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

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202400949)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400949

GreenSquareAccord Limited

17 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of overcrowding.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. The resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom house and the resident lives there with her 3 children.
  2. In September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the property was overcrowded. The landlord confirmed details for her new housing officer and advised her to contact them and the local authority to discuss her options.
  3. On 28 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report mould in her children’s bedroom. She told the landlord that her eldest child had severe asthma. She called the landlord again on 11 December as she had heard nothing from it, and again on 21 December, when she said that the mould was spreading.
  4. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 21 December 2023, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. It sent its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024, in which it apologised for problems with its communication, which it said it was looking to improve. It said it had asked for her to be contacted within 10 working days for an inspection to be booked and offered her £225 compensation.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord the same day, asking for the complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy the compensation had been used to offset rent arrears as she said she had incurred costs as a result of the damp and mould that had not been considered.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 February 2024, in which it said:
    1. It had carried out a damp and mould survey on 20 February but needed to arrange a further visit to inspect the loft space.
    2. As the resident’s rent account was in arrears, it had used the compensation paid at stage 1 to offset this.
    3. It offered additional redress of £1,014.32, broken down as follows:
      1. £50 for the delayed inspection.
      2. £175 for communication.
      3. £150 reimbursement for paint and cleaning products.
      4. £239.32 for loss of use of a bedroom (10% of rent from 28 November 2023 until 31 March 2024).
      5. The landlord also asked the resident to provide proof of purchase of loft insulation so it could consider reimbursement.
    4. The landlord said that the reimbursement and loss of bedroom payment would be paid to her directly and the remaining compensation would be used to offset rent arrears.
  7. On 8 April 2024 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint. In the meantime, she raised a further complaint with the landlord on 29 April about the ongoing damp and mould.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 July 2024, in which it said:
    1. It had tried to complete a thermal imaging camera survey but had been unable to get access to the property on 24 April. A new appointment had been booked for 15 July and the landlord said it would then decide on follow-on work.
    2. It offered further compensation of £950, broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for its delayed complaint response.
      2. £200 for delays with investigating the damp and mould.
      3. £200 for its failure to raise follow-on works following the inspection on 20 February.
      4. £150 for poor communication.
      5. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
  9. On 16 July 2024 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 August, in which it said:
    1. Work was carried out in the loft space on 29 July and thermal images were taken. It was suggested that she moved a bed away from the radiator to help with heat regulation.
    2. There had been on further unreasonable delays in carrying out work, so it was not increasing the compensation.
  10. The resident raised a further complaint on 26 September 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 October 2024, in which it said:
    1. The resident had told it that surveyors that have visited previously have told her there are too many children in one room and she wants to be moved to a bigger property.
    2. It had no vulnerabilities recorded for her children, but said that it had now recorded that one child has asthma and another has asthma and eczema.
    3. It had a post-inspection booked for 28 August, but it was not able to gain access. An inspection to look at installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit was booked for 25 October.
    4. The resident would need to register with the local authority to be assessed for overcrowding.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman 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.
  2. According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. When the resident first raised the issue of overcrowding to the landlord on 14 September 2023, the landlord directed her to speak to her housing officer and the local authority. Overcrowding was not raised as part of her complaint to the landlord on 21 December 2023.
  4. The resident first raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of overcrowding in her complaint of 26 September 2024. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 10 October, however this Service has seen no evidence that the resident has asked for this complaint to be escalated to stage 2. If the resident would like to bring this issue to this Service for investigation, she should pursue it fully through the landlord’s complaint process first.
  5. For the above reason and in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the overcrowding issue falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Whilst this investigation will refer to the overcrowding in relation to its relevance to the damp and mould issue, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding and request for rehousing.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy has the following repairs categories and timescales:
    1. Emergency – attend with 4 hours and complete within 24 hours. These are issues that will present an immediate danger to residents.
    2. Urgent – 7 days. These are issues that require urgent attention to prevent further damage to property with no immediate danger to person and/or property.
    3. Routine – 28 days. These are for standard responsive repairs.
    4. Planned routine – 84 days. This is for work that needs time to plan completion.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will ensure it provides and maintains dry, healthy homes for its customers. It also says it will undertake effective inspections and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to eradicate damp.
  4. The resident first reported mould in her children’s bedroom on 28 November 2023. During this call she told the landlord that her eldest child had severe asthma. She called again on 11 December when she had not heard anything from the landlord and reiterated that her child had asthma. On 21 December she had still not heard from the landlord so she raised a complaint. She said she was unhappy that she had received no updates and told it that the mould was spreading. The landlord failed to take the resident’s concerns about her child’s health seriously and respond to her report of damp and mould urgently.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024, in which it said that she would be contacted within 10 working days to book an inspection. It offered £225 compensation to recognise the delay, poor communication and the impact of this on the resident. She asked for the complaint to be escalated the same day.
  6. A damp and mould survey was carried out on 20 February 2024, almost 3 months after she had reported the problem. This represented an unreasonable delay and did not demonstrate that the landlord took its obligations under the HHSRS seriously. This survey indicated that a decant was required, however the landlord decided this was not necessary. It did not provide clear reasoning for this discrepancy. The survey said that it had issued condensation guidance to the resident but that remedial work was required to check the roof space insulation, moisture levels and a possible leak.
  7. On 23 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response, which confirmed the need for further investigation in the loft but did not provide a timescale for this. It offered additional compensation and reimbursement of £1,014.32, including reimbursing the resident for paint and cleaning products that she had purchased to try to deal with the mould herself. At this time this redress was reasonable to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  8. The resident raised another complaint with the landlord on 29 April 2024 as she had not heard anything further from the landlord. This was 2 months after it had said it would carry out further investigations, which represented another unreasonable delay.
