From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202413045)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413045

GreenSquareAccord Limited

22 May 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
    2. Reports about his kitchen floor tiles.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and he lives in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. He reported damp and mould around 18 November 2022. The landlord inspected on 6 January 2023 and raised orders for repairs.
  3. On 27 November 2023, the resident complained that repairs had not been done. He said there were issues with his kitchen floor and he had not heard anything since the landlord inspected.
  4. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2024 saying it was sorry it had not replied to his contacts or done another inspection. It would arrange an inspection and offered £250 compensation for the delays and its “poor” communication.
  5. The resident reported his kitchen floor tiles were damaged and lifting on 15 February 2024. The landlord inspected and raised orders for some to be replaced.
  6. On 6 March 2024, the resident made a second complaint. He said that no repairs had been done since the landlord inspected the damp and mould on 19 January 2024.
  7. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 8 April 2024 saying:
    1. It was sorry it had not raised repair orders after its last inspection.
    2. It was due to repair his windows and gutters.
    3. It offered £305 compensation for the delays and any distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. On 8 May 2024, the resident escalated his second complaint. He was unhappy with time taken to do repairs and felt the compensation offered was not enough.
  9. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024 saying:
    1. It had cleaned off the mould and resealed the windows on 10 April 2024.
    2. It had repaired the gutters and cleaned them out on 20 April 2024.
    3. It was sorry for its service failings and offered an additional £800 compensation for the delays in the repairs and “failing” to escalate his complaint.
  10. The resident complained about damp and mould for a third time on 3 July 2024. He said that repairs identified in “2022” had not all been done despite him chasing the landlord.
  11. The landlord issued another stage 1 response on 31 July 2024 saying it had dealt with his complaints about the damp and mould previously. It had not identified any further failings and did not uphold this complaint.
  12. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint on 12 August 2024. He said the stage 1 response did not address the matters complained about. He also complained that he had been waiting “7 months” for repairs to his kitchen floor tiles.
  13. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 4 September 2024 saying it had ordered further gutter repairs but they were overdue. It offered £20 compensation for this. It said it was due to inspect again on 2 October 2024.
  14. The landlord gave a second stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about his kitchen floor tiles on 12 December 2024. It said the resident had refused repairs in July 2024. It should have inspected at the time and offered £300 compensation for its failings. It would arrange to inspect the floor tiles again.
  15. On 20 December 2024, the resident escalated his complaint because the floor tiles had not been inspected. 
  16. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 22 January 2025. It apologised for the delay in inspecting the floor tiles and offered £200 additional compensation. It said it had raised an order to replace all the kitchen floor tiles.
  17. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate on 28 January 2025. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and floor tile repairs. He wanted the landlord to do the repairs needed and pay him more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 13 January 2025, the resident told us he had a rat infestation. We advised him we cannot investigate the infestation as part of this complaint. This is because paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

  1. There is no evidence the resident complained to the landlord about the rat infestation. This means the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider its handling of it through its complaints process.
  2. We advised the resident he should complain to the landlord if he remains unhappy. He can ask us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the rat infestation when he has completed the landlord’s process.

Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs

  1. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy when the resident reported damp had caused his patio door to rot around 18 November 2022. The landlord decided to inspect. The landlord had replaced the door in February 2022 and it was reasonable it wanted to look at why it had reportedly rotted so quickly.
  2. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it took 7 weeks to inspect on 6 January 2023. In our view, this was not a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The inspection report dated 6 January 2023 shows there was mould around the windows in various rooms and damage to the patio door threshold. It suggests the surveyor thought the cause was a damaged fall pipe and ivy growing up the outside walls.
  4. The surveyor emailed the resident later on 6 January 2023 saying they had raised an order for the patio door to be adjusted and would arrange removal of the ivy and repair of the fall pipe. There is no evidence this work was done and this was a failing.
  5. It is not clear what happened next until the landlord raised another inspection on 18 August 2023. Its records say the inspection was needed due mould around the patio door. The landlord’s complaint response of 4 January 2024 confirms that no inspection took place. It is not clear why the landlord failed to inspect.
  6. From November 2023, the landlord had a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy. The policy says it will inspect when it receives reports of damp and mould. It will carry out any necessary mould washes within 7 days and any other repairs needed within its repair policy timescales.
  7. After the resident’s first complaint (of 27 November 2023), the landlord inspected on 19 January 2024. This means it had again taken 7 weeks to inspect. The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy does not specify timescales for inspection. It should consider if setting inspection timescales would help it avoid delays in dealing with damp and mould.
  8. We have not seen the inspection report of 19 January 2024. The landlord’s complaint response of 8 April 2024 says the inspection found damp and humidity readings were “normal”. There is no evidence the landlord raised any repair orders after its inspection of 19 January 2024 at the time.
  9. It did not raise orders until 11 weeks later, on 5 April 2024, after the resident had complained again (on 6 March 2024). It is not clear why the landlord failed to raise the orders sooner but it appears it had not followed its policy in raising the orders after its inspection. Nor is it clear why repairs were needed given the comments in the complaint response of 8 April 2024 about damp and humidity readings being normal at the time of the inspection.
  10. Its records show it removed mould in the lounge and replaced the silicone in the patio door and window frames on 10 April 2024. It cleared and repaired the gutters and fall pipe on 20 April 2024 and fitted trickle vents to some windows on 4 June 2024.
  11. The evidence suggests the landlord may have tried to inspect again on 1 May and 12 June 2024 but did not gain access. Its records say it spoke to the resident on 12 June and he said he had cleaned off the mould but external repairs were still needed.
  12. The resident complained about the damp and mould for a third time on 3 July 2024. He later clarified that issues identified during the inspection on 6 January 2023 had not been done. These included removing the overgrown ivy and repairing the broken fall pipe.
  13. The landlord completed further repairs to broken fall pipes on the block on 15 July 2024. It is not clear from its records if this work related to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  14. Its stage 2 response of 4 September 2024 said it had raised another order to repair the fall pipes on the block and was due to complete the work on 21 September 2024. Its repair records confirm the job was completed.
  15. The stage 2 response also said it would inspect again. It did so on 2 October 2024. This means it took 13 weeks from the resident’s complaint of 3 July 2024 to inspect. It is not clear why it took so long to do so.
  16. The landlord’s report shows a comprehensive assessment of the damp and mould was done on 2 October 2024. It shows the surveyor concluded there was rising damp and condensation. The landlord raised orders for the work recommended by the surveyor quickly on this occasion. The priority it gave the job was in line with its policy timescale for attending planned repairs.
  17. There is no reference to the ivy growing up the walls in the inspection report despite the landlord saying in its stage 2 response it would inspect it. There is no evidence the landlord has explained if it intends to do anything about the ivy since the surveyor said it would be removed on 6 January 2023. This is a failing and we have ordered the landlord to confirm its intentions regarding the ivy.
  18. The evidence suggests the landlord did a mould wash around 25 November 2024. It is not clear why the mould wash was not done within 7 days in line with the landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy.
  19. It appears that no other work was done before the landlord moved the resident temporarily because of the rat infestation on 10 February 2025. This means the landlord had not completed the damp and mould repairs within its repair policy timescale. It is not clear why it had not completed the work.
  20. The landlord told us that following the resident’s decant, it had had completed the damp and mould repairs by 11 April 2025. At this point the resident had not returned to live in his home because repairs relating to the rat infestation were continuing.
  21. Overall, the evidence shows the resident’s home was affected by damp and mould from at least November 2022 until he was decanted in February 2025. This was a period of over 26 months. While the landlord had inspected several times, it did not complete the necessary repairs within a reasonable timescale. It should not have been necessary for the resident to complain 3 times before the damp and mould was adequately addressed.
  22. The landlord identified failings in its handling of the damp and mould through its complaint processes. It apologised each time and gave compensation. It also took some steps towards resolving the issues. However, this did not prevent some failings being repeated and did not result in the damp and mould being adequately addressed. This means we cannot conclude there was reasonable redress in its handling of the damp and mould.
  23. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because it:
    1. Took too long to inspect the damp and mould after the resident’s reports of 18 November 2022, 27 November 2023 and 3 July 2024. Its records do not explain any good reasons for the delays.
    2. Did not do the inspection it raised on 18 August 2023. Its records do not explain why it did not inspect.
    3. Did not complete repairs within a reasonable timescale after its inspections on 6 January 2023, 19 January 2024 and 10 October 2024. Its records do not explain the cause of it failing to raise orders or complete repairs in good time.
    4. Repeated the same failings it had already identified through its complaint processes.
  24. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and inspect the work done in April 2025 if it has not already done so. This is to ensure the repairs were completed to a reasonable standard and have resolved the damp and mould. We have also ordered it to confirm its intentions regarding the ivy growth up the building.
  25. We have not ordered the landlord to pay more compensation. This is because it has already paid £1,225 compensation in total through its complaints processes. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused by the failings we have identified.

