GreenSquareAccord Limited (202209533)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209533

GreenSquareAccord Limited

9 November 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Repairs to the lounge ceiling following a leak from a neighbour’s bathroom that occurred in 2019.
2. Requests for the reimbursement/replacement of wallpaper which was reported to have been damaged when ceiling repairs were completed in 2019.
3. The resident’s request for compensation for furniture that was damaged by the leak in 2019.
4. The resident’s reports of possible subsidence affecting the rear garden.
5. The resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the rear garden.
6. The resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2022 to advise that it would not:
1. Investigate the resident’s complaint about a leak from a neighbouring property because the incident occurred in 2019 and it had not received any complaints from the resident about the matter until February 2022. The landlord referred the resident to its complaint policy that said it would not review complaints that happened more than 6 months previously.
2. Consider reimbursement or compensation for damage to wallpaper, carpets, and furniture because these matters also dated back to incidents that occurred in 2019 and had not been raised as a complaint within 6 months.
This Service wrote to the resident on 14 July 2023 to request evidence of any complaints she had made to the landlord about the leaks that had occurred in 2019, prior to February 2022. This evidence was not received, and this Service subsequently sent a letter to the resident on 16 September 2023 that said, “the Ombudsman is unable to investigate your complaints about the issues that occurred in 2019 because of the length of time that has passed and because there is no evidence that you made the complaint within 6 months of the leak occurring”.
Consequently this Service considers the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs and compensation requests for matters that occurred in 2019 to be outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to subsidence, overgrown trees and a wasp infestation are investigated below.