  9. In its stage 1 response of 12 July 2024 the landlord said it had tried to attend on 24 April to carry out a thermal imaging survey but could not get access. Its records do not show whether it had given the resident prior notice of this appointment. It acknowledged that the resident had chased it up several times since then and said this survey had now been booked for 15 July. It offered additional compensation of £850 to recognise the delays, poor communication and its failure to book follow-on work.
  10. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 16 July 2024 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 August. It said work was carried out in the loft space on 29 July and thermal images were taken. It said she was advised to move a bed away from the radiator and hoped that work carried out had rectified the problem.
  11. The resident raised a further complaint on 26 September 2024, as she said that there was still damp and mould in her children’s bedroom. She said her youngest child had now also been diagnosed with asthma and her eldest also had eczema. The resident herself also has asthma and uses an inhaler. She said previous surveyors had said there were too many children in one room.
  12. The landlord said in its stage 1 response of 10 October 2024 that it would look at solutions such as installing a PIV unit, and an appointment was booked for 25 October to look at whether one could be installed. In this response the landlord said that it had not got any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her family and had now recorded these. This was despite her having told it about her eldest’s son’s asthma several times when she first reported the damp and mould. This demonstrates that it failed to consider the family’s vulnerabilities when making decisions on how to resolve the situation.
  13. In a recent call with the resident she told this Service that no one had turned up on 25 October 2024 and no further inspections or work had been carried out. It is possible that installing a PIV unit could help to alleviate the condensation problems that the landlord believes are contributing to the damp and mould issue. However, it took too long for the landlord to reach this conclusion, and it has failed to follow through with an inspection to assess the suitability of this unit.
  14. The resident has been in communication with the landlord about the issue of overcrowding since September 2023, and the landlord believes that this is causing, or at least contributing to, the condensation build up. It is noted that the landlord has told the resident to look at a possible home swap and register with her local authority.
  15. The Ombudsman appreciates that when the resident moved into the property it was an appropriate size for her family, and her family has situation has since changed. However, this does not mean that it is not obligated to take all available actions to resolve the damp and mould issues. It also has scope in its own lettings policy to consider a management transfer where there are exceptional circumstances such as a serious risk of harm.
  16. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord has carried out a risk assessment in relation to the family’s health conditions, or considered whether there are exceptional circumstances for it to consider a management transfer. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the circumstances in this case met its criteria for a management transfer.
  17. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It has acknowledged failings during its internal complaint processes and offered compensation to the resident to try to put things right. However, it has repeatedly failed to learn from these failings and the damp and mould issue remains outstanding. By not resolving the damp and mould issues it has not acted in line with its damp and mould policy.
  18. The landlord also failed to acknowledge during its internal complaints process that it had not recorded the resident’s children’s vulnerabilities appropriately when first told about these. As a result, it failed to consider the full scope of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family.
  19. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing damp and mould problem. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £2,589.32.
  20. Orders have also been made for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment, carry out an inspection and if appropriate install a PIV unit. If it is unable to install a PIV unit, it should consider what other options are available, including whether the circumstances would meet the criteria for a management transfer.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says it will acknowledge escalation within 5 working days and send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Its policy allows for a 10 day extension at stage 1 and 20 day extension at stage 2, with good reason and an explanation being provided to the resident.
  3. The resident first raised a complaint on 21 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day, but said that due to increased demand and reduced capacity it needed to extend the deadline to 20 working days. It sent its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024, which was within the extended timeframe.
  4. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on the same day. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 January 2024, giving itself a deadline of 23 February. The response was sent on 23 February, which was in line with its policy timeframe.
  5. The resident raised her second complaint on 29 April 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 7 May 2024, saying it would respond by 21 May. It emailed the resident on 21 May saying it would need to extend the deadline to 5 June due to staff sickness. It did not send its response until 12 July 2024, which represented an unreasonable delay. However, it recognised this failing and offered £100 compensation, which was reasonable.
  6. The resident asked for this complaint to be escalated on 16 July 2024. This Service has not seen a copy of this escalation request, or of an acknowledgment by the landlord. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 August, which was within its policy timeframe.
  7. The resident raised her third complaint on 26 September 2024. As this complaint has not yet completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, the handling of this complaint has not been considered in this investigation.
  8. The landlord has since acknowledged that it should have signposted the resident to this Service after the conclusion of the first complaint, rather than raising further complaints about the same substantive issue.
  9. The Ombudsman is of the view that whilst there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints, the compensation offered by the landlord to recognise these failings was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and was therefore reasonable. The landlord has also recognised its failing in terms of raising multiple complaints. As such, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling her reports of overcrowding is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £2,589.32, less any amount it has already paid. This payment should be made directly to the resident and not used to offset rent arrears.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology.
  3. The landlord to carry out a risk assessment, taking the family’s health into consideration, and provide this Service with a copy of the report.
  4. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
  5. Within 8 weeks of this report:
    1. The landlord to carry out an inspection to assess whether a PIV unit would be suitable. If it is not suitable, a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident and this Service. If it is suitable, a schedule of works for the installation should be provided to the resident and this Service.
    2. If a PIV unit cannot be installed, the landlord to carry out an assessment of other available options, including whether a management transfer would be appropriate, in line with its lettings policy. If it does not deem it appropriate, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a detailed explanation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £100 in relation to complaint handling offered during its internal complaints process, if it has not already done so.