From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

One Manchester Limited (202415219)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415219

One Manchester Limited

12 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s service charge account including their request for a breakdown and liability of charges.
    2. The resident’s query concerning his eligibility for an ECO4 grant.
    3. The resident’s concerns about his customer journey between September 2023 to April 2024.
    4. The resident’s Subject Access Request (SAR).
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord under a lease dated 6 October 2022. The landlord is a community benefit society that rents and operates housing association properties. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a purpose-built block.
  2. On 17 September 2023, the resident issued a SAR to the landlord requesting information about the work carried out around his property being charged for through service charges. The resident also asked for information concerning the ECO4 grant and if it was available for his property. He also requested information on when he would be required to pay his service charges at the same time.
  3. On 9 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord concerning his request for a document detailing what services had been carried out at the property from June 2017 to December 2023. He advised that his Subject Access Request (SAR) was outstanding and that the landlord had not answered a request for information concerning ECO4.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2024. It said:
    1. That the resident was charged for grounds maintenance and pest control until 2022/2023 when the resident became a leaseholder. The resident was then charged for building insurance, grounds maintenance and pest control. It would send further information about the charges and invoices for external charges.
    2. The resident was not eligible for the ECO4 grant as his property was an EPC C rating and would not qualify.
    3. The frequency of payment was quarterly in arrears.
    4. It awarded £500 compensation comprising £200 for the delay in providing the information on the service charge breakdown, £200 for the delay in providing the ECO4 grant information and £100 for the delay in providing the information on when the resident should pay his service charges.
  5. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2024. It said:
    1. It did not consider that the resident had been treated unfavourably during his customer journey. The resident’s earlier complaint managed in December 2023 had not been escalated as the resident had not contacted the landlord after it emailed on 7 December 2023 to state why he was dissatisfied. It had escalated this to stage 2.
    2. It awarded compensation in relation to the resident’s report of being under “undue stress for whatever reason” of £250.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses and requested the landlord to escalate his 2 complaints to stage 2 on 15 February 2024.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 May 2024 addressing both complaints in agreement with the resident at a meeting of 25 April 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response regarding the resident’s request for service charge information. It offered £1,250 compensation comprising £200 previously offered for the delay in providing service charge information, £200 compensation for the delay in confirming payment dates, £100 for the delay in providing a response concerning the ECO4 scheme and £750 for poor customer experience. It also apologised for its failings and said it had learnt from this and devised an action plan to prevent similar failings.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred his complaint to us on 15 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. We have to consider our jurisdiction when there are sometimes reasons we cannot consider complaints or part of complaints. The resident’s SAR request is governed under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). It is not within our jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord has breached the UK GDPR, however, we can consider the overall handling of the resident’s request. The resident may wish to refer these issues to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident referred to an earlier complaint from around 2020 after he witnessed a distressing event at the landlord’s offices. The resident described how this had impacted his mental health and that the continued contact with the landlord to resolve issues had impacted on his mental health. We do not doubt that the resident’s statement. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately, are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
  2. In contact with this service, the resident has raised concerns about their eligibility for an ECO4 grant. The ECO4 grant scheme is available through a local authority that takes part in the scheme. This service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and not the decision of another body where no landlord tenant relationship exists. A local authority makes decisions on ECO4. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request.
  3. With regard to the resident’s complaint concerns regarding his service charges, we can consider the landlord’s administration and handling of the requests for information. However, we would be unable to consider the reasonableness of the service charges or the resident’s liability to pay these. This is because determining liability for service charges requires a binding decision from court or consideration by a tribunal such as the First Tier Tribunal: Home – The Leasehold Advisory Service. The resident may wish to refer issues around the reasonableness and appropriateness of the service charges to the First Tier Tribunal.
  4. For the avoidance of doubt this investigation focusses on the period from 1 September 2023 to the landlord’s final complaint response of 20 May 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account including their request for a breakdown and liability of charges

  1. The resident requested information about the service charges and the services provided for these charges in his SAR request of 17 September 2023. The resident requested a document detailing what services and work had been provided at the property between June 2017 and December 2023. He also wanted confirmation of when he was required to pay the service.