Background

The resident lives in a in 2-bedroom, mid-terraced house which was let under a starter tenancy in 2015. The tenancy was converted to an assured affordable rent tenancy a year later in 2016.
The landlord recognises the resident as vulnerable due to her mental and physical health.
The landlord completed a merger in April 2021 prior to which the 2 involved registered providers of social housing operated independently of one another.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that occurred after its final stage 2 complaint response and is therefore beyond the scope of this investigation. It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repair policy has 2 repair categories. The policy says:
1. Emergency repairs are to be resolved within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs are to be resolved within 28 hours.
3. Residents are responsible for pest control including bee/wasp nests and disinfestation except where there is a design fault within the property.
The landlord’s website says:
1. If there are pests in the home such as ants, cockroaches, or mice it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with the problem.
2. It will deal with pests in communal areas such as cockroaches, rats, and wasps as part of the service charge.
The landlord’s operates a 3-stage complaints policy for which it set out its reasons in its complaint self-assessment sent to this Service. The complaint policy says it will:
1. Do its best to resolve an issue immediately over the phone or send a complaint acknowledgement within 2 working days (step 1).
2. Call the complainant to fully understand the issue, investigate what’s gone wrong, and case manage the complaint until it’s fully resolved within 10 working days (step 2).
3. Consider an escalation to an executive to review whether the case was handled fairly and reasonably within 5 working days (step 3).
4. It will not normally consider complaints relating to matters that happened more than 6 months ago.
The landlord’s compensation policy says:
1. Where it does not meet its service standards, it may consider compensation.
2. Any discretionary compensation payment will be based on what is fair in the circumstances. It may pay compensation for avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of a service failure.
3. Discretionary compensation may be offered for gestures of goodwill where the resident has suffered inconvenience or distress.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code says:
1. Under paragraph 1.7, a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. Under paragraph 4.1, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
3. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
4. Under paragraph 5.8, landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The reasons for any decisions made.
5. Under paragraph 5.14, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 April 2021 about an undisclosed matter but mentioned that she would raise a complaint. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident on 9 April 2021 asking her to provide further information about her complaint for it to be registered. The landlord does not hold any further records or responses from the resident about a complaint made or discussed at this time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 February 2022 to raise her concerns about repairs that had previously been completed in the property in 2019, and to report new repairs. The resident said:
1. She was still waiting for someone to come and inspect the back of the house, where wasps flew in and out of a particular spot under the back window.
2. The garden fence and posts were leaning and there could have been some kind of movement on the land.
3. The garden slabs she said she had previously been told to monitor were continuing to slowly slope, which could also be some kind of movement on the land.
4. The front door had no threshold and created an extreme draft that was costing a fortune. The front door was also allowing insects in the property.
5. The trees at the back of the house needed to be cut down.
6. She had laid 3 lots of grass which kept dying due to the overgrown trees, so she had had to purchase artificial grass.
7. She had to pay to get some of the repair work the landlord had completed redone due to poor workmanship.
8. She was a vulnerable resident with severe mental health and physical health problems and felt she had not been treated with respect or consideration.
The landlord raised a works order on 22 February 2022 to repair the threshold on the front door which was allowing insects into the property and letting in cold. The landlord subsequently replied to the resident’s email later the same day to provide information about its repairs responsibilities and also to ask some further questions about the matters she had raised. The landlord:
1. Advised that a surveyor’s inspection had been arranged to address the movement of the ground, the paving, and the fencing.
2. Said it would not complete works to eradicate pests and the resident would need to arrange for pest control to attend the property.
3. Advised if there was a property defect that was providing access to pests, then the landlord would arrange a repair.
4. Asked the resident to confirm if the trees and the back of the garden had been treated and whether her concerns were due to their size.
5. Asked the resident to provide details of the repairs the landlord had previously completed that she had since arranged to be repaired again.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 1 March 2022 which said a complaint response would be issued to her by 15 March 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 March 2022 to ask when a surveyor would visit the property because she had been told she would hear something and nothing ever happened. The resident said the situation had been having a detrimental effect on her mental health. The resident also advised that a contractor had attended the property the same day to look at the front door.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 March 2022 to set up an appointment to discuss her complaint. The landlord asked the resident to make contact with it.
The landlord sent an internal email on 9 March 2022 to request that the property was inspected prior to 15 March 2022 which was the complaint response target date.
The landlord sent an internal email on 14 March 2022 to request the date that a property inspection would take place for it to be included in the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord advised that if an appointment had not been arranged it would extend the complaint response due date so that this information could be provided.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 March 2022 to make arrangements for the property to be inspected. The landlord said it had extended the complaint response date to give it time for an inspection to be completed. It is not clear if the resident had been notified of the time extension.
The landlord visited the resident at the property on 17 March 2022 to address the concerns she had previously raised in her email of 21 February 2022.
The landlord sent an internal email on 18 March 2022 to share the concerns that the resident had raised during its inspection of the property the day before. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns related to:
1. Overgrown trees at the rear of the garden.
2. Permission to install external fencing.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2022. The landlord:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaints following a conversation it held with the resident on 14 March 2022.
2. Advised that it would not be able to investigate a leak from a neighbouring property because the incident occurred in 2019 and its complaints policy stated it would not review complaints that happened more than 6 months previously.
3. Advised that residents would usually submit claims for property damage via their home contents insurance policy.
4. A surveyor had attended the property on 16 March 2022 and did not identify any concerns about subsidence.
5. The surveyor had inspected the garden slabs and subsequently raised a works orders for them to be re-levelled.
6. The overgrown trees were outside of the boundary line, and it was only
  able to reduce trees that were within its boundary line.
7. Advised that pest control and the removal of wasps nests were the resident’s responsibility.
8. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord sent an internal email on 21 March 2022 that requested works orders to be raised to relevel 3 slabs at the rear of the property and to trim the overgrown branches at the rear of the garden.
The landlord raised a works order on 30 March 2022 to trim the overhanging trees at the back fence. The landlord set a target date for the work of 13 April 2022. It also raised a works order on the same day to relevel 3 paving slabs before a target date of 11 May 2022. The landlord’s repair database recorded that it had to rebook this repair because the resident was going on holiday. The landlord completed the work on 8 June 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 May 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The resident explained she had been in hospital and had been unable to reply to the landlord previously. The resident said:
1. The trees were the landlord’s responsibility, and she had a letter confirming this.
2. Her house insurance did not cover damaged goods caused by workmen or leaks.
3. If files had gone missing due to the stock transfer it was the landlord’s problem to resolve.
The landlord emailed its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 May 2022. The landlord advised:
1. It had previously advised it would not investigate complaints for matters that had taken place over 6 months previously.
2. It was sorry that the resident’s insurance policy did not cover her for water damage at the time.
3. The works orders for the relevelling of the garden slabs were due to be completed in June and July 2022 and an appointment would be booked nearer the time.
4. The resident’s concerns about overgrown trees had been forwarded to the trees manager who would reattend the site and assess the trees in due course.
5. The 10-day timescale for an executive review request had passed on 4 April 2022 therefore the complaint process had been concluded.
6. Its response at stage 2 of the complaint procedure was its final response confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint process.

