GreenSquareAccord Limited — case 202438428

Decision Case ID 202438428 Decision type Investigation Landlord GreenSquareAccord Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 24 December 2025 Background The resident, who has health conditions, lives in a flat which it is understood was built around 2020. She reported that the property was affected by damp and mould, and after a previous complaint, she complained the landlord was not resolving the cause of the issue. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s damp and mould reports.

The complaint. Our decision (determination) There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s damp and mould reports. The complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Damp and mould reports The compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident Complaint handling The landlord did not acknowledge that the resident asked to make a complaint earlier, and that there was a 4-month delay in raising the complaint 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. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This comprises: £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to the damp and mould reports.

£50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to the complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 21 January 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident and consider whether there are any decorating costs she incurred which it would be reasonable to reimburse her for.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened Between late 2023 and May 2024 The resident raised a previous complaint about damp and mould. The landlord awarded £825 and arranged an inspection. The surveyor subsequently raised works to treat mould and replace a bathroom fan. 23 July 2024 The resident contacted the landlord and said she wanted to complain. She raised concerns whether it had identified the cause of damp and mould, as operatives did not believe fans were the cause of moisture in the property, and she had experienced soaked brickwork.

She suggested that issues related to when water from a nearby green flowed under the property when it became waterlogged in the autumn. The landlord responded that a repairs manager would call. 4 November 2024 The resident complained that she had not been called by the repairs manager as promised, and the landlord raised a complaint. 21 November 2024 The landlord responded at stage 1: It noted the resident’s previous complaint and that the surveyor had recommended to replace a bathroom fan, mould paint a front wall, inspect in winter, and inspect with an infrared camera if there was any more mould growth.

It noted actions to mould paint and fans. It apologised for a missed appointment as well as a lack of follow up to some findings of low levels of mould in bedroom windows. It said that as the last attendance was in July 2024 it had arranged a surveyor inspection on 9 December 2024. It noted the resident said the issues had exacerbated her health conditions and caused her stress, apologised, and explained steps it was taking to improve future service. It awarded £250, which comprised £25 for the missed appointment, £25 for a failure to raise a winter inspection, £150 for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for time and trouble.

25 November 2024 The resident escalated the complaint. She noted that operatives and a surveyor were scheduled to visit. She raised concerns that operatives and surveyors had attended before without any progress. She raised concerns that issues had worsened as a cupboard floor was wet. She raised dissatisfaction that the last surveyor had not raised an infrared inspection. She raised concerns about the time and trouble she was having to go to and the impact on her health. 20 December 2024 The landlord responded at stage 2: It acknowledged the resident’s health issues and her concerns it was not addressing the root causes of the damp and mould.

It said its surveyor had visited on 9 December 2024 and noted mould on a bedroom wall, wet bathroom skirting, and damp kitchen and bathroom flooring. It said its surveyor had arranged a further inspection on 17 December 2024, to remove bricks and check the damp proof course, which found multiple damp patches at floor level. It said that following this, the surveyor had raised some works to stop water getting through air bricks at ground level, which were scheduled for 3 January 2025.

It said it was confident in the surveyor’s findings that the issue was being caused externally, but it would re-assess if an infrared inspection was required if the resident experienced further issues. It said that while the damp and mould was thought to be due to the fan, it should have resolved it earlier to limit the impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident, and apologised for this. It said it had not identified any further service failures, its actions taken after the stage 1 response had been satisfactory, and the compensation was fair and in line with its policy.

However, it said it could consider compensation for any damaged items and dehumidifiers the resident had bought. 14 October 2025 The landlord emailed the resident after contact from us. It said that under its compensation policy, she was entitled to £416 to cover the running costs of 2 dehumidifiers that were installed between 28 January and 20 March 2025. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate. She originally sought for her kitchen and bathroom flooring to be replaced, but confirms this was done in May 2025.

However, she says she had to redecorate her property herself after works. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling, communication, and lack of support and regard for her health issues. She seeks to be compensated for the delays, the costs she has incurred, and the impact on her. 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 resident’s damp and mould reports Finding Service failure The evidence shows that after a previous complaint, a surveyor inspected in May 2024 and raised works to do mould treatment and replace a bathroom fan. These were attended in June and July 2024. The resident then emailed the landlord on 23 July 2024. She said the contractors did not believe fans were the cause of issues she experienced, such as cold walls and soaked brickwork in winter, and asked the landlord to review their report.

She raised various dissatisfaction, including that a winter inspection had not been scheduled, and said she wanted to complain about communication. The landlord responded that a repairs manager would call her and she then complained on 4 November 2024 that this had not happened. The landlord took steps to arrange operative and surveyor inspections and its 21 November 2024 stage 1 response acknowledged service failures and awarded £250. This comprised £25 for a missed appointment, £25 for a failure to raise a winter inspection, £150 for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for time and trouble.

The resident escalated her complaint as she lacked confidence the landlord would resolve the issue, as it had failed to do so previously. The landlord’s 20 December 2024 stage 2 response said its surveyor found that the issue was being caused externally. It said the surveyor had scheduled works on 3 January 2025 to stop water getting through air bricks at ground level, which it would monitor. It said its stage 1 response and actions after this had been satisfactory. However, it apologised for not resolving the issues earlier and the impact on the resident and her health conditions.

It said its compensation award was in line with its policy, but it advised how to make a claim for any damaged items and purchased dehumidifiers. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 December 2024 and raised dissatisfaction that it had not addressed some issues. It had not mentioned that new skirting, bathroom flooring and kitchen flooring was required. It had not mentioned the surveyor was going to install dehumidifiers. It had not said what it would do to resolve damp in her bedroom.

