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 (202427767)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427767

GreenSquareAccord Limited

1 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 response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 28 November 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident. These include physical disabilities and mental health conditions.
  2. On 16 August 2024, the resident reported ASB by her neighbour. She was told that she would receive a response within 5 working days. She did not receive a response and contacted the landlord again on 30 August 2024. A stage 1 complaint was then raised.
  3. On 3 September 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
  4. It had not responded within its 5 working day time frame to the submission of the resident’s ASB concerns made on 16 August 2024. When the resident contacted again on 30 August 2024 it raised a formal complaint. It apologised for its delay. It had arranged for the resident’s housing officer to call her on 9 September 2024. It offered £75 compensation. £25 for its lack of communication and £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  5. On 9 September 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said that she was unhappy with her neighbour’s behaviour, and she did not feel sufficiently supported by her landlord.
  6. On 27 September 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It reiterated its findings in its stage 1 complaint and re-offered the compensation of £75. In relation to the previous reports made by the resident about her neighbour it was still overseeing an open case. It had written to the resident in the past to keep her updated and it was keeping the case under review.
  7. It would only seek to evict a resident as a last resort. It was also not possible for it to seek to end tenancies without clear evidence that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement. It understood that the resident had raised these concerns on previous occasion, but it had been unable to gather firm evidence which means that it was unable to take formal action against the neighbour.
  8. It had thoroughly investigated all of the complaints that the resident had made and visited the neighbour to discuss their behaviour. It had been in regular contact with the resident and provided updates where it could. It was satisfied that it had acted in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure.

Post complaint.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied as she considered that her landlord had not done enough to stop the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy describes ASB as conduct that has caused or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It will complete a harm assessment matrix (HAM) when it is taking an initial report of ASB. The HAM is used to assess the level of harm and determine the case priority.
  2. The purpose is to focus on the harm the behaviour is causing rather than the ASB type. The score will determine the timescale of the initial contact with the customer. If the score is between 0-3 then it will make, contact within 5 working days. If the score is between 4-5 it will contact within 2 working days.
  3. The case is allocated, and the case officer must complete a risk assessment matrix with the resident on the initial contact. This risk assessment is a more detailed version of the original matrix. During the case, the case officer should regularly reassess risk during the case. It should also agree an action plan with the complainant. It should keep the resident updated a minimum of weekly.
  4. Its procedure provides guidance on various types of informal intervention it can take. These include verbal and written warnings and acceptable behaviour agreements.
  5. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. Stage 2 within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation.

