When ‘Unreasonable Behaviour’ is Just Holding Your Landlord to Account

The Housing Quality Network (HQN) has published guidance on managing unreasonable behaviour in social housing. The Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy – Guidance and Checklist outlines how housing providers should handle persistent or challenging communications fairly and proportionately. It emphasizes that such policies should not be used to silence valid complaints or to punish tenants simply for holding landlords to account.

However, my experience with GreenSquareAccord tells a different story—one where these policies are weaponized against tenants to suppress legitimate concerns and avoid scrutiny.

What the Guidance Says vs. How GreenSquareAccord Acted

1. Unreasonable Behaviour Should Be Defined Clearly

HQN’s guidance states that policies should clearly define what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, ensuring they are not misused to silence valid concerns. It highlights that:

“A complainant raising issues persistently does not necessarily mean their behaviour is unreasonable.”
“Policies should not be used to restrict access for those who have legitimate concerns.”

Yet, despite this, I was never abusive in my communication with GreenSquareAccord. I only ever raised valid concerns about service failures and ongoing issues with my home. I chased for updates when responses were delayed—something any tenant would do when their landlord fails to act.

Rather than engage constructively, GreenSquareAccord chose to label me as a problem.

2. Complaints Must Be Resolved, Not Just Upheld

The guidance stresses that housing providers should work to resolve complaints, rather than just acknowledging them.

In my case, every single complaint I made was upheld—not just by GreenSquareAccord but also by the Housing Ombudsman.

Despite this, none of the issues I complained about were actually resolved. GreenSquareAccord upheld complaints, admitted failures, but then did nothing to fix them.

If a tenant’s concerns are legitimate and proven correct, how can any response that punishes them be justified?

3. Contact Management Plans Should Be Proportionate and Temporary

HQN guidance makes it clear that Contact Management Plans (CMPs) should not be indefinite and must offer a fair way to engage with tenants. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code also states that landlords must provide a single point of contact to prevent unfair restrictions on communication.

Yet, GreenSquareAccord placed me on a permanent CMP, effectively banning me from contacting them. Worse still, they refused to provide a single point of contact, making it impossible for me to report repairs or receive updates. Further reading, here, here, and here.

4. Legal Action Should Not Be Used to Silence Tenants

The HQN document explicitly warns against using legal threats to suppress complaints. Despite this, GreenSquareAccord took court action against me—not to resolve disputes, but to silence my voice.

This legal action was so extreme that GreenSquareAccord was mentioned in a House of Commons debate about Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)—a legal tactic used by powerful organisations to silence critics.

The threats I received even included a vague warning that I must not do anything that "annoyed" GreenSquareAccord—a deliberately broad and ambiguous statement that could have led to further legal action for almost any reason.

When legal threats become a means of control rather than justice, it is clear that the system is failing tenants.

5. Mediation Must Be Considered, Not Ignored

The HQN guidance encourages mediation as a way to resolve disputes without escalation. The Housing Ombudsman and two separate judges recommended mediation in my case. - GreenSquareAccord refused.

Why? Because engaging in mediation would have meant actually addressing the issues I had raised—something they were unwilling to do.

6. Criminalising Tenants: The Ultimate Intimidation Tactic

Things reached a shocking level when I was arrested at home and accused of harassment.

I had never contacted GreenSquareAccord staff outside of official channels. I had only ever used the mobile number that was provided to me for customer service queries. Later, it was claimed that this was actually the personal mobile of the Customer Service Director—an accusation used to paint my contact as harassment.

All charges were dismissed. No further action was taken.

But the damage was already done. The stress of being arrested in my own home, the fear of criminal charges for simply challenging my landlord—it was a clear attempt to intimidate me into silence.

A Broken System in Need of Reform

HQN’s guidance is supposed to ensure that unreasonable behaviour policies are fair, proportionate, and not misused. Yet, as my case shows, when landlords choose to ignore best practice, tenants are left powerless.

I was:
✅ Never abusive.
✅ Only ever raised valid concerns.
✅ Had all complaints upheld, yet nothing was resolved.
✅ Placed on an indefinite Contact Management Plan with no point of contact.
✅ Taken to court in an attempt to silence me, leading to a House of Commons debate on SLAPPs.
✅ Arrested at home, with all charges later dismissed.
✅ Threatened with vague legal terms that made it impossible to know if I was ‘breaching’ the rules.
✅ Offered mediation by two judges and the Housing Ombudsman, but GreenSquareAccord refused.

This is not a fair or just system. This is how housing providers silence tenants who dare to hold them accountable.

If the sector is serious about improving tenant-landlord relations, then accountability must be more than just words on a page.

The Housing Ombudsman, the Regulator of Social Housing, and the government must ensure that landlords who misuse these policies face real consequences.

As long as valid concerns can be dismissed as ‘unreasonable behaviour’, the power imbalance will persist, and tenants will continue to suffer in silence.

We cannot allow that to continue.