One Manchester Limited (202442781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442781

One Manchester Limited

9 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
2. The complaint and the level of redress offered.

Background

The landlord’s records show that the resident made several reports of problems with her heating and hot water from March 2021. It found a leak to the radiator in the bathroom in April 2021. In December 2021 the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water and that a radiator had fallen off the wall. The landlord raised further works orders for issues with the heating and hot water in February, April, and August 2022.
On 28 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that pest control had attended her property to deal with rats and mice. It told her that there were holes in the kitchen wall. The landlord completed an inspection on 2 September 2022.
On 14 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint about ongoing leaks from the radiator pipes causing damp in the toilet and damage to the flooring and décor.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 April 2024. In this she said that there were ongoing repairs to her property, and she had not had heating for a couple of years. She said that the landlord had previously accepted liability but had failed to follow up on her claim. She now wanted this resolved so she could repair her home following leaking radiators.
In response to her complaint the landlord arranged a home visit on 23 April 2024. The landlord discussed the historic leaks that the resident had experienced and told her how it would investigate her complaint. It contacted her again on 30 April 2024 to provide an update on its investigations and agree an extension to its response time.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024. It thanked her for meeting with it and set out the 3 elements of her complaint as a historical leak that dated back to 2021, the damage caused by the leak and its failure to compensate her for this. It said that it had investigated the issues she had raised, and it upheld her complaint. It apologised for its service failure and acknowledged that she was frustrated and felt let down. It set out the details of its investigation. It said that:
1. She first reported a leak in March 2021. It had made several attempts to complete a repair. This continued between March and August 2021.
2. The resident had raised a complaint in August 2021.
3. The landlord continued to act to repair the issue, with repairs carried out to the boiler in December 2021 and in January 2022.
4. It traced the source of the leak to a radiator downstairs which was causing the pressure on the boiler to drop. It completed the repair in 2022. It apologised for the length of time taken to complete this repair.
5. The leak caused damage to the downstairs bathroom and the kitchen floor. The resident showed this to the landlord during its home visit on 23 April 2023.
6. The resident had made a further complaint in June 2023 in which she asked for compensation for the damage caused. The landlord had tried to contact the resident in August and September 2023. It had been unable to contact her and had not responded to her complaint.
7. It recognised the stress caused by the intermittent heating and hot water. It was aware that there were young children in the property and said that it should have provided her with a better service.
8. It made an offer of compensation of £600. It broke this down as:
  1. £150 for the damage caused by the leak.
  2. £300 for the continued delays in dealing with her complaint.
  3. £150 for the distress caused.
On 21 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and declined the offer of compensation asking that it escalate her complaint. She said that the leaking pipes and faulty boiler took over a year to fix, with the landlord sending countless workmen, including the wrong tradesmen, to her home. She had been without heating and hot water over the winter with young children in the property. The water pressure had meant that her shower also did not work. She said that there had been a lack of care taken by the landlord. Its response had not restored her faith in it.
The landlord met with the resident on 3 June 2024. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 July 2024. It set out the details of her complaint, including that it had not dealt with her complaint from June 2023. It understood that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and that she was seeking a different outcome. It upheld her complaint. It said:
1. She had first reported issues with the heating and hot water on 3 March 2021. It repaired this on 2 February 2022. It included a timeline of the actions taken. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family, by the length of time taken to resolve the issue, it offered £500 compensation.
2. The resident had shown it the damage caused to the kitchen cupboards, flooring, and the downstairs bathroom. She further reported that she had been left with cracks and a hole in the wall behind the kitchen cupboards which had allowed rats and mice to enter the property.
3. It had asked that the planned upgrade to her kitchen be brought forward. It would install this within 12 weeks. At the same time, it would complete repairs to the damage caused to the bathroom and hallway.
4. It offered an added £300 compensation for the time taken to fix the damage.
5. It recognised a service failure in not responding to the complaint she had logged through its website on 14 June 2023. It apologised that it had failed to record this correctly and offered £300 for this failure in its service.
6. It concluded that its total offer of compensation was £1100. Further it set out the changes it was making to its service because of the feedback from the resident to prevent reoccurrence of such issues.
The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. She contacted us on 23 January 2025. She explained that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint, the level of compensation offered, and the standard of repairs now completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us how the situation has affected her health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, affects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are better addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Repairs to the property