  1. This service acknowledges the length of time the resident states the ASB had been going on for and how frustrating this would have been. The Ombudsman encourages residents however to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  2. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, and the documents already provided to this Service. It is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from June 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response focused on its delay in responding to the resident’s report of ASB made on 16 August 2024. It confirmed how it would progress the case. This was reasonable as this was why it had raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf in the first instance. It offered £75 compensation for its poor communication and stress and inconvenience, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. When the matter was escalated to stage 2 the resident said she was unhappy with the ASB, and she did not feel sufficiently supported by her landlord. The landlord did address its handling of the ASB in its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it was satisfied that it had visited her neighbour, been in regular contact and had provided updates when it could. The records provided to this Service do not support the landlord’s version of events.
  3. The records show that an action plan was agreed with the resident in June 2022. It is unclear what reports were made by the resident which led to the action plan being put in place. The action plan stated that mediation would be provided. The records do not show whether mediation was pursued and if it went ahead. Furthermore, they fail to show whether it communicated with the resident after this document was agreed. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping and a failing in its handling of the matter.
  4. Record keeping is core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations.
  5. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  6. 6 months later in December 2022 the resident reported that there had been an altercation with her neighbour about cigarette butts. She said her neighbour had said “if he had a gun, he would shoot her.” The records do not show how or if the landlord responded to this report. The threats were of a serious nature, and this would have certainly left the resident feeling worried. The landlord was also aware that she was vulnerable. Its failure to show any response is concerning and is a further failing in its handling of the matter.
  7. The next action on the case was a letter sent to the resident 3 months later in March 2023. It said that it had now opened an ASB case with regard to her complaint about her neighbour. It enclosed diary sheets for the resident to use. On the same day it also sent a warning letter to the neighbour about his behaviour. It is unclear what happened after this and whether the case was closed. This lack of information again highlights the poor record keeping that has been apparent throughout this investigation.
  8. The next record provided was dated 26 May 2023. It was a note on the case from the landlord stating that it had tried to resolve but neither party was prepared to mediate. It also said that the evidence provided on the case was insufficient for it to be able to take any further action. It noted again that it had sent a warning letter on 3 March 2023 and things had been relatively quiet since. It is unknown whether the case was closed at this point. There is also no evidence to show whether it had communicated with the resident.
  9. There are no further records until almost a year later when the landlord opened an ASB case in February 2024. This was in response to the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour from her neighbour. She said that matters had escalated, and the police had attended. The records show that the landlord jointly visited the resident’s neighbour with the police on 6 March 2024. This was an appropriate response and one that is provided in its policy.
  10. There is no evidence however to show how the landlord communicated with the resident in response to her report or how it kept her updated. The records also refer to an action plan and risk assessment but there is no evidence to show that these were completed.
  11. The next report of ASB was made by the resident’s family member on 19 May 2024. She reported verbal abuse and antagonising behaviour. She said she was concerned about the resident’s mental health as it had deteriorated. She was worried that matters would escalate as the issues were taking too long to resolve. There was no evidence to show that the landlord had responded to this report. The next contact was in August 2024 which led to the stage 1 complaint being raised.
  12. In summary the landlord did issue a verbal and written warning to the resident’s neighbour in response to some of her reports. Apart from this its records do not include very much detail, so it has been difficult to assess. It was evident that the landlord failed to respond to all of the resident’s reports of ASB despite being informed of concerns about her wellbeing. The landlord also failed to evidence that it acted in accordance with its policy.
  13. There was no evidence to show that it had adequately communicated with the resident for over 2 years since June 2022. While records refer to ASB cases being opened there are few details of when cases were closed, why, or whether the resident was appropriately advised. 
  14. Based on the information available, there is a concerning discrepancy between the circumstances referred to in the landlord’s complaint responses, and its ASB records. This, and the lack of evidence regarding the actions it carried out in its handling of the resident’s reports, amounts to maladministration.
  15. The £75 it offered the resident for its poor communication in August 2024 does not account for the further failings identified in this report. The resident is vulnerable. Reports had also been made by family members who had concerns about her wellbeing.
  16. The resident had to live with the worry and the uncertainty of when matters would be resolved for over 2 years. In determining a suitable amount of compensation this Service will consider our remedies guidance. An order will also be made to ensure the landlord takes appropriate action moving forwards.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord followed its complaint policy and issued its complaint responses within its own timescales. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that it had failed and apologised. This was appropriate. It did not however fully explain what had gone wrong. But it did seek to remedy matters by offering compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response reiterated its position in its stage 1 and re-offered £75 compensation. It also responded to the resident’s concerns that it had not sufficiently supported her in respect of her neighbour’s behaviour.
  3. Its comments that it had been in regular contact and had thoroughly investigated the reports of ASB did not coincide with the records provided. The complaint response did not show a meaningful assessment of its handling of the matter. It lacked any investigation or curiosity. By failing to consider what had gone wrong It failed to put things right. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about feeling unsupported by the landlord, without receiving a detailed response. This did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship.
  4. This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. Its failings meant that the resident was put to further time and trouble pursuing her complaint. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £925 compensation. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £75 compensation as offered to the resident in its complaint responses if it has not done so already.
      2. £650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
      3. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. Within the next 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss verbally and provide confirmation in writing the following:
    1. An action plan of what steps it will now take to try to resolve the ASB. The plan should include a risk assessment to ensure that it is taking appropriate actions relative to the risk.
    2. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord is also ordered to complete a review into the failings identified in this investigation to identify how it can prevent similar happening again, with a particular focus on:
    1. Its poor communication
    2. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
    3. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it maintains its records, and how it will monitor any follow up action.
    4. A copy of the landlord’s review should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.