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

GreenSquareAccord Limited (202418468)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418468

GreenSquareAccord Limited

31 March 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:
    1. Roof repairs including the gutters, fascias and eaves.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. He occupies a bungalow with his wife and son. The resident is disabled and uses a mobility scooter. He has a number of health conditions including Parkinson’s disease. The resident’s wife has an auto-immune disease.
  2. In May 2023 the resident reported holes in fascias and eaves. He said they were rotten allowing birds access to the roof and that the gutters were blocked. The resident chased for a response to his concerns in July and September 2023. On 1 December 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said the fascias had not been replaced and the gutters not cleared.
  3. The landlord issued a step 2 response on 15 January 2024. It said an operative attended on 30 October 2023 and inspected the roof where they advised that repairs were required to the fascia which would need to be carried out by its asbestos team. It said it would contact the resident to book an appointment within 10 working days for the fascias and guttering works. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident despite him chasing for updates. It offered £225 compensation made up of £100 for delays in fascia work, £100 for the lack of communication and £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. On 17 January 2024 a surveyor attended the property to inspect the fascias and gutters. The next day the resident told the landlord he was unhappy as there was no update about the eaves and he said that some roof tiles needed replacing. The landlord logged a new formal complaint on 22 January 2024. The resident chased for an update on 12 February 2024. On 15 February 2024, the landlord renewed some of the fascias, covered an area of the eaves with uPVC cladding and cleaned out all the gutters.
  5. On 6 March 2024 the landlord issued another step 2 response. It said the guttering and fascia works were completed on 15 February 2024 but the roofing issues should be raised as a new step 2 complaint. On 22 March 2024 the resident said the exterior eaves were rotting, paint was peeling and the roof felt was falling out. He added there were broken tiles, moss on the roof and an indication of water ingress.
  6. On 25 March 2024 the resident made another formal complaint about the fascias and soffits. He was unhappy that they were fitted in 1968 but had only been painted and not replaced and the moss on the roof was causing damp to the roof tiles. Between April and June 2024 the resident continued to chase the landlord and suggested ways to preserve the fascias which would negate the need to disturb the asbestos.
  7. On 3 July 2024 the landlord issued another step 2 response. It apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint. It said on 15 February 2024 its operative attended and cleaned out all gutters and renewed 2 fascias. However, it was unable to confirm if works were completed to a good standard and it would raise an inspection for this. It said its surveyor inspected the damp and mould on 19 April 2024 but did not report any issues relating to moss on the roof. It noted however its surveyor had now left the landlord, and it was unable to obtain full details of their visit. The moss issue would be assessed by its repair team and it would arrange an appointment before 12 July 2024. It apologised for its poor record keeping, its failure to resolve the moss and its lack of communication. It offered £500 compensation made up of £50 for poor record keeping, £100 for time and trouble chasing updates, £100 for distress and inconvenience due to poor communication and £250 for the complaint handling failures.
  8. On 13 August 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He was unhappy that an arranged inspection of gutters, eaves and paintwork did not take place on 1 August 2024 and he had moved hospital appointments for this. He was unhappy with the level of communication from the landlord and he had been chasing simple maintenance on the property for months. On 21 August 2024 the resident said the landlord’s contractor attended to remove the moss but did not have the correct equipment so were unable to access the roof.
  9. On 9 September 2024 the landlord issued its step 3 final response. It apologised that no one attended on 1 August 2024 and that he was not notified prior to this. It rebooked the surveyor’s inspection for 16 September 2024. The appointment on 21 August 2024 was an initial inspection to decide what needed doing and what scaffolding would be required. At this inspection, the landlord found the moss did need removing and it would attend on 10 October 2024 to do this. It upheld the complaint due to poor communication and its failure to resolve repairs and queries in a timely manner. It offered a further £125 made up of £50 for a missed appointment on 1 August, £25 for the distress and inconvenience, £25 for time and trouble chasing updates and £25 for lack of clarity in its step 2 response. It added it would monitor all agreed actions.
  10. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2024. He was unhappy that he had to chase the landlord to carry out works. He was also unhappy about the delays in responding to his complaints. The landlord attended on 24 March 2025 to carry out work to the fascias and gutters and the resident advised it would attend again on 7 April 2025 to finish. As a resolution, the resident wanted the roof replaced and completion of the fascias and eaves works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of roof repairs including the gutters, fascias and eaves

  1. In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord should keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including gutters, the roof, necessary external painting and coatings and waste pipes. This is also set out on the landlord’s website which states it is responsible for repairing roofs and maintaining drains and gutters.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the different types of repairs and timescales to resolve them. Urgent repairs, those which prevent future damage to property with no immediate danger to person and/or property should be attended within 7 days. Routine repairs, standard responsive repairs should be completed in 28 days. Planned repairs, those which fall outside usual time/cost scope of responsive repairs, should be completed within 84 days.
