Manchester City Council (202449412)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449412

Manchester City Council

8 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that there was an issue with damp and mould and cracks to plaster internally.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant and has occupied the property, a 3 bedroom house, since 2011. The landlord is a local council.
4. The resident first reported an issue with plaster coming off the wall in her daughter’s bedroom on 15 January 2021. On 5 February 2021 repair jobs were created for a roofer to check the property and for plastering to be done. The landlord’s records said an operative attended on 10 February 2021 to check the valley on the roof above the rear bedroom window and a hole was found that needed repairing. A job was created to repair the plaster on 12 February 2021, but it was then cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord’s notes said that once restrictions were lifted, the resident would be contacted to arrange for the work to be done.
5. Nothing further is known until 1 February 2023 when the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom. A survey was done on 14 February 2023 which identified a number of issues.
6. Although jobs were created, the repairs needed were not completed and the resident made a complaint on 19 August 2024 about the delays, poor communication and the impact on her and her family.
7. The landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response, so the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 18 September 2024. On 30 October 2024, the landlord advised the resident it needed more time to investigate the complaint and said it would issue its stage 2 response by 6 November 2024.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024 and concluded there had been a significant breakdown in communication and coordination of work, which resulted in delays in completing the repairs. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and put a plan in place to complete works. It offered the resident £1,293 compensation.
9. The resident rejected the compensation offered as she felt it was not sufficient and the repairs had not been completed.
10. The landlord’s records indicate all outstanding works were completed in March 2025. However, the resident has said there is still an issue with the window in the main bedroom that requires repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. In this case, it is evident the resident first reported a problem with plaster in 2021. For completeness and given the length of time the resident has been reporting the same issue, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from this date. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remained unresolved.
12. It is also important to acknowledge that the resident commented in her complaint that damp and mould at the property may have affected her health. However, while we are an alternative to a court, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that there was an issue with damp and mould and cracks to plaster internally

13. Although the landlord had the roof assessed in 2021, restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prevented repairs being carried out. The landlord’s notes from 5 February 2021 specifically said it would contact the resident to complete the repairs, once restrictions were lifted.
14. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay caused by the pandemic. However, there is no evidence it contacted the resident once restrictions were lifted, as it had promised. While it is accepted that during this time the landlord may have had a backlog of work, it was only as a result of the resident reporting damp and mould on 1 February 2023 that a survey was then carried out and this led to the original plaster issue being addressed. It should not have taken the resident to have to follow things up, or report additional issues, for that to happen.
15. The survey that took place in February 2023 identified mould in the bathroom that the resident had mentioned, but also that the plaster in the bedroom needed to be removed, as reported in 2021. In addition, it identified cracked/blown render, possible roof issues, penetrating damp and external issues affecting the bedroom. It recommended putting up scaffolding and cleaning out guttering. It also said the roof needed to be checked, windows needed to be sealed, new render applied and painted, plaster needed to be hacked off and the insulation in the roof should be looked at.
16. The resident complained that there were a couple of failed attempts to erect scaffolding at the property because she was not notified when operatives were attending, and the landlord’s records between May and September 2023 support that. This meant external works could not be carried out, something the resident felt should be completed before internal works were started. On 11 September 2023, she notified the landlord she had a plaster allergy and had made arrangements to stay in a hotel, and reiterated the need to ensure scaffolding was in place so the repair works could be carried out.
17. It is not known when the scaffolding was eventually erected, but the resident chased the landlord about the repairs on 10 October 2023. On 17 October 2023 the roof was checked and the landlord recorded “all seems ok”, however, it noted the render had blown. On 27 November 2023 the landlord noted it needed to arrange scaffolding to the rear of property in order that the render around the bedroom window could be addressed. Work was then scheduled for 18 December 2023 but the resident expressed concerns that it may not happen. The notes from 19 December 2023 state external works and a mould treatment in the bathroom were completed, but the scaffolding had to be modified so rendering could take place.
18. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action until the resident chased up the work on 22 March 2024. Although it seems an operative then attended on 28 March 2024, the notes from the visit say, “no work been completed (sic) due to render and damp required”. This suggests no repairs were carried out as planned. It then took until 11 July 2024 for the landlord to arrange the further scaffolding that was needed and it was not until 2 August 2024 that a mould wash in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom was carried out. On 12 August 2024 an operative did then attend to do the rendering, but according to the landlord’s notes, no work could be done as a ladder was needed as well as a “wheel to get gear to scaffold”.
19. It was at this time the resident complained about how long the repairs were taking, and the effect the delays were having on her and her family. She explained that although her daughter’s bedroom was being used, it was in a poor condition because the rendering on the outside wall near her daughter’s bedroom was affecting the plaster inside. In addition, the radiator in that room needed realigning.