Assessment and findings

It is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns about subsidence, overgrown trees, and the eradication of a wasp infestation within a reasonable time frame and in accordance with its repairing obligations and any other applicable procedures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence affecting the rear garden.

The resident reported her concerns about some kind of movement on the land to the landlord on 21 February 2022. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to say it had made arrangements for a surveyor to visit and inspect the property. The landlord did not advise when the inspection appointment had been arranged. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it had taken a solution-focused approach to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord made an appointment to inspect the property on 17 March 2022 which was a month after the resident had raised the matter. However, this was within the landlord’s non-emergency repair policy timescale of 28 days and was therefore arranged within an appropriate time. Notwithstanding it would have demonstrated good customer care if it had arranged and notified the resident of the appointment prior to her making contact with the landlord again on 3 March 2022.
The landlord referred to the resident’s concern about subsidence in its stage 1 complaint of 21 March 2022 in which it said the surveyor had inspected the ground and concluded there was no subsidence. Furthermore the landlord had raised a works order to relevel 3 slabs that had moved. This Service has not seen any evidence that explains how the landlord reached its decision but would have expected it to have used appropriate techniques, or equipment to assess the ground. Notwithstanding, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff when assessing the matter and how it would respond. It is not the role of this Service to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the landlord’s conclusion that there was no subsidence, nor is it qualified to do so.. It was reasonable of the landlord to confirm it had inspected and assessed the ground in its complaint response so as to reassure the resident that it had investigated her concerns.
Taking all matters into account this Service find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence affecting the rear garden.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the rear garden.

The resident reported her concerns about overgrown trees at the rear of the property to the landlord on 21 February 2022. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to ask her if her concerns were due to the size of the trees and whether the trees had been treated. Asking further questions to ascertain the nature of the complaint was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to identify how best to address to the matter.
The landlord visited the property on 17 March 2022 to inspect the overgrown trees. The landlord advised the resident that the trees were outside of its boundary line and therefore it could not take any action to reduce the trees. Providing this advice, whilst accurate did not provide a solution to address the condition of the trees and the resident’s use of the garden. The landlord repeated the same advice to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have provided further advice or some reassurance that it could take action to address the overgrown trees especially given it had inspected and seen first-hand the impact the overgrown trees had on the condition and the resident’s use of the garden.
The landlord subsequently raised a works order on 30 March 2022 to trim the overhanging trees before a target date of 13 April 2022. Completing works to trim the trees was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to address the resident’s concerns. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to confirm if, or when the landlord completed these works.
The resident raised the matter again in her stage 2 complaint on 1 May 2022 in which she advised that she had a letter that confirmed the trees were the landlord’s responsibility. This Service has not seen any further evidence of this outside of the comments the resident made in her stage 2 escalation request. The landlord is expected to know what aspects of its housing stock and grounds it is responsible for and to have completed repairs to address the matters or to have contacted the appropriate owner about the matter. The landlord confirmed it had referred the matter to its tree manager in its stage 2 complaint response, but it is not clear to this Service if the landlord subsequently completed works to address the trees.
The landlord did not consider the time it had taken for it to respond to the matter or the impact it had on the resident in its stage 2 complaint response, and by doing so missed an opportunity to put in place some form of compensation for its delays in addressing the matters. This Service would have expected the landlord to have considered offering a compensation award in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience the matter caused to the resident. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the rear of the garden.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.

