The water was draining well from the sink and the washing machine discharge pipe was reconnected. They noted he insisted on more a permanent resolution as the problems had arisen consistently over the previous 9 years. The landlord agreed that it would arrange for a specialist contractor to conduct a CCTV survey on the waste pipework from the sink and complete any necessary repairs.
  5. This was a positive step taken by the landlord. Although the sink was draining again, it understood the issue had been ongoing and required a more detailed examination to ensure there was not an underlying issue. However, the repair records provided to the Ombudsman show it was aware of the repair history of the property. It is not clear why the decision to investigate the issue further was not taken sooner than it was.
  6. The landlord has stated to the Ombudsman that it logged the resident’s request for compensation as a complaint on 12 March 2024. It said the cause of the delay in logging the complaint was due to the request being sent internally to its planning team where it remained unactioned until it was forwarded to its customer care team. This failure by the landlord in managing the correspondence from the resident caused an unnecessary delay in him receiving a response to his complaint.
  7. The landlord called the resident to acknowledge his complaint on 11 April 2024. He informed it that he had been told it would send someone out with a camera, but that was never booked so was unhappy with time taken to book in the inspection.
  8. From the evidence provided by the landlord, there was no CCTV inspection raised by it after agreeing to do so in January 2024. The delay in it arranging the inspection was not appropriate and no reasons have been given for the failure.
  9. The landlord issued its step 2 response to the resident on 15 April 2024. It stated it received his complaint on 12 March 2024 but failed to acknowledge he had made the complaint much earlier. The response failed to acknowledge the missed appointments from October 2023, which were part of his request for compensation. It explained the timeline of events since the repair raised on 4 December 2023. It provided the reasons for nonattendance to the scheduled appointments and confirmed the planned CCTV survey. It acknowledged that it had not raised that inspection and apologised he had to chase it. It stated it had raised the works and its specialist contractor would call him to book an appointment.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £120 in compensation. This consisted of £20 for a delay in booking a damp and mould inspection, considered later in this report, and £100 for stress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint to step 3 on 15 April 2024. He stated that the blockage problem had been ongoing since he had moved in, he had lost earnings every time he booked a repair and there were 6 missed appointments. The issues had affected his mental health.
  12. The landlord received the results of the inspection of the kitchen sink after attendance on 15 April 2024 by the specialist contractor. The investigation found the waste pipe from the sink which ran under the floor was bellied, causing it to hold water and cause repeated blockages. The report recommended its plumber checked the waste pipe below the floor.
  13. The landlord at this stage was aware of the potential cause of the repeated blockages and that it would need to take further action in line with the timescale of its repairs policy. Its repairs policy states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days. The resident would expect completion of his repair to be no later than 28 days.
  14. The landlord issued its step 3 response on 8 May 2024. Regarding the kitchen sink it said its findings had not changed from the step 2 response outcome. It explained that its complaints policy limited its review of issues complained about to the last 12 months. Prior to the appointments in December 2023 regarding the sink, although it did not dispute previous blockages or issues with the sink, it could see no other issues reported in the last 12 months. It found no evidence of 6 missed appointments in the past 12 months but understood the resident’s frustration with the appointments that occurred 3 days in a row to get the sink issue resolved and the impact that had.
  15. The landlord said it did not compensate for loss of earnings directly but had considered this in its compensation offer. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused and had also considered that in its compensation offer. It offered compensation of £430 comprising of £200 (£100 for each cancelled appointment for the sink), £150 for the frustration and impact on his health caused by not resolving the sink issue and the wait until 12 January 2024 for that to be resolved. The remaining £80 was for a delay in booking the damp and mould inspection.
  16. Based on the evidence provided the landlord received the findings of the CCTV survey around 19 April 2024 and it raised repairs on the findings on 23 May 2024. On 28 May 2024 it confirmed works required included removal of a portion of units and floor to access the waste pipe and noted how long the issue had been going on for. It raised those works on 12 June 2024, but its records show on 10 July 2024 the resident had called it and said he would not be at the property for a while and did not want to rebook at that time.
