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 (202413916)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413916

GreenSquareAccord Limited

16 July 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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident said they had been reporting damp-related issues since the start of their tenancy in 2015. The landlord’s records show repairs were carried out between January 2019 and October 2021. There were then no further damp or mould reports until 15 April 2024.
  3. On 21 August 2024 the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident. This was in relation to a pre-action letter of claim that the resident had sent on, or around, 2 August 2024.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024. It said it had inspected the resident’s property on 13 May 2024. There had then been a delay in it carrying out further works. It apologised and offered £375 compensation.
  5. On 10 October 2024 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. They remained unhappy about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. They also said they had not yet received the offered compensation.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 1 November 2024. It said the stage 1 decision to uphold the resident’s complaint remained unchanged. It acknowledged there had been a delay in issuing the compensation. It said it had added an additional £50 compensation when it had processed the payment. It said it considered the total payment of £425 was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
  7. On 31 January 2025 the resident confirmed they wanted us to investigate their complaint. They remained unhappy about how the landlord had handled damp and mould since they had moved into the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In their communication with the landlord and us, the resident has suggested this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, these can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident has said that the issues in their complaint had been happening since they moved into the property. Our Scheme states we may not consider issues which were not raised as a complaint with a landlord within a reasonable timeframe. This is normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. There is no dispute the resident has reported damp and mould to their landlord, there appears to be a significant gap in the reports between October 2021 and April 2024. There is no evidence that, during that period, the resident had made any reports or tried to raise their concerns with the landlord as a complaint.
  4. The landlord limited its investigation of the resident’s complaint made in August 2024 to the previous 12 months. It explained it had done this in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Having considered the circumstances, we are satisfied the landlord’s decision was reasonable. Our investigation will also focus on the landlord’s handling of matters within the same period (August 2023 to August 2024). Events outside of this timeframe that are mentioned in this reported are provided for context only.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. On 15 April 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in the ground floor rooms of their property. The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s property. This was in line with its damp, mould, and condensation policy which states when it receives a report it will carry out an inspection. This inspection will identify the required next steps, such as providing advice or raising repairs. The inspection and any needed repairs are prioritised in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy has the following repairs categories and timescales:
    1. Emergency – attend within 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.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show the inspection had been prioritised as ‘routine’. The resident’s report did not include any information that would suggest the landlord should have prioritised the inspection differently.
  4. The landlord attended on 13 May 2024. This was within its stated timescale for a routine repair. The inspection only found that further works were needed to remove some blocks in the external wall to check for a blocked cavity. We have not been provided with any evidence that would indicate there were other repairs the landlord should have identified in the circumstances. The landlord raised an order for the further work on 14 May 2024. It prioritised it as ‘routine’. These actions were in line with its policy.
  5. On, or around 2 August 2024, the resident sent a pre-action letter of claim to the landlord’s disrepair team. The claim alleged that, from 2016 to the date of the letter, the landlord had failed to resolve issues with damp in the property. The landlord’s disrepair team notified the complaint team on 14 August 2024. It asked that the team raise a new complaint to review whether there had been any service failures.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024. It provided a summary of events from 2019 onwards. It explained it had included this to explain the background to the complaint. It accepted there had then been a delay in it carrying out further works after its attendance in May 2024. It told the resident it had scheduled the further works for 21 November 2024. It offered £375 in compensation.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for its failure to complete the outstanding work. It would have been better in terms of transparency for the resident if it had also explained why there had been a delay. Providing explanations of this nature can help residents better understand what has taken place and why. It can also help rebuild the trust between a landlord and a resident.
  8. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident when it intended to carry out the outstanding works. However, as the given date was more than 28 days later and outside its stated timescale for a routine repair, it should have explained why it was operating outside of its policy timescales and why the work could not be carried out sooner. This was a missed opportunity to try and rebuild its relationship with the tenant.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to have explained it had improved the way it highlighted and monitored repairs raised as part of a complaint. It also explained it was continuing to review its repair process to improve resident’s experience. This demonstrates that the landlord was looking to learn from its failures and the issues raised by the resident n their complaint.
  10. On 10 September 2024 the landlord processed the compensation payment for the resident. Its records show it was aware the same day that this had failed as the resident’s bank details were not correct.
  11. On 9 October 2024 the resident told the landlord that they had not received the compensation. The landlord explained its attempt to make the payment had failed. It asked the resident to check their details. It confirmed on 10 October 2024 that it had processed the payment again. It said it had added an additional £50 to apologise for the delay. This was a reasonable step for it to have taken as it acknowledged and addressed its failure to contact the resident after the initial payment had failed.
  12. On 10 October 2024 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the compensation offered was less than they had paid to replace belongings that had been damaged by damp. There is no evidence to show the issue that was reported in April 2024 had caused any damage. The landlord explained the compensation it offered related to the delay in inspecting the wall cavity. It also explained that its disrepair team would consider whether any compensation was also due in relation to the disrepair claim. This was a reasonable explanation as it clarified what the existing compensation covered and what potential future compensation awards could cover.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 and 11 October 2024 to request it escalated their complaint to stage 2. They disagreed with some of the background information the landlord had included. They said they had reported the damp multiple times over the past 9 years. They also said the landlord had turned up on several occasions without notice. They told the landlord they had still not received the offered compensation.
  14. The landlord issued its final response on 1 November 2024. It explained why it had said its surveyor had not been unable to gain access in 2020. It apologised that this had not been clear in its stage 1 response. It also apologised if it had turned up without notice. It said it had paid the offered compensation to the resident on 18 October 2024 and outlined why there had been a delay in the payment. It explained it would not be changing its stage 1 decision. It said it considered the amount of compensation it had paid was fair and in line with its compensation policy.
  15. The landlord’s explanations and provided further information were a reasonable response to the resident’s escalation request. The evidence shows its stage 1 response considered the relevant matters that had happened from August 2023 onwards. The resident’s reasons for escalating their complaint related to events earlier than August 2023. Under the terms of its complaint policy the landlord was not obliged to carry out an investigation into these events. It was appropriate for it to have confirmed it would not be changing its stage 1 decision.
  16. The landlord’s records show that it completed the outstanding work on 21 November 2024.
  17. In conclusion, there was an unexplained delay in the landlord’s handling of required repairs. There was also a delay in it following up with the resident when the compensation payment failed.
  18. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  19. The landlord has accepted its failures as part of its complaint responses. It apologised for these failures and offered £425 in compensation. This comprised:
    1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused the resident.
    2. £25 for its failure to carry out repairs within its timescales.
    3. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord.
    4. £50 to apologise for the delay in processing the compensation payment.
  20. We have assessed whether the landlord’s compensation offer was sufficient to put right the impact of its failures on the resident. The matters considered by the landlord when determining the level of compensation were in line with its policy. We consider that the landlord’s failure was likely to have adversely affected the resident. The impact of the failure was likely to have been more than minimal and lasted over a period of several months. The landlord’s offer was at a similar level to an award we would have considered making in line with our remedies guidance in similar circumstances. We therefore consider that the landlord’s offer was fair and a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.
  21. For these reasons, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that, if the landlord has not already done so, it pays the resident the £425 compensation offered across its complaint responses.