  2. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 January 2024 that a SAR request would cover repairs to his specific property as opposed to the communal areas or surrounding grounds of the property. However, there is no record that this was explained to the resident at the time he made his request which would have been appropriate so the resident would understand what a SAR request would cover. There was a 2-month delay in the landlord providing the SAR information on 22 November 2023. The resident said that he was dissatisfied with the response in his email of 22 November 2023 as it did not answer his queries sufficiently. There was delay in the landlord responding to the resident on 2 December 2023 saying that it had passed the resident’s request back to the staff member who dealt with the SAR. The lack of communication and response then led to the resident raising his stage 1 complaint of 9 January 2024.
  3. It took the landlord a further 2 months to respond to the resident on 22 January 2024 concerning the information requested which was unreasonable. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 January 2024 that the service charge covered grounds maintenance inclusive of a charge for pest control along with buildings insurance. It sent some information at the time detailing the charges and attach invoices where these were available to provide some clarity. It finally explained when the resident’s service charge was payable and the process for estimating charges However, the resident did not feel that this information adequately evidenced work that had been completed and then charged for through his service charge.
  4. It was evident that some of the invoices provided did not specifically mention the resident’s street. This would have been confusing to the resident as it was not clear how this had been factored into the resident’s service charge. It needed further explanation which was not given. Whilst the landlord was correct in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not need to provide the information as far back as 2017, and it took appropriate legal advice on this, it needed to provide a simple explanation and did not do this which was inappropriate.
  5. The Ombudsman expects landlords to provide clear and accurate information about service charges, including whether the charge is fixed or variable, the basis for the charge, and how it has been calculated. In this case, the landlord whilst providing a basic breakdown of costs in its statements, failed to explain the legal basis for the charge under the lease agreement, which contributed to the resident’s confusion and dissatisfaction.
  6. According to the written lease agreement the resident is required to pay variable service charges. The lease agreement sets out the legal basis that the resident should pay the service charges for the exterior repair and maintenance which includes the maintenance of grassed and landscaped areas and cleaning of communal roadways, paths, walkways and hardstanding areas unadopted by the highway authority. The resident is also required to pay the administrative charges being 10% of the total amount payable by the resident as a lessee and for building insurance. The lease agreement does not specifically reference pest control as a recoverable cost.
  7. Given the particulars in the written lease agreement, it is not known why the landlord therefore sent pest control invoices to the resident. According to the landlord’s annual budget statements to the resident of 21 February 2023, September 2023 and the landlord’s statement of 4 February 2025 there is no charge attributable for pest control. These documents list the cost for pest control as a zero cost. However, the landlord stated in its email of 22 January 2024 that this charge was included within the ground’s maintenance costs. This was inappropriate as there was no basis for the landlord to charge for pest control services. It would also cause additional confusion and frustration for the resident in understanding what costs his service charges covered.
  8. The lease agreement also sets out the quarterly payment dates which is by equal instalments. The landlord could have provided this information and signposted the resident to his written lease agreement providing the relevant section of the lease for the resident to refer to at a much earlier point than on 22 January 2024. The 4-month delay to answer a straightforward question was unreasonable. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 January 2024 was appropriate for the delay at that point.
  9. According to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 22, a leaseholder can request to inspect documents relating to the service charge within 6 months of receiving the summary of charges. The leaseholder can inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents that are relevant to the service charge information. A landlord has one month on a leaseholder’s request to provide the facility for a leaseholder to inspect the documents and take copies if required. No record has been seen that this was offered to the resident, though the landlord did apologise for the delay in providing information in its stage 1 complaint response offering £200 compensation which was reasonable at this time.
  10. The landlord provided information on its service level agreement concerning grounds maintenance in its email of 24 January 2024. It advised of the number of expected visits being 11 over a 33-week period from end of March to the end of November – this included grass cutting and hedge maintenance. The provision of information would be expected, however, the landlord was unable to respond to the resident’s further query asking when work was completed so he could understand that the service charges were reasonable. This was a valid question. The lack of available records was inappropriate indicating poor record keeping practice.
  11. The landlord’s explanation of its lack of records was provided on 9 October 2024 after the internal complaints process. It said it was unable to break this information down further pre-2023 due to a change in staff and working patterns. This would have provided little confidence to the resident that the landlord had any understanding of what was being delivered for the service charges that it was charging for through service charges.