  17. The landlord’s records are not clear when contact was reestablished with the resident. The records show it raised a further repair on 23 August 2024 due to the sink being blocked and the resident being unable to use his washing machine. Its operative attended on 28 August 2024 and said they got the sink running better, needed to do further work to complete the unblocking but due to the resident just finishing a night shift another appointment was required.
  18. The landlord’s repairs records show its operative attended the resident’s property on 16 September 2024 and stated there was no need to remove any units and cleared the waste pipe of the blockage. A further repair was then raised by the landlord on 17 September 2024 as the resident said the water was still not draining properly. Those works were originally booked for 17 October 2024. This added to the delay in him having the issue resolved and was now significantly beyond its repairs policy timescales.
  19. The resident’s further complaint to the landlord, on 17 October 2024, was that he was still waiting for repairs to his kitchen sink pipe and was still living with mould. He said one of its maintenance team attended that day but did not fix it. He was confused about the job as the previous works done just unblocked it, did not manage to fix the problem and after a few hours the sink blocked again. The issue with the kitchen sink blockage meant every time he tried to wash his clothes the water stayed inside his washing machine as it had broken down and he could not use it anymore. He had no resolution to the issue since he moved in in 2015.
  20. The resident made another complaint on 23 October 2024 stating he was unhappy at the time the landlord’s operative attended his property for an appointment due to being told he would be an early call. They did not arrive and a person who was waiting at his property had to go to work.
  21. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to that complaint on 30 October 2024. It said it had attended his property but was unable to gain access as it arrived in the afternoon after informing the resident the appointment was for the morning. It apologised for the breakdown in communication, was aware of the ongoing plumbing issues and upheld the complaint. It offered £150 compensation consisting of £75 for communication breakdown and £75 for distress and inconvenience.
  22. On 30 October 2024, the landlord in internal correspondence asked to ensure that the washing machine was inspected and evaluated once the pipework had been repaired so it could determine whether there was an issue with it caused by the blockage and if a repair/replacement would be required. This was a positive action by the landlord that showed it was considering the impact of the blockage.
  23. The appointment took place on 31 October 2024, and the landlord’s records show the blockage in the waste pipe between the kitchen sink through to the bathroom and to the soil stack was completely full of solid domestic waste. The operative cleared the blockage and installed new pipework. A check of the washing machine did not take place as the resident had removed it prior to the appointment.
  24. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 November 2024 to the complaint it had logged on 17 October 2024. It found that the resident had complained to it in the past regarding issues with the kitchen sink blocking and apologised that its attempts to resolve the matter had not been successful. The issues he raised in the current complaint in respect of the kitchen sink and the blockages were like the ones previously investigated so it could not re-investigate the same issue. It explained the actions its operative took on 31 October 2024. It said during that appointment it was unable to assess the damage to the washing machine as he had removed it prior to the appointment. It believed the issue with water drainage from the washing machine was partly due to the blocked pipes and was sure that would have caused damage to his washing machine. It upheld the complaint due to delays in resolving the cause of the blocked sink and damage to his washing machine.
  25. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation consisting of £100 for time and trouble and £100 for the inconvenience caused. It also offered £279 to cover the cost of replacing the washing machine based on the average cost via online searches as it believed the delay of not identifying the fault causing the poor drainage of water had resulted in the damage caused.
  26. The resident requested his complaint to be escalated on 1 November 2024. The landlord has stated that this was due to the financial and mental impact for several years. He had reported having to increase the dosage of his medication due to the stress caused by the unresolved sink blockage, and damp and mould. He had stopped cooking and was not able to do his laundry at home, had low mood every time he entered the property and had suffered from lost income due to having to be available for appointments.
  27. On 4 November 2024, the resident also requested an escalation of his complaint that was responded at stage 1 on 30 October 2024. The landlord has stated the reason for the escalation was similar to his escalation of 1 November 2021. He wanted compensation, including a refund of his rent due to the flat being uninhabitable, the replacement of his washing machine and refund of the money he had spent trying to unblock the sink.  