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the responsibilities of both the landlord and resident for repairs to the property. It further sets out the landlord’s commitment to “provide a reliable and cost effective repairs, maintenance and improvement service”. This is alongside commitments to meet its statutory obligations as contained within Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Act creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s policy provides 3 categories of repairs: emergency, appointed and major repairs. It says that it will carry out most repairs as appointed repairs which has a target of 20 working days.
There were significant delays in the landlord addressing the resident’s reports of a leak, together with dealing with the heating and hot water. This ran on from her first reports in March 2021 through to February 2022, with further issues reported in August 2022.
The resident first reported issues with the heating and hot water in March 2021 when the landlord noted that there was a problem with the pressure to the boiler. In April 2021 it recorded that there was a leak to a radiator pipe and that follow on works were needed. It raised a further order for a leaking radiator on 18 August 2021. As an outcome to this, its contractor recommended that the pipework should be rerun. On 24 August 2021 it recorded that a newly fitted radiator was leaking and that the resident had an issue with her heating and hot water. It completed further works to the boiler in December 2021 and February 2022. It also completed repairs in April and August 2022. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it completed the recommended follow on works, but the problem persisted for a significant amount of time. There was also a failure by the landlord to address the damage caused by the radiator leaking over an extended period. It took the resident raising a complaint for it to inspect the damage and complete the necessary repairs.
The landlord recognised that there had been a failure to carry out repairs within a reasonable time frame. It did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delays or why it had been unable to complete the repair at the earliest opportunity. This required significant attendance by the landlord’s contractors and disruption to the resident and her family, leaving her often without hot water, heating, or a working shower. The landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident and her family, including her grandchildren who lived with her. While it appropriately apologised in its complaint replies, there was a significant failure in its handling of the reported repairs.
Separately the resident reported to the landlord in August 2022 that following a visit from its pest control officer, she had been told that there were holes in the wall allowing mice to access her home. The landlord’s records show that it completed an inspection in September 2022. There are however no records of the actions taken by the landlord to address the reported holes in the wall.
The landlord has told us that it has no records of the resident contacting its pest control service after its visit in August 2022. It has also said that it has received no reports of pests from neighbouring properties.
The landlord acted to address the issue of damage to the walls in the kitchen as an outcome to the resident’s escalated complaint. This was to be part of the renewal of her kitchen. The landlord completed these works. There is no evidence provided that the resident continues to experience problems with mice. In raising her complaint with us the resident has said that she has recently found slugs entering her kitchen. The landlord is ordered to investigate this with the resident as part of a wider inspection of her home.
The length of time taken by the landlord to deal with the reported repairs to the resident’s home amounts to maladministration. This left the resident pursuing the landlord to deal with repeated failures to her heating and hot water. It was slow to identify the issue with the leaking radiator and complete an effective repair. There was a lack of oversight by the landlord to the repairs. It did not ensure that it completed these and recommended follow on works within a reasonable period. Further it did not ensure that the associated damages were identified and repaired. These were only actioned because of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to complete a full inspection of the resident’s home.

The complaint and the level of redress offered

The landlord has a 2 step complaint procedure. This says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its full response within 10 working days. If it cannot meet this target, it will tell the resident, explaining why it needs to extend its target and when it will reply. It will not extend its response time more than a further 10 working days. Its policy says that it will keep the resident who has made the complaint “informed of progress about their complaint at each stage, and how [it is] dealing with it”. Further, in its stage 1 response, it will include details of any follow up actions needed and say when it will do these.
The landlord will accept the escalation of a complaint to stage 2 of its procedure where this is made within 12 months of the resident first raising a complaint. It will then acknowledge the escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its full response within 20 working days. It will inform the resident should it need to extend the time for its investigation and reply. It says that where something has gone wrong and it is the landlord’s fault it will look to provide a suitable remedy. It will “aim to return the customer to the position they would have been in had there not been a service failure, taking account of the fact that it did occur”. Where this is not possible it “will carefully consider what other actions can be taken to put matters right”
The landlord has a compensation policy. This has a heading for discretionary compensation. Under this it says that it will consider compensation where there has been a service failure which has caused delay, distress, or inconvenience. The policy provides guidance on assessing discretionary compensation against the scale of the impact on the resident of the identified service failure. Its policy includes a scale of impact with suggested financial bands under each heading.
There was an earlier failure by the landlord in its handling of a complaint from the resident. She raised a complaint in June 2023 about the issues she had experienced with the heating and hot water to her home and the leak from her radiators. The landlord recorded that this made a request for compensation. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response to the resident its failure to reply to her earlier complaint. It appropriately apologised for its failure to reply. It did not however go on to address her claim for compensation. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so at this point.
The resident raised a complaint on 16 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this, met with the resident, then contacted her to tell her that it would need longer to provide its full response. This was in line with its procedure. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 May 2024, 16 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. On receiving the resident’s escalated complaint, the landlord took 47 working days to provide its stage 2 response. While it acted in line with its procedure at stage 1, there was a failure to meet its agreed timescales at stage 2 that amounted to a service failure.
In its stage 1 response it did not set out the action it would take to deal with the reported damage caused to the bathroom and kitchen. As the resident had shown these to it during its home visit it would have been right for it to have said if it would carry out repairs to the resident’s home and when it would do these. That it did not was a failure within its handling of the resident’s complaint.
It addressed these in its stage 2 response. At this time, it set out that it would bring forward the renewal of the resident’s kitchen alongside carrying out repairs to the bathroom and hallway. It provided a timeframe in which it would do these. This was appropriate in the circumstances of the complaint. To bring forward planned major works was a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the resident about the damage caused to her home. This was also an opportunity for the landlord to remedy the wider damage caused by the leaking radiator over an extended period.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not provide clear information at stage 1 about what it would do to address outstanding repairs. There was then a delay in it providing its response at stage 2 which was outside of its published time scales.
The landlord made offers of compensation at each stage of its complaint process. Each complaint stage had its own reference, with the compensation offered independently at each stage. Its stage 2 complaint response does not clarify if its offer of £1100 included its stage 1 compensation offer of £600. Therefore, this provided an overall total offer of £1700 compensation to the resident for it delays and errors in complaint handling, delays in dealing with the repairs and the related damage to her home, alongside the distress and inconvenience cause to the resident. We consider the total amount of compensation offered appropriate in the circumstances of the resident’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. This offered a level of redress appropriate to resolving the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1700 compensation offered through its own complaints process. This breaks down as:
  1. £600 at stage 1:

(1) £150 for the damage caused by the leak.

(2) £300 for the continued delays in dealing with her complaint.

(3) £150 for the distress caused.

£1100 at stage 2:

(1) £500 for distress and inconvenience of time taken to resolve issue.

(2) £300 time taken to fix the damage.

(3) £300 for complaint handling.

The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has paid the above amount to the resident.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to complete an inspection of the resident’s property to confirm that it has completed all the necessary and discuss with her any outstanding concerns she may have about leaks, damp, and pests.