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 (202421830)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421830

GreenSquareAccord Limited

29 August 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 reports of:
    1. A pest infestation.
    2. Repairs, in particular:
      1. Repairs to the boiler.
      2. Damp and mould.
      3. A crack in the living room wall.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. At the time of her complaint, the resident lived in a flat in a converted house. The resident moved to a different property, with the same landlord, on 11 September 2024. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having multiple health conditions.
  2. The resident reported an issue with the boiler in her property on 15 December 2023. Following a missed repair visit, the landlord completed repairs to the boiler on 19 January 2024. The resident reported issues again in April 2024, the landlord inspected and found the boiler and radiators in working order.
  3. The resident reported a concern about a crack in the living room wall in March 2024. The landlord inspected on 17 April 2024 and raised a repair to replaster the area around the door.
  4. On 16 May 2024, the resident reported smelling gas when the boiler was in use. The landlord attended on 3 June 2024 to inspect the boiler. Its notes show it took carbon monoxide readings and confirmed the boiler was not leaking gas. It ordered parts for the boiler.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 June 2024 to raise concerns about the condition of the boiler, damp, and the cracks in the living room wall. The landlord completed works to the boiler on 16 June 2024, and the cracks in the living room wall on 25 June 2024.
  6. The landlord arranged for a specialist damp contractor to complete a survey and it reported its findings to the landlord on 5 July 2024. The contractor reported it found “no evidence of dampness” other than “very mild” mould on the rear bedroom window. It reported this was due to condensation and the trickle vents being closed.
  7. The resident made a complaint about the repairs, through the local authority private sector housing team, on 11 July 2024. She reported the crack in the living room wall, a “damp smell” in the property, and a faulty boiler. The landlord inspected the boiler on 22 July 2024 and reported it was in working order.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 26 July 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint for delays in completing the repairs. It gave a history of the repairs related to the complaint. It said it planned to complete a mould wash on 29 July 2024, and would investigate the other repairs at that visit. It offered £200 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  9. The landlord attended to complete a mould wash on 29 July 2024. Its notes reflect the operative was unable to complete the visit due to the resident’s behaviour. The resident contacted the landlord the same day and raised concerns about the visit. She said she was unhappy with how the operative addressed her at the visit, and told her the property was an “old building”. She asked it to open a stage 2 complaint around that time.
  10. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2024. It explained the history of the complaint and the repairs. It explained it wanted to scope out all works on its visit on 29 July 2024, but the resident asked its operative to leave. It apologised if the resident was upset by the references made to it being an “old property”. It said it would raise the issue with the relevant manager. It set out that it planned to progress with the repairs, but would do so when the property was empty as the resident was due to move out. It restated its offer of £200 in compensation made at stage 1.
  11. The resident moved to a different property on 11 September 2024.
  12. The resident contacted us on 24 February 2025 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said its handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing and she wanted compensation for the distress the situation caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our assessment

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The evidence we have seen shows the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation and exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in June 2023. Paragraph 42.b. of our scheme says we will not investigate a complaint that was brought to our attention normally more than 12 months after the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  3. The resident contacted us in September 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. It is worth noting at this time the resident provided a copy of the stage 2 complaint response from August 2024.This complaint response did not address matters related to pest control issues. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
  4. As outlined above, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of repairs raised during the complaints process started in July 2024. As mandated by our Scheme, a matter must have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure before we can investigate. As such we have limited our investigation to the repairs the resident asked us to investigate that were covered in the complaints process. This period covers the complaint responded to at stage 1 in July 2024, and at stage 2 in August 2024.
  5. If the resident remains unhappy with matters not covered by the above complaints process she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. We may then investigate if the resident remains unhappy, after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  6. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  7. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We have considered this general risk, rather than any specific impact on health and any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord. We have also considered the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about health.

Relevant legislation, policies, and procedures.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy outlines 3 repair categories of responsive repair. It says it will complete emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days, and routine repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it will ensure a suitable and sufficient response to all reports of damp, mould, or condensation. The policy states it will raise an inspection on a report of damp and mould. It says any repairs raised following an inspection will be done within 7 days, in line with its urgent repair timeframe.

Repairs to the boiler

  1. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about a repair to the boiler from 15 December 2023. The landlord attempted to inspect the boiler on 4 January 2024. This was an unreasonable delay. Considering the time of year, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to treat the repair as urgent. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay. We note the landlord was unable to inspect the boiler on 4 January 2024, and the resident rearranged the visit for 16 January 2024. The later delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  2. When the resident reported an issue with the boiler again on 8 April 2024, the landlord attended on 9 April 2024. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the report seriously. The evidence shows it was unable to access the resident’s property at the time. When it was able to inspect the boiler, on 16 April 2024, it was in working order.
  3. On 16 May 2024, the resident reported a smell of gas when the boiler was on. The landlord did not inspect until 3 June 2024. While we acknowledge the boiler was found not leaking gas, it is concerning it did not treat this repair as an emergency. The resident was evidently distressed at the possible leak in the boiler. The landlord’s failure to inspect the boiler with the appropriate urgency may have increased the distress she experienced.
  4. The evidence shows when the resident reported concerns about the boiler in July 2024, the landlord inspected within a reasonable timeframe and found the boiler in working order.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about damp and mould from June 2024. The landlord arranged for a damp specialist contractor to inspect the property. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  2. The landlord raised a mould wash following the inspection. This was appropriate in the circumstances, based on the findings of the inspection. However, the landlord did not attempt to complete the mould wash until 29 July 2024. This was 24 days after it received the findings of the inspection. The landlord failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy by not completing the mould wash within 7 days. The resident was inconvenienced by this delay.
  3. The evidence shows the mould wash did not go ahead on the 29 July 2024. The notes from the visit indicated the operative did not believe there was mould on the window and it was simply “dirt”. Its is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion when the damp specialist contractor found mould on the window. The landlord also appeared to accept the resident’s claim the operative made multiple references to the property being old while at the visit. It is unclear why such mention was made. The landlord appropriately apologised for the outcome of the visit in its stage 2 complaint response. It showed learning by explaining it would discuss the matter with the relevant manager. This was appropriate in the circumstances.

A crack in the living room wall

  1. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the crack in the living room wall from 25 March 2024 and inspected within its routine repair timeframe. This was appropriate in the circumstances considering the nature of the repair. However, it did not complete the follow on works until 25 June 2024. This was 2 months after it was on notice and outside of the timeframes set out in its policy. We acknowledge any delay would cause some in convenience to the resident. However, the overall delay was not excessive.

 

The landlord’s offer of redress for repairs

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service 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 of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord accepted there were errors in its handling of the repairs. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against the individual repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately accepted its handling of the repairs up to that point was poor and there were delays for which it offered compensation. This was appropriate and evidence it sought to put things right. However, the response lacked detail about the repairs issues. The landlord missed an opportunity to show transparency and learning. Considering the delays up to that point, its offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the above error. It offered a more detailed explanation about the repairs. It was reasonable the landlord did not increase its offer of compensation as there were no further delays in attending to repairs. The landlord’s apology for the interaction at the repairs visit on 29 July 2024 was sufficient to put right any detriment that was caused.
  5. Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident when there is a failure “which adversely affected the resident”. This depends on severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. Considering the errors identified above, we have determined the landlord’s total offer of £200 in compensation was appropriate to put things right for the resident. This decision was reached when taking all the circumstances of this case into account.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £200 it offered for its handling of the repairs (if it has not already done so). The finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding it will be paid.