  3. The resident initially reported concerns about the fascias and eaves and guttering in May 2023, and the Ombudsman has seen a work order was raised as early as 3 May 2023. However, despite the resident reporting concerns again in July and September 2023, the landlord failed to take any meaningful action until 30 October 2023 – over 5 months later – where it inspected the roof and assessed what works were needed. The landlord’s records indicate its operative attempted to book follow on works regarding various fascias and downpipe works. Yet, this did not take place within a reasonable time and as the resident did not hear back, he made a formal complaint to the landlord on 1 December 2023.
  4. The landlord subsequently raised repairs on 2 January 2024, a surveyor attended on 17 January 2024 and works were completed on 15 February 2024 where it renewed 2 fascia box ends, cleaned out all gutters, renew 2 fascias in uPVC and cleared 2 blocked downpipes. This was 9 months after the initial report of May 2023, well outside its repair timescales and there is no evidence the landlord proactively updated the resident in the intervening time. These were avoidable delays which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s repair policy states it aims to actively engage with customer with on what they value most and expect from its repairs and maintenance service. However, the landlord failed to do this, and there is ample evidence the resident had to chase matters up himself.
  5. The landlord acted fairly by recognising these delays and poor communication, in its January 2024 step 2 response and its apology, offer of compensation and commitment to carry the work out was broadly proportionate to the detriment given the circumstances. At this point, he resident had not reported any water ingress and therefore the adverse affect was minimal. Nevertheless, it was apparent the resident wished the landlord to take preventative measures to ensure the roof did not deteriorate further. In any case, the landlord’s surveyor considered work was necessary and the resident was entitled to believe that this would take place in a timely manner.
  6. On 16 February 2024 the resident reported rotting areas on the eaves and missing areas of paint. He added there was moss build up which he felt damaged the tiles and was unhappy about the level of customer service previously. The resident continued to chase issues in March 2024 such as rotting eaves, exterior painting and the roof under felt and tiles, moss growth and indicate of water ingress. Following this, the landlord acted fairly by promptly undertaking a damp and mould survey on 19 April 2024 which found no roof leaks and no damaged or blocked gutters or downpipes. Nonetheless, in May 2024 the resident continued to report concerns about the gutters and state of fascias which he said were not painted and revealed the bare wood. 
  7. The landlord promptly raised a work order on 21 May 2024 regarding holes in the roof felt and carried out a patch repair on 7 June 2024. This was, however, over 2 months after the resident initially raised concerns and outside its policy timescales. It is noted the resident raised concerns about the felt showing “areas of moss build up” as early as February 2024, however the landlord appeared to have taken no action regarding this. This resulted in the resident chasing the matter in May and June 2024. He also remained unhappy that repairs were not showing on his online portal despite having contacted the landlord a number of times about this.
  8. The landlord acted fairly by upholding the complaint in its response of July 2024. It appropriately recognised that there was inadequate record keeping on the part of its surveying team who failed to take action to resolve the moss on the tiles attributing this to a surveyor having left the organisation and not leaving adequate records. Further, it acted fairly by recognising that there was poor communication when being chased for updates. Its £250 offer of compensation, for the substantive roof issue, was broadly in line with our remedies guidance which states awards from £100 should be considered where there was an adverse affect on the household. In this case, repairs were delayed and the resident went to excessive time and trouble to pursue them.
  9. Although the landlord acted fairly by arranging an inspection date with the resident regarding outstanding actions, it did not carry this out within a reasonable time. Indeed, there was missed appointment on 1 August 2024. While the landlord appeared to raise an appointment for 21 August 2024, it was unclear if this was a reschedule of 1 August 2024 or a separate appointment. This service has seen the resident raised concerns about this on 7 July 2024 saying it was unclear what appointments related to as the text message did not specify. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify this and what the appointment entailed. It also did not reply fully to queries such as whether scaffolding was needed. Had it done so, it could have managed expectation that the appointment for 21 August 2024 was to assess the works and the landlord may have given the resident the impression it would be clearing the moss that day. This understandably caused frustration to the resident.