  12. It is vital that landlords maintain complete and accurate records to provide a suitable audit trail. This enables a landlord to keep track of a resident’s queries, and any work that is completed that is associated with a service charge. It also ensures that a landlord provides an appropriate and timely response to a resident’s queries. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) provides recommendations, and the landlord should self-assess against these recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
  13. Our Insight report on service charges (December 2023) provides information on the Ombudsman’s expectations. This states it is best practice for landlords to regularly check to confirm the work that has been completed or that the standard of work completed is appropriate taking appropriate notes and photographs. Landlords may also complete spot checks. When a resident complains about the standard of service, we have seen that some landlords increase the level of checks completed. This report identifies some key learning for landlords. The landlord should reflect on this learning in its review of its service charge policy that it has told us is underway.
  14. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration for which orders have been made. The landlord’s award of £300 compensation offered on 22 January 2024 in respect of the delay in providing information on service charges does not consider the continued lack of communication, clear explanation, or further evidence of the services provided and poor record keeping causing inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. This continued over the period of time from September 2023 to its final complaint response of 20 May 2024.
  15. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £500 (inclusive of the £300 previously offered). This comprises £300 in respect of the delays and errors made and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to review its charges for pest control and to determine whether any pest control charged were levied and to refund the resident for any inappropriate charges.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s query concerning his eligibility for an ECO4 grant

  1. The resident’s request to the landlord on whether his property would be eligible for additional insulation under the ECO4 grant was made on 17 September 2023. It is notable that the landlord’s records were incomplete and do not reference the actual date of the resident’s query. It was the resident that provided the original request to us. It is not known why the landlord did not provide this information, rather it was a summary without the date of the request which was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord clearly recognised that there was a delay in providing its 22 January 2024 response when it said that the resident was not eligible for the grant. There are no records as to how it made its decision or whether it had contacted the local authority to find out what the criteria was to pass on to the resident. It could have also signposted the resident to the local council’s website that gives further information about the ECO4 scheme and other initiatives. This was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord’s record keeping was therefore again insufficient. However, the landlord recognised and apologised for the delay in its final complaint response, and it awarded £200 compensation for not providing the information in a timely manner. It also provided a suitable apology for its delay in getting back to the resident. The compensation awarded is in line with our Remedies Guidance. The Ombudsman has therefore found reasonable redress for this complaint issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his customer journey between September 2023 to April 2024

  1. The resident clearly stated in his email of 26 September 2023 that the landlord could phone or email to discuss his queries. Rather than listening to the resident and following a chase up from the resident on 3 October 2023, the landlord reiterated a request for a visit to the resident in its email of 17 October 2023. However, rather than wait for the resident to respond to this request, the landlord made an unannounced visit to the resident on 19 October 2023. This was inappropriate as it did not respect the resident’s preferred method of communication. The landlord in its email of 22 March 2024 outlining a chronology of events. It said that it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation in its stage 1 response of 30 October 2023 This was appropriate, though we have not seen the landlord’s complaint response about this.
  2. There is evidence that the landlord improved its approach during its stage 2 complaint process by arranging a meeting with the resident. However, it is not clear why the landlord arranged 2 meetings rather than address the issues in one meeting. This would have caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident when it could have dealt with the issues at the same time.
  3. The resident explained to us that he kept getting passed between different staff members and had to explain the complaint issues repeatedly. He said that had caused him unnecessary stress and inconvenience, along with the time and trouble in getting the landlord to respond appropriately to his requests for information. The resident was particularly distressed in having to keep contacting the landlord as it brought back distressing memories of him witnessing a suicide attempt outside of the landlord’s offices in 2020.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 May 2024 identified that from March 2023 to the date of its response, the resident had dealt with 11 separate members of staff which it accepted was inappropriate leading to a lack of a joined-up approach. This corroborated the resident’s report of being passed to various members of staff. On receiving the resident’s ongoing enquiries and emails, the landlord should have also considered whether a single point of contact would be appropriate to coordinate between its staff members. The lack of coordination, appropriate record keeping and internal communication issues will have meant that the landlord did not have a good grasp of the resident’s concerns. This was inappropriate.