20. On 11 September 2024, the landlord recorded that the scaffolding still needed adjusting, something that had been outstanding for several months. It booked a roofer to attend on 19 September 2024 and a plasterer on 30 September 2024. It said the radiator could be realigned once the work was completed.
21. It is not known whether anyone attended on those dates, but is clear the rendering work was not done, as the landlord noted this on 15 October 2024. This led it to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property on 30 October 2024, to assess what work was outstanding. However, in the meantime, the radiator in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom was removed on 30 September 2024.
22. Upon visiting the property, the landlord reported it needed to remove the loose render and replace it. It said it needed to liaise with the plasterer but there was some external timber work that needed replacing as well as a section of gutter to the rear. Internally, the back bedroom radiator needed replacing and a mould treatment was needed in the front bedroom. It planned to complete the works over the next 4 weeks.
23. In its stage 2 response to the complaint, the landlord confirmed the works it would do:
    1. Render and roofing repairs – once the roofing and guttering work were fully complete, the scaffold would be taken down to enable the plasterer to complete repairs to the render.
    2. Mould treatment to the front bedroom – this would be completed together with other outstanding work.
24. It also said there would be further investigation in to cracking to the ceilings in both bedrooms and around the window in the front bedroom. However, it then said it had since reviewed this and concluded this required minor decoration and no work was needed.
25. The landlord’s records are not clear when or if each repair was carried out. This has proved an issue throughout this investigation as the spreadsheets provided contain very little information about what works, if any, were carried out and in some cases whether appointments actually happened. However, the radiator in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom was definitely put back, because it then leaked, so a repair was carried out on 3 January 2025. On the same day the resident told the landlord the other repairs were still outstanding, and it did then acknowledge there had been issues with scaffolding which it had overlooked but would now address.
26. Some works were planned for 20 January 2025 and the landlord’s records state a “complaint survey” was carried out on 21 March 2025. However, it is not known what that survey found and the landlord’s job records contain no further information, so this suggests work was completed around March 2025. The resident has confirmed all repairs have been completed with the exception of cracks around a bedroom window which require repair. She says where there are cracks, it is hollow and as a result, she cannot install blinds.
27. There is clearly a discrepancy between the resident and landlord over whether the reported cracks around the windows require repair. This is not something we can decide upon, but as the resident referred to this during the complaint process, and the reported issues remain unresolved, the landlord should meet with her and assess what work, if any is needed. If it decides no work is needed, it should explain to the resident why that is the case.
28. In addition to the landlord’s legal obligations in respect of repairs and hazards within the property, we published a Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021. This stated landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in its properties. The landlord has produced a report setting out changes it has put in place as a result, which is positive, however it shows there are still a number of points it continues to work on and in this case, it did not take a proactive approach to addressing the damp and mould or other repairs.
29. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, implemented in 2023, provides no timeframes for when it will inspect or carry out work. It does state that it will “undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions to eradicate damp.” The policy states it will “investigate to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation and carry out remedial repairs and actions.” It goes on to say it will “ensure effective communication with residents affected by damp, condensation and mould, being clear about the action to be taken, the timescales within which the action will be completed and the aftercare arrangements”.
30. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says priority urgent repairs should be completed within 1 working day, urgent repairs within 3 working days, routine repairs from 5 working days to 6 weeks and major works would depend upon the nature of repair.
31. For a 2 year period from February 2023 until March 2025 when the repairs were completed, the landlord had to be prompted on several occasions by the resident, to address the repairs needed. There was clearly poor communication from the landlord, with the resident not being told about appointments and repairs being arranged when equipment was not available or preparatory works had not been completed.
32. We have seen that in response to the complaint, the landlord did acknowledge “a significant breakdown in communication and coordination of this work, which has resulted in delays in completion of the work” and it apologised for that which was appropriate. However, when the resident again reported that the repairs had not been done on 3 January 2025, the landlord accepted it had overlooked matters. Therefore, while it had acknowledged mistakes in the past, it seems it had not learnt from them, despite having promised on more than one occasion that the repairs would be carried out promptly.
33. The lack of detail on the landlord’s records in relation to jobs and what work has been completed is poor. Although it has provided a number of spreadsheets containing information about jobs, they often contain little detail about what work was done when contractors attended, and when work was completed. In addition, some spreadsheets contain multiple entries for the same day and sometimes say access was refused but then state work was completed.
34. The importance of keeping good records is set out in this Service’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) May 2023 report. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs and inspections to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Therefore, the landlord should carry out a review of its record-keeping practices in order to improve how it records work in future.
