GreenSquareAccord Limited — case 202348149

Decision Case ID 202348149 Decision type Investigation Landlord GreenSquareAccord Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 29 April 2026 Background The resident complained to the landlord about delays completing repairs to address a leak. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of a leak. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Summary of reasons Reports of a leak The landlord acknowledged delays to adequately resolve the leak. It apologised and offered compensation in line with our compensation guidance. The complaint The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the compensation it awarded within its final complaint response if it has not already done so. We have made a reasonable redress finding on the basis it pays this to her. The landlord should record the household’s vulnerabilities identified by the resident during this case on its systems.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 January 2024 The resident complained to the landlord about its delay to complete repair work following a leak she reported in June 2023. She said it had agreed to replace laminate flooring damaged by the leak and was unhappy it had not yet done so. 6 February 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said as it was not at fault for the leak, it would not replace the flooring. It apologised for previously agreeing to do so and for its poor communication.

It offered £200 compensation comprising: £100 for its confusing messages relating to the flooring £100 for distress 7 February 2024 The resident escalated her complaint. She asked the landlord to identify the cause of the leak and said she was unhappy that it would not replace her flooring. She said the leak had caused further damage, which made her home colder and affected her and her children’s health as they were asthmatic. She also explained that the temperature in her son’s bedroom was so low that he could not sleep there.

26 February 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had carried out an inspection and the leak was due to poor workmanship involved in previous repair work. It apologised for this and for its poor communication regarding the matter. It identified repair work it would complete and said it would replace the resident’s laminate flooring in the affected rooms. It offered an additional £1,250 in compensation, comprising: £400 for the time taken to resolve the leak £150 for confusion around the flooring replacement £250 for time and trouble £450 for the affect to the resident’s enjoyment of her home This brought the landlord’s total compensation offer to £1,450.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. She wanted it to pay increased compensation. 25 May 2024 The landlord completed its repair work to resolve the leak and subsequent damage. 25 September 2024 The resident contacted the landlord stating she had not received its stage 1 compensation offer of £200. It apologised and paid an additional £100 for failing to make the payments and her time and trouble.

This brought its total compensation payment to £1,550. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak Finding Reasonable redress What we did not investigate The resident raised concerns about the affect of the ongoing repair issues on her and her children’s health.

The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we did investigate It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, offer to complete the repairs and compensation) 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 our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her shower on 23 June 2023 was timely. It attended to carry out repair work 14 days later, within the 28-day timescale set out in its repairs policy. However, it failed to complete repair work at this time instead arranging to re-attend 19 days later on 26 July 2023.

It is not clear from its records the reason for this. This indicates poor record keeping. Following a further 2 visits, the landlord completed repair work to address the leak on 31 August 2023. It failed to keep the resident updated on its actions during this time leading to her chasing it for information on its attendance. This caused her avoidable time and trouble. The resident reported the shower leaking on 2 further occasions in November 2023 and February 2024. This indicates that the landlord’s earlier repairs failed to resolve the issue.

It investigated the matter following her escalation request. It confirmed that poor quality repair work had allowed the leak to continue, causing damage to the property. The resident told the landlord that the leak had damaged the laminate flooring in a bedroom and the hallway and explained that she did not have contents insurance. It inspected the flooring and raised a works order to replace it. However, when the operative attended, they did not bring laminate flooring. After querying this with management, the operative was advised it would not replace the laminate because it was not responsible for the leak.

This conflicting information likely caused the resident frustration and distress. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it would not replace the flooring because it had responded to reports of the leak appropriately. Given the repair history showed repeat visits for the same issue, it would have been reasonable for it to carry out a post‑inspection of its completed repair work to confirm this. It acknowledged that the resident did not have contents insurance. However, it did not provide details of its liability insurer to allow the issue to be investigated.

The landlord’s repair records indicate that it attended to complete repair work within timescales set out in its repairs policy. However, resolution of the matter involved multiple visits over an 11-month period. This caused the resident considerable time and trouble. It was appropriate that in its final response the landlord acknowledged this, apologised and offered compensation. The landlord’s final response was empathetic and showed consideration of the issues raised by the resident.

It acknowledged its failings, identified learning, apologised and provided timescales for its next actions. Its total compensation offer of £1,550 was in line with our compensation guidance where there has been failure that affected a resident over a significant period of time. We have, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint.

Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy did not comply with the Code because it operated a three‑stage complaints process. However, it has since amended this and is now compliant. The process included step one, where the landlord attempted resolution within 2 working days. The timescales for steps 2 and 3 aligned with the Code’s timescales for Stages 1 and 2 respectively.

The policy also met the Code’s definition of a complaint. Upon acknowledging the resident’s complaint, the landlord told the resident due to increased demand it would issue its step 2 response within 20 working days. It adhered to this timescale. It responded to the complaint throughout its process in line with the timescales set out in its policy. We have found no failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Learning When residents report damaged items and responsibility is disputed, it is good practice for landlords to direct them to their liability insurer.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord may wish to review its record‑keeping arrangements for repairs to ensure they are robust. This would help ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, covering both completed actions and resident contact. Reference may be made to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Communication The resident set out her contact preferences on several occasions in relation to contact during her working hours.

Landlords are expected to record and adhere to residents’ preferences to enable effective communication.