  5. The resident explained to us that only one member of staff went above expectations to piece together a chronology of the resident’s customer journey. This was reasonable so that the landlord could understand why the resident’s customer journey and why he was dissatisfied. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered a further £500 compensation. It provided its overview of the resident’s customer journey and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and has resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles of: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord recognised and apologised for its failures offering a total of £850 compensation comprising £100 in its earlier stage 1 response of 30 October 2023, £250 compensation at stage 1 and a further £500 compensation at stage 2. The landlord’s offer of £850 compensation was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance where maladministration is found. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his customer journey between September 2023 to April 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s records evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s earlier stage 1 complaint on 30 October 2023 that we have not seen concerning unannounced visits. The resident clearly stated that he rejected the landlord’s response on 7 November 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint again on 22 November 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 December 2023 asking why he was unhappy with the response; however, it failed to raise a stage 2 complaint response as it said that the resident had not responded. The resident had emailed the landlord 4 times between 6 November 2023 and 2 December 2023. This documentary evidence was provided to us by the resident and not the landlord. It is not clear why the landlord did not provide this information to us. The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint was contrary to its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We found a similar issue with the landlord’s complaint handling in the resident’s previous case with us (202016223).
  2. According to the Code if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. The failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 was not in accordance with the Code.
  3. The landlord decided in its complaint response of 14 March 2024, that it would escalate this complaint to its final stage. It provided its final response to both complaints on 20 May 2024. This meant that for the delayed escalation to the resident’s initial complaint requested on 6 November 2023, it took 136 working days (19 weeks) to provide a response which was contrary to the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy. This was unreasonable and caused unnecessary inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident.
  4. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from acknowledgement and will respond at stage 2 within 10 working days from acknowledgement. Its policy allows for an extension by a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 and it will write to a resident to advise if an extension is required.
  5. The resident raised his further complaint to the landlord on 9 January 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent on 22 January 2024. This was within the landlord’s policy and the Code timescale of 10 working days which was reasonable. The resident’s request to escalate this complaint was made on 14 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 20 March 2024 within 5 working days. It arranged meetings with the resident on 25 April 2024 so it could understand the complaint issues which was reasonable, though as mentioned it is not clear why 2 meetings were necessary. It followed up by sending an email outlining the outcomes that the resident was seeking. It was agreed by both parties that it would combine the resident’s complaints and respond in one stage 2 complaint response on the resident’s request. This was reasonable and would avoid confusion.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response was sent on 20 May 2024 which was delayed as it was issued 46 working days from the resident’s escalation request. However, the landlord had written to the resident to extend its response so that it could put together the resident’s requested chronology. It then sent the response on the date it set. The response date was still outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and Code timescale. The landlord did not consider any compensation in relation to its complaint handling failings though it recognised its failings to escalate the initial complaint to stage 2. This was inappropriate. The landlord said that it had learnt from its failings and put action plans in place which have not been seen by us. It appropriately apologised for its failings. It also identified some limited learning from the resident’s complaint journey. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration for which orders have been made.
  7. After carefully considering our remedies guidance, as above, an appropriate level of compensation is £150. This appropriately recognises the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling process that caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account including their request for a breakdown and liability of charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query concerning his eligibility for an ECO4 grant.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his customer journey between September 2023 to April 2024.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside of our jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 in compensation comprising:
    1. £500 (inclusive of the £300 previously offered) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account including their request for a breakdown and liability of charges. This appropriately recognises the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
    2. £150 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its charges for pest control and to determine whether any pest control charges were levied and to refund the resident for any inappropriate charges. It should provide written confirmation of this to the resident and provide a copy to us.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a written explanation of the resident’s service charges including its records on any completion dates of ground’s maintenance works covering the period from 2022 – 2023 for actual expenditure.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 compensation previously offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query concerning his eligibility for an ECO4 grant.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £850 compensation previously offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his customer journey between September 2023 to April 2024.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management, if it has not already done so, based upon the recommendations in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025).
  4. It is recommended that the landlord reviews our Insight report on service charges (December 2023) to consider the learning from complaints in its current review of its service charge policy.