35. With the exception of the period during and shortly after the pandemic when there were restrictions on work that could be done, the landlord significantly delayed addressing the damp and mould and associated repairs. It did not take a proactive approach to repairs as it should have done, and its communication was poor. This amounts to maladministration.
36. We do recognise that some works were done, but they were not seen through to completion. The resident told the landlord she found it very difficult living in the property with her children, and having to chase several times clearly added to her frustration. That is something that could have been avoided if the landlord had ensured someone was actively monitoring the jobs as they should have been.
37. To resolve the complaint, as well as setting out the work it needed to complete, it offered the resident £1,293 compensation. This was made up by:
    1. £600 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £300 for delays completing the work.
    3. £368 equating to a 50% refund of the amount the resident paid for the bedroom (bedroom tax) for 12 months.
    4. £25 for the delay in its complaint handling.
38. The offer of £25 for the delay in complaint handling will be considered later in this report. That means the landlord offered £1,268 compensation in November 2024, specifically for failings associated to the reports of damp and mould and cracks to plaster and other associated repairs.
39. The landlord’s compensation policy says it awards compensation of £100 to £600 where there has been a service failure that has not had a lasting detriment to a resident but may include multiple attempts to resolve a matter. Where a service failure has had a significant impact on a resident, and there has been a failure to act over a long time, it may consider compensation of between £600 and £1,000. This is also in line with our remedies guidance.
40. The £368 offered by the landlord related to the amount the resident was paying as a result of the bedroom tax, due to having a spare bedroom. The resident has explained her daughter’s bedroom was used, but the issues with the wall meant it was not a pleasant environment for her and affected how the room was used. It would not be appropriate for us to say the landlord ought to refund part of the bedroom tax, as that is imposed by the government, but we can consider the overall impact the delay in repairs had.
41. The amount offered in compensation by the landlord at stage 2 recognised the landlord’s service had negatively affected the resident and her family for a long time. Had the repairs been completed straight away, as the amount offered exceeded the recommended compensation amount, it is likely we would have endorsed the offer made. However, the repairs took a further 4 months to complete, and the resident also had to chase the landlord again, to get the work done, which is unreasonable. It is therefore appropriate for the compensation to be increased to reflect that.
42. If the landlord deemed compensation of just over £1,200 reasonable recompense for 2 years delay (from 2023 until 2025), that would equate to £200 for every 3 months of delay. Therefore, to reflect an additional 4 months delay before the repairs were finalised, and to take in to account that the landlord did not then revisit the compensation amount once all work was done, as would have been reasonable, further compensation of £300 should be paid. That would mean a payment of £1,568 for failures in its handling of the resident’s report that there was an issue with damp and mould and cracks to plaster internally. Consideration of the landlord’s additional payment for poor complaint handling is addressed below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

43. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy says when a complaint is made it will acknowledge it within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. If an extension is needed, it will be no more than 10 working days and would be confirmed in writing. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, again it should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 20 working days. If an extension is needed at that point, it should be no more than 20 working days and should also be put in writing.
44. The landlord recorded the resident’s complaint having spoken with her on 19 August 2024. It is not clear whether the landlord acknowledged the complaint verbally the same day, but it is evident that it failed to address the complaint at stage 1, so did not comply with its obligations under its policy.
45. It is noted the resident was disappointed at not having her complaint addressed and this led her to escalate it to stage 2. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response, but it did notify the resident in advance it needed longer to investigate the complaint. It did then ensure it issued its stage 2 response in line with the revised timescale given. So, the resident’s expectations were properly managed.
46. The landlord’s response to the complaint did acknowledge not only failures in its handling of the main issue, but that its complaint handling fell short. Its compensation policy suggests compensation of £25 to £100 should be considered where there has been a service issue that had a minor impact on a resident. In this case, it offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint.
47. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged poor service and offered compensation in line with its policy. However, it was not just a matter of delay responding to the complaint. Had it been, then compensation of £25 may have been sufficient. However, there was a complete failure to address the complaint at stage 1 and that amounts to maladministration. While there was no significant long-term impact on the resident, she was clearly disappointed and was put to the trouble of having to escalate this with the landlord to get a response. The impact on the resident was still relatively minor, but a more reasonable amount of compensation in this case would be £100, as that would more accurately reflect the inconvenience she was put to.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s;
    1. Report that there was an issue with damp and mould and cracks to plaster internally.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Assessed and repaired the cracks around the windows or explained to the resident why no work is needed.
    3. Carried out a review in relation to its record-keeping practices and responses to the repairs.
    4. Paid the resident £1,668 compensation made up of:
       1. £1,568 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s report that there was an issue with damp and mould and cracks to plaster internally.
       2. £100 for its failure to address the complaint at stage 1.
50. The payment of compensation is inclusive of the £1,293 offered at stage 2.