  10. Despite identifying the moss required clearing, gutters needed renewing and fascias were rotting, it did not follow this up until October 2024 which was outside its routine repairs timescales. The resident continued to chase on 24 September 2024 explaining it did not appear on his repairs portal. This caused frustration to the resident who believed the landlord was ignoring his concerns. On 10 October 2024 the landlord’s operatives attended the property however reported that the resident was being aggressive towards them. The resident said they attended a whole day appointment in the afternoon and did not have suitable equipment for the works. Subsequently, the landlord attended on 17 October 2024 erected scaffolding, cleared some moss from the roof, replaced some broken tiles, cleaned out 2 valleys and cleared guttering front and back. While these actions remedies issues, this was quite a considerable time after it was promised in its July 2024 step 2 response. Additionally, it is noted that an inspection took place on 16 September 2024 which identified further works including overlapping fascia boards with uPVC, new gutters and new guttering for porch roof. This inspection took place 2 months after it was recognised as needed in a step 2 response. While the delay was relatively short, it compounded previous service failures by the landlord and contributed to the distress and frustration experience by the resident.
  11. In late November 2024, the resident said despite good work being completed in October 2024, there were still leaks from the roof and the felt lining was tearing and full of pinholes. The landlord previously raised a work order for felt repairs on 8 October 2024 and this was carried out on 17 December 2024. This was outside its repair policy timescales. It also highlights that an effective and lasting repair was not previously carried out in June 2024. The Ombudsman notes the resident is disabled and was unable to do anything to contain the water ingress in the loft himself, though from the pictures provided to the Ombudsman the ingress did not appear major.
  12. Between September and December 2024 the landlord made a decision not to replace the main roof subject to some roofing works being completed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyor and it carried out a number of repairs to the roof in December 2024 including guttering replacements, renewed soffits and fascias, removal of moss, felt repairs and replacing broken tiles. From the evidence, the resident was pleased with this work and willing to wait for the main roof to be replaced in the future.
  13. In late December 2024, the Ombudsman has seen the landlord said it was not its responsibility to remove moss from the roof. In isolation, this is broadly as accurate statement. However, as it had committed to doing so it was right for the landlord to honour this. Where a resident reports mould on a roof and the landlord has inspected it and satisfied itself there is no evidence of damage, water ingress or blocked gutters, it would not be obligated to remove it.
  14. Following a post inspection in January 2025, the landlord agreed to cover the peeling fascias with uPVC and replace more guttering. Subsequently the landlord contacted the resident on 10 February 2025 advising a major works referral (replacing the main roof) was declined. It added it would attend on 24 March 2025 to over clad the fascias and replacing shallow gutter with deep flow to handle rain water from roof which it did. These were reasonable and propriate steps to take, though it is recognised that many of the works could have been identified much sooner. The resident advised the works were due to be finished 7 April 2025.
  15. Around January 2025, the resident advised that a landlord surveyor said it no longer cleared gutters and so he queried how a disabled household would manage it themselves. The Ombudsman also see the landlord’s record indicate it did not have resource to complete decoration, however agreed to touch up areas. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to keep in good repair structure and exterior of premise including drains, gutter and pipes, and necessary external painting and decorating no less than once every 6 years. The Ombudsman has seen external decoration to the property took place around 2017/18. In view of this, a recommendation has been made below
  16. The landlord’s final response of September 2024 appropriately recognised its oversights and errors in its handling of repairs and that it failed to resolve the moss on the tiles. The landlord made an effort to put things right by offering compensation which was broadly in line with our remedies guidance which states awards up to £600 should be considered where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service which has had a detrimental impact on the resident. It also made commitments to carrying out actions including moss; however these were delayed and the entirety moss was only removed in December 2024, some 3 months later.
  17. The Ombudsman recognises that this was clearly a resident who wanted the roof works to be carried out in good time to prevent further deterioration to the roof. He made concerted efforts to resolve matters via the landlord’s complaints process yet having exhausted this, work is still required to the roof to date. Although the Ombudsman has seen a number of works have taken place, it is clear the substantives issue took a considerable amount of time to resolve, and the resident advised the landlord is still to attend on 7 April 2025 to finish off work from 24 March 2025.
  18. Overall, across the formal responses the landlord offered £475 for the delays and poor communication in the handling of issues relating to the roof. This excluded £75 for a missed appointment as offered in September 2024. Considering the initial report of May 2023 and subsequent reports through 2023 and 2024, the landlord did not carry out repairs in accordance with its repairs policy. It failed to meet its timescales and did not adequately communicate with the resident. While the roof itself functioned and did not appear to affect the household’s occupation of the home and water ingress reported in loft space, it is apparent the resident expended more time and trouble than necessary to pursue this matter and his increasing frustration was apparent throughout his correspondence.