The landlord then responded on 9 January 2025. It apologised that it had not mentioned dehumidifiers and acknowledged this was due to a lack of internal communication. It updated that a guttering repair was scheduled for 28 January 2025. It said it would discuss the bedroom damp, dehumidifiers, flooring, and skirting boards with the surveyor and update her. The landlord updated the resident on 13 January 2025. It confirmed repairs had been raised to renew skirting boards, take flooring up in the bathroom and kitchen, deliver 2 dehumidifiers to help dry the floors, and replace the flooring.

It said it had asked for these to be scheduled as soon as possible. It said the surveyor believed a brick vent below ground level was what had caused damp, including in the bedroom. The landlord removed the flooring, installed dehumidifiers on 28 January 2025, and removed the dehumidifiers on 20 March 2025. The surveyor then inspected on 2 May 2025 and noted that readings were satisfactory and works appeared to have resolved any damp issues. The replacement of the bathroom and kitchen flooring was subsequently progressed and the resident confirms this was done in May or June 2025.

The landlord subsequently contacted the resident in October 2025 and offered her a further £416 to reimburse her for the cost of running the dehumidifiers. The evidence shows that there were a number of service failings from when the surveyor inspected in May 2024, after the previous complaint, to November 2024, when the resident complained. The landlord seemed to take a month to attend for a mould wash rather than the 7 days in its policy, there was a missed appointment in June 2024, and the landlord failed to respond to an email from the resident between 23 July 2024 and November 2024.

She also clearly experienced poor communication. The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore appropriate to acknowledge failings, apologise and award compensation. The landlord’s stage 1 response was overall reasonable. It did not acknowledge that it delayed attending for a mould wash, but the resident’s account says there was no mould at that time, so the impact seems low. The resident complained in July 2024 that the landlord had not scheduled a winter inspection. She will have been frustrated this was not scheduled sooner, and this likely undermined her confidence that the landlord was committed to resolving issues.

However, its action to arrange a winter inspection met the commitment. Its compensation was in line with its policy and our remedies guidance and reasonably remedied any evident issues and impact. The resident escalated the complaint as she lacked confidence that the landlord was taking effective steps to resolve matters. The landlord shows it sought to effectively resolve matters as it inspected on 9 December 2024, arranged to remove brickwork to inspect the damp proof course on 17 December 2024, and completed identified external works in January 2025.

It then did a post-inspection in early May 2025 to satisfy itself that repairs had stopped water ingress it identified and progressed works to replace flooring. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord did not do some gutter works as promised, and that some later gutter works were delayed. It is not evident that there has been significant failings in respect to gutter repairs, or that the handling of these in the timeframe of this complaint resulted in any significant impact.

The resident has the option to refer a further complaint she has made to us for separate investigation. However, the landlord’s response was not entirely satisfactory. The resident contacted the landlord after its stage 2 response to query its omission of issues such as the skirting, flooring, and dehumidifiers. It is evident there was a breakdown in internal communication and the repairs team failed to provide clear information about all of its intended actions. This was unhelpful.

This missed the opportunity to provide the resident with a clear action plan. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s health conditions and apologised for the impact on her, which shows it did consider these. However, it does not show it had sufficient regard for the resident’s individual circumstances at other points. It reviewed reimbursement for the dehumidifiers in October 2025, but it would have been reasonable for this to be considered and communicated earlier as part of a clear action plan.

The resident said she had to redecorate after works herself and raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not sufficiently support her given her vulnerabilities. She did not raise issues with decoration in the original complaint. However, the landlord’s lack of internal communication at the time of the complaint response, about all the required repairs, was potentially unhelpful here. This missed an opportunity to consider if its compensation policy to reimburse up to £50 per room was applicable for the making good of decorations.

The landlord said it had asked for repairs to be scheduled as soon as possible. This commitment was reasonable given the resident’s vulnerabilities, but it is not always clear this happened. The installation of the dehumidifiers and removal of flooring were completed within target timeframes. However, the landlord took 16 weeks after the January 2025 works, and 6 weeks after the removal of dehumidifiers on 20 March 2025, to post-inspect. This seems unreasonably lengthy. The resident was without flooring from the end of January to May or June 2025, a period of 4 or 5 months.

The timing of the post-inspection will have impacted when the flooring was replaced and when the resident did some redecorating. It therefore likely prolonged disruption to the resident longer than necessary, and it is also evident that she went to some further chasing before works were completed. The compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, distress and time and trouble experienced by the resident. We do not make definitive decisions about liability for the impact on health and finances, as this is for the courts.

But a further £200 is reasonable to recognise this, considering the service issues, impact evident, and £666 the landlord has already paid. This is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration, and a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not gone some way to remedy the complaint. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord has had a 2- stage complaint process from at least March 2024.

It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord provided a November 2024 stage 1 acknowledgement and formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code, so reasonably met these aims. However, the landlord did not specifically acknowledge that the resident had emailed on 23 July 2024 and asked to make a further complaint then about the issues, including its communication.

This meant that there was a 4-month delay in raising the complaint. It would have been reasonable to specifically acknowledge and address this given a failure to meet a commitment in response to this – a lack of a promised callback by a repairs manager – partly led to the complaint. £50 is reasonable to recognise this, considering the service issues and impact evident. This is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been service failure, and distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication There were breakdowns in communication between the repairs and complaint teams, as noted in our assessment, and a surveyor did not internally record and communicate all the actions they identified and when they intended to take them. The landlord could reflect on these issues and consider any learning and any necessary steps to improve future handling of similar situations.