Reports about his kitchen floor tiles

  1. The resident said there were issues with his kitchen floor in his complaint of 27 November 2023. His email to the landlord suggests it may have previously inspected but there is no reference to this in the landlord’s records.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord took any action regarding the floor tiles following the resident’s complaint. As such, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s report of a repair being needed.
  3. The resident reported his kitchen floor tiles again on 15 February 2024 and the landlord inspected them 15 days later on 29 February 2024. It then took 60 days to raise an order, on 28 April 2024, for some of the tiles to be replaced. It is not clear why it took so long to raise the order.
  4. Given the delay in raising the order, it was not reasonable that the landlord prioritised the job as a planned repair with a response timescale of a further 84 days. By the time the landlord contacted the resident on 24 July 2024 to arrange an appointment, 5 months and 10 days had passed since he reported the floor tiles again on 15 February 2024. This was not a reasonable timescale and was far longer than the 84 day timescale for planned repairs in the landlord’s Repairs Policy.
  5. The resident did not make an appointment for the repair because he felt the whole floor needed retiling. In its complaint response of 2 December 2024, the landlord agreed that it should have inspected again at this point. It is not clear why it did not do so.
  6. The resident raised the kitchen floor tiles again on 12 August 2024 during his complaint about the damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord took any action at the time and this was a further failing.
  7. After the resident complained again (on 31 October 2024), the landlord inspected on 13 January 2025. This means it took the landlord over 10 weeks to inspect. This was not a reasonable timescale and it is not clear why it took so long.
  8. This time, the landlord promptly raised an order the next day for the whole floor to be retiled. Its records show the job was completed on 21 March 2025 which was after the resident was decanted due to the rat infestation in February 2025. Overall, it took the landlord over 15 months (from 27 November 2023) to replace the floor tiles.
  9. Through its complaint process, the landlord identified its failings and the delays they caused. It apologised and gave £500 compensation in total as well as completing the repair. In our view, its actions resolved the matter appropriately. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his kitchen floor tiles.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
  2. We looked at 4 complaints the resident made between 27 November 2023 and 31 October 2024. Before April 2024, the landlord’s complaint policy had 3 stages and said it would give a stage 1 response within 20 working days. The landlord changed its policy from April 2024 to comply with the Code.
  3. The resident first complained on 27 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 29 November 2023 and gave its response 23 working days later (on 4 January 2024). This was later than the timescale required by the landlord’s policy at the time which was 20 working days.
  4. It was a failure that it did not address the matter of the floor tiles in its response as this was part of the resident’s complaint. The Code requires landlords to address all parts of a complaint in their responses.
  5. The resident made his second complaint on 6 March 2024. The landlord had not changed its policy by this time so dealt with the complaint under its previous policy. It gave its stage 1 response, of 8 April 2024, within the 20 working day timescale of its policy at the time.
  6. In its final response of 24 May 2024, the landlord apologised for failing to escalate the complaint and gave £150 compensation for this. Its records show the resident had called on 8 May 2025 and it had acknowledged his escalation 5 working days later on 15 May 2025. It gave its final response 7 working days after its acknowledgement. As such, there does not appear to have been a failure in the landlord’s handling of the escalation request. It is not clear why the landlord thought it had failed to escalate the complaint.
  7. The resident made his third complaint on 3 July 2024 and the landlord dealt with it under its current complaints policy. This time the landlord’s acknowledgement was late as it was given after 10 working days on 17 July 2024. The timescale for acknowledging a complaint within the Code and the landlord’s policy is 5 working days. It is not clear why the acknowledgement was late.
  8. The landlord gave its stage 1 response of 31 July 2024 within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request (of 12 August 2024) within the 5 working day timescale required by the Code and its complaints policy. It gave its stage 2 response (of 4 September 2024) 12 working days later which was sooner than the timescale required by the Code which is 20 working days.
  9. The resident made his fourth complaint on 31 October 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it 2 working days later. On 18 November 2024, it extended its response timescale to 2 December 2024. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords to extend the response timescale in exceptional circumstances. This is to allow them to give a full response to complex complaints. The landlord gave its stage 1 response within the extended timescale given.
  10. It acknowledged his escalation request and gave its stage 2 response within the timescales required by the Code.
  11. Overall, there were 2 minor failings in the landlord’s response timescales. Its stage 1 response of 4 January 2024 was 3 working days late and it was 5 working days late in giving its acknowledgement of 17 July 2024.
  12. Its failure to address the matter of the floor tiles after the resident’s complaint of 23 November 2023 was a more significant failing. It also failed to deal with the matter when the resident raised it in his escalation request of 12 August 2024 during his second complaint. This meant the landlord missed 2 opportunities to identify failings in its handling of the repairs and put things right. It also meant the resident needed to complain again before it addressed its handling of the repair through its complaints process.
  13. This amounts to service failure in the landlord’s overall complaint handling. We have ordered it to apologise and pay compensation of £50. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and appropriately reflects the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to complain again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his kitchen floor tiles.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
    1. It must write to the resident to apologise. Its apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy to show it has complied.
    2. Pay the resident £50 for his time and trouble in making a further complaint about its handling of the floor tile repairs. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
    3. Inspect the work it did to resolve the damp and mould in April 2025 if it has not already done so. It must check if the work is of satisfactory quality and that it has resolved the damp and mould.
    4. Write to the resident to confirm its intentions regarding the ivy growth up the building. Its letter must explain the reasons for the decision it has made and how the resident can challenge it if he disagrees.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord consider:
    1. Setting inspection timescales in its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy to minimise delays in responding to reports it receives.
    2. The failings we identified in its complaint handling and record keeping. It should decide if it needs to improve its practices to avoid similar failings in future.