  19. The Ombudsman therefore considers that an additional award of £100 is appropriate. This is because the landlord failed to remove the entirety of the mould as committed to in its final response of September 2024 within a reasonable time. This caused further distress and inconvenience as well as necessitating time and trouble for the resident who continued chasing matters himself and had already experienced lengthy delays in getting the remedial repairs sorted. It is noted further works were identified in 2025 despite a landlord having been aware of the extent of the issue as early as October 2023 and having ample opportunity to rectify the issues. In view of this, orders have been made to resolve the matter. 

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. At the time of the initial complaint of December 2023, the landlord operated a 3-step complaint process:
    1. Step 1 ‘resolve’ where the landlord does its best to resolve the issue immediately.
    2. Step 2 is an investigation undertaken by the customer care team which aims to respond within 10 working days.
    3. Step 3 is an executive review, to be completed within 20 working days to consider an escalation request to decide whether the case has been handled fairly and reasonably.
  2. The landlord’s complaints process prior to April 2024 was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Since April 2024, the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process which now aligns with the Code. In this case, it is appreciated the landlord continued to deal with the resident’s dissatisfaction after April 2024 via its step 2/3 process.
  3. The resident first raised a formal complaint in December 2023 which the landlord responded to on 15 January 2024, slightly outside its commitment to do so by 9 January 2024. Subsequently, the resident made another formal complaint on 18 January 2024 about the same issues. However, the landlord acknowledged this on 22 January 2024 as a new step 2 complaint. Additionally, the landlord said it would provide an update as part of the previous complaint raised in December 2023. This likely caused confusion to the resident. The Ombudsman considered the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the step 2 complaint response of 15 January 2024 to step 3 following his  further dissatisfaction, particularly as the matter broadly related to the lack of roof works. The landlord also failed to provide a response as promised by 12 February 2024 which led to the resident chasing.
  4. It appears the landlord raised a number of complaints which related to the substantive roof issue and in doing so did not manage the complaints appropriately. Indeed, it acknowledged its complaints process created unintentional confusion and delays and it apologised for this. Moreover, the Ombudsman has seen internal correspondence which acknowledged the current complaint process was not working and residents were not receiving complaint updates as promised.
  5. The resident continued to report repairs were outstanding and another complaint was acknowledged on 25 March 2024. Yet, the landlord failed to issue a formal response within a reasonable time and missed a promised deadline. The landlord issued its step 2 response on 3 July 2024. This was almost 70 working days after the initial complaint which was significantly outside its policy timescales. This led to the resident chasing on several occasions. Although the landlord informed the resident on 17 June 2024 that the complaint was taking longer than anticipated, it had already failed to issue its step 2 response within 10 working days. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of any delay as required by its policy. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier and this delay in its step 2 responses likely caused distress and frustration to the resident who may have felt ignored or that his complaint was not being taken seriously.
  6. While the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory, it acted fairly by apologising for its lack of communication, delays and mishandling of the complaint. It also identified learning and offered £200 compensation to put matters right which aligned with our remedies guidance. This guidance suggests awards from £100 should be made where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. It is noted the landlord also offered £25 in its final response for the lack of clarity in its step 2 response where it was unclear clear if the complaint was upheld or not. This was a reasonable approach. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman considers that £225 compensation offered as a financial remedy was fair and reasonable in recognition of its complaint handling failings and adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident by the delays and poor communication.
  7. Following the resident’s escalation request of 13 August 2024, the landlord provide its step 3 final response on 9 August 2024 within its policy timescales and manged expectations appropriately. This demonstrated it had learnt from its failings at step 2 and did not repeat them. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused by the delays. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right and the Ombudsman notes the landlord has already paid all compensation offered in its formal responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs including the gutters, fascias and eaves.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for failings identified in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs including the gutters, fascias and eaves.
    2. Inspect the property and carry out any further works to the roof should any remain outstanding. It must satisfy itself the work carried out was to a satisfactory standard and provide a copy of the inspection report to both the resident and the Ombudsman which should clearly set out any works that are required and an action plan to resolve them.
  2. The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days to confirm that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should carry out exterior decoration of the property after undertaking any remaining roof works. If the landlord decides not to, it should write to the resident explaining why and when it will carry this out in accordance with the tenancy agreement.