  28. The landlord issued 2 stage 2 responses on 21 November 2024 to the resident. The response to the escalation made on 1 November 2024 stated it apologised if it caused him stress and anxiety. However, its complaints process could not respond to claims relating to health conditions he could pursue these via a solicitor who would need to put a claim through its insurance. It had responded comprehensively to the matters he had raised in its other stage 2 complaint response issued the same day. It said its compensation procedure did not respond to claims for loss of earnings. It had offered him £1179 in compensation since April 2024 for the issues raised, including for time and trouble, or distress and inconvenience which it believed to be fair.
  29. The stage 2 response to the decision of 30 October 2024 provided a summary of all the complaint responses the landlord had issued since April 2024 and the outcome of each response, including offers of compensation totalling £1179. It provided a detailed timeline of events relating to the drainage matters since October 2023 and the damp and mould since January 2024. It acknowledged that it failed to resolve the drainage issue for him despite having several opportunities to do so. It declined his request for a refund of repairs he had paid for but was hopeful the works it had completed on 31 October 2024 had resolved the issue. It also refused his request for a rent refund on the basis it did not consider the property to be uninhabitable.
  30. From the complaint responses issued to the resident, the landlord made offers of compensation specifically for the kitchen sink issue and for the damp and mould issue. It did offer compensation for distress and inconvenience however did not always specify how the compensation for distress and inconvenience was allocated.
  31. The landlord offered the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience in its step 2 response and £200 in its stage 1 response issued on 1 November 2023. This was in response to the kitchen sink and damp issues raised. As the landlord did not provide a specific amount for each issue the Ombudsman has considered that to be a 50% allocation for each issue making the award £150 for the kitchen sink repairs. The landlord also offered £350 in its step 3 response and £150 in its stage 1 response issued on 31 October 2024 which it specifically allocated for the sink issue and £279 towards the cost of a washing machine in its complaint response issued on 1 November 2024. This made a total offer to the resident of £929 for its handling of the kitchen sink.
  32. Given that the landlord initially attended in December 2023, requested a CCTV inspection in January 2024 which it did not complete until April 2024 and the identified works to resolve the issue were not completed until October 2024, it is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It was around 6 months after the issues with the kitchen sink pipe were first identified (and after multiple repairs prior and the resident making multiple complaints).
  33. The landlord confirmed the complaint was partially upheld as it missed opportunities to resolve the issue with the drainage. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their loss of wages whilst repairs are carried out.  Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. Its responses indicate that the landlord has considered the inconvenience caused to the resident by the numerous visits for the repairs.
  34. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident, and made offers of compensation to him. The compensation offered by it falls within the range which would be recommended by the Ombudsman for the failings identified in this report. Therefore, in this case, the Ombudsman agrees with its offer of compensation to reflect its failings and determines a finding of reasonable redress.

Damp and mould

  1. For the period covered in this investigation, the first evidence of the resident raising damp and mould issues to the landlord was in the email previously referred to that he sent to it on 19 December 2023, He asked for compensation and included that he been reporting the damp and mould for several years which the landlord later registered as a complaint.
  2. The landlord would be expected to contact the resident regarding his reports, establish the concerns he had and arrange for any required investigation to take place. It did so on 8 January 2024 when it responded to his email, and it asked him when he originally reported the issue to it as it had no record of that on its system.
  3. The resident responded that he reported it when he had a visit after completing 5 years of his tenancy. He had shown the person who attended his property, they took pictures to send to the landlord, but he never heard back. Based on the start date of the tenancy this inspection would appear to have taken place around 2020.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 January 2024, requesting the location of the damp and mould located, asking if he could use the affected rooms as intended. It asked if there were any signs of a leak or had there been a leak recently in the property. It also asked how long the damp and mould had been present, if he had tried cleaning it, if he could ventilate the property with fans or windows and if there were any vulnerabilities in the property. It again asked for photographs of the affected areas for it to pass on to its surveying team.