The resident reported her concerns about a wasp infestation at the back of the property to the landlord on 21 February 2022. The resident had explained that the wasp infestation was in the back garden and not in a communal area where the landlord would have been responsible. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to explain that it was not responsible for eradicating pests and that the resident would need to arrange this herself. Providing information to the resident about the landlord and resident repair obligations within 24 hours was an appropriate response from the landlord.
The landlord restated that pest control, and the removal of wasps was the resident’s responsibility in its stage 1 complaint response of 21 March 2022. Taking a second opportunity to refer the resident to the landlord and resident responsibilities in response to her concerns was an appropriate response from the landlord.
The landlord could have used its email and complaint responses to direct the resident to the local authority or a pest control contractor to assist the resident with addressing the matter. Alternatively it could have directed her to its website which contained useful pest control information. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to evidence it took a supportive and solution focussed approach to the resident’s concerns. However, taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not accept the resident’s complaint when she first mentioned she may raise one on 7 April 2021. This did not comply with paragraph 1.7 of the complaint handling code, which says a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. Did not follow up on its later email of 9 April 2021 in which it asked the resident to provide information about her complaint for it to be registered.
3. Provided an informal response to the resident’s complaint on 22 February 2022, thereby addressing the resident’s complaint outside of its complaint policy. If the landlord had intended its reply to be a ‘step 1’ complaint response it should have said so in the response so that the resident was clear about what stage her complaint had been considered.
4. Sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 1 March 2022 which was 6 working days after it had been raised and 4 working days later than its policy timescale.
5. Inappropriately extended the stage 1 complaint target response time to 15 March 2022 due to its delay in registering the complaint.
6. Sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2022 which was 10 working days later than its expected target time of 7 March 2022 and 4 working days later than its stated target time.
7. Sent an informal response to the resident on 10 May 2022 which said it would not accept the resident’s escalation request of 1 May 2022 as an executive review request because it was sent after 4 April 2022 and was therefore outside of its 10-day escalation timescale. The landlord did not consider the resident’s statement that she had been in hospital and had therefore been unable to escalate the matter which was unreasonable.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not recognise its complaint handling service failures and therefore did not offer the resident any compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing a response to her concerns. This was unreasonable and therefore an award of compensation is ordered below in recognition of the detriment this caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence affecting the rear garden.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees affecting the rear garden.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a wasp infestation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord appointed a surveyor to inspect the property grounds and relied on the professional qualification of appropriate staff to reach a decision about the condition of the ground.
The landlord inspected the trees and concluded they were not within its boundary and therefore not a matter it could address directly. The landlord subsequently raised a works order to trim the trees and referred the matter to its trees manager, however it is not clear when or if the works were completed. Furthermore the landlord did not conclusively advise if it was responsible for the maintenance of the trees, nor seek a long-term resolution to the matter such as contacting the local authority or neighbouring properties about the condition of the trees.
The landlord was not responsible for the completion of pest control and advised the resident that this was a matter she would be required to address herself. This was accurate and appropriate information that was provided within 24 hours of her raising the matter with the landlord.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the housing ombudsman complaint handling code during its handling of the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident to incur time and trouble in experiencing delays in receiving an appropriate response from the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for its failings in managing the overgrown tree repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 28 days of the date of this report.
Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of works to address overgrown trees.
2. £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to complete an assessment of the property to determine whether the presence of overhanging trees requires remedial works.