  5. Given the landlord stated it had no previous records of contact from the resident about damp and mould it was appropriate for it to ask those questions. That would have enabled it to have a greater understanding of the damp reported so that it could provide the relevant information to its operative before any inspections took place.
  6. The landlord has stated it did not receive a written response by the resident but did receive photographs. This would have limited its knowledge of the issue. However, its records show it did raise works for a surveyor inspection on 23 January 2024.
  7. The landlord’s actions to this point were appropriate. However, the appointment for the surveyor’s visit did not take place until 15 April 2024. It has not given any reasons for the delay and that was a failure by it to ensure it investigated the reports of damp and mould within an appropriate timescale.
  8. The landlord’s step 2 response stated that it was unable to find a record of a previous reports of damp and mould and apologised if that was not reported as it should have been. It provided him with information on how to report damp and mould in the future. It said on 23 January 2024 it raised a job for its surveying team to assess the damp and mould, and its surveyor would visit him on 15 April 2024. It apologised for its delay in arranging the appointment and upheld the complaint for its delay. It offered £20 for the delay in booking in the surveyor inspection in addition to the offer it had made for distress and inconvenience for the damp and sink issues he had reported.
  9. The surveyors visit took place on 15 April 2024. The report found works required. This included ventilation trays needed in the loft, the extractor fan in the bathroom was old and, although working, needed replacement. The hose in the loft needed insulating, the windows required replacement, mould washing was to be completed, and a new section of guttering was needed.
  10. The landlord would have needed to consider those repairs and plan in line with the timescales of its damp and mould policy. Its policy states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
  11. Following the landlord’s step 2 response, the resident escalated his complaint on 16 April 2024. Regarding the damp and mould, he repeated that the issue was reported in 2017 when he had the property. There were no other reasons provided for the escalation.
  12. In the landlord’s step 3 response on 8 May 2024, it repeated its findings from the step 2 response and that following the inspection on 15 April 2024 it raised works in its system on 3 May 2024. Its planning team would contact him within 10 working days to agree appointments for the repairs. It offered an additional £80 for the delay in completing the damp and mould inspection.
  13. The landlord’s records show works raised for the ventilation trays and guttering on 3 May 2024 and confirmed an appointment with the resident for 12 June 2024. The mould wash took place on 22 May 2024 and the replacement of the bathroom fan on 1 July 2024. On 10 July 2024, its records stated the resident called it and said he would not be at home and did not want to rebook at that time. On 11 September 2024, its records noted the works were on hold until he contacted it. The works eventually took place on 13 and 19 November 2024.
  14. The landlord’s repairs records show on 7 October 2024 the windows were not rotten but had mould, causing their paintwork to deteriorate. It put this down to the resident’s lifestyle noting all the windows had sheets up against them and not using trickle vents.
  15. The landlord’s records show on 8 October 2024 it raised works for a further mould wash. In an email to the landlord on 17 October 2024 the resident said he was still living with the mould but did not provide any further details. On 31 October 2024, the landlord completed a mould wash of the windows and applied anti–mould paint to all rooms, satinwood to all windows and washed mould from the ceiling in the bedroom and bathroom. Its stage 1 response on 1 November 2024 referred to it completing those works.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 response issued in response to the stage 1 response on 30 October 2024 listed a comprehensive history of steps it had taken from January 2024 to November 2024 and stated there was still some outstanding works regarding an extractor fan. It acknowledged delays in arranging the damp and mould inspection but said some of the repair delays was due to the resident’s unavailability and request to postpone certain jobs.
  17. Overall, the landlord did recognise its failures in its complaint responses, upheld the complaint and offered compensation for its delays in arranging the surveyors report totalling £100 and, as previously explained, £150 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord therefore paid the resident a total of £250 for its handling of the damp and mould. For the failings identified, the level of compensation offered by the landlord falls within the range the Ombudsman would order for such failures and it therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a blockage under the kitchen sink.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £1179 compensation it has offered through its complaint process if it has not already done so.
    2. Contact the resident to establish if any works it has identified are outstanding and arrange for those to be completed within an appropriate timescale.