Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202429505)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429505

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

28 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 reports of a leak in the cellar.
    2. The associated complaint.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He moved into the property in November 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom mid terrace house. He lives with his daughter and his granddaughter. The resident told us that both he and his family have physical and mental health issues.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 August 2024. He said he had reported the leak in his cellar since he moved in. He felt the leak was getting worse and he was concerned there was damp on the wall where the electrical consumer unit was located. He said he was using the room to house his tumble dryer, but the room was becoming “engulfed in filthy water.” His utility company had informed him it was a private drain issue so they could not help. He wanted the landlord to fix the leak as the issue had been going on for 9 months.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 September 2024. It noted that a surveyor had inspected the cellar in January 2024, and another inspection was arranged for 13 September 2024. It apologised for the wait, recognised it had not raised work correctly and its communication with the resident was not reasonable. It offered £50 compensation as a good will gesture.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 October 2024. He said during the visit on 13 September 2024, the surveyor said a sump pump needed to be fitted. However, the landlord had not raised any further jobs. He said the leak was getting worse with a foul smell. He noted the landlord wanted to monitor the leak, but it had not left any monitoring equipment in the cellar. He stated he was removing 460 litres of water on a bad day with a wet vac that he had purchased himself for £70.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 October 2024. It stated it considered the cellar to be a non-habitable room for usual use. Its drainage contractor had used a dye test which suggested that a broken pipe within the neighbour’s property foul line was causing a leak. Having experienced challenges in contacting the private landlord of that property, it had contacted the environmental health team at the local council for help. It also considered enforcement action before it discovered the private landlord had already rerouted the pipes from the front to the rear of the property. It noted that a multiagency approach was required and as a result it had taken some time to resolve the issue. It offered to compensate the resident for damaged belongings in addition to compensation of £200 offered, for the delays and inconvenience caused.

Events after the complaints process ended

  1. The resident referred his complaint to us on 1 November 2024. He remainedunhappy and said that while the standing water issue was fixed, water was still leaking into the cellar near the electrical consumer unit. He felt the landlord had not fully considered the extent to which his belongings hadbeen ruined and how badly he and his family had been affected. He explained he wanted compensation for the “destruction” of his property, and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. The resident reported a further leak on 18 November 2024. The landlord continued to investigate the source of the leak. On 25 March 2025, its operative attended to install the sump pump. While preparing for this, they discovered a gully under the concrete which allowed water to drain well. As a result, it concluded a sump pump was not needed. Instead, it installed an anti-back flow gully to the drain to ensure the area did not flood again. This has since resolved the issue of standing water.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident explained that landlord’s handling of the leak is impacting his health and that of his family. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
  2. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience leaks into his cellar. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The resident’s reports of a leak in the cellar

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” This includes drains and external pipes. The landlord’s tenancy agreement further enforces this.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it will respond to emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete these within 24 hours. It will complete appointable repairs within 5-20 working days. It states it will carry out inspection requests within 10 working days.
  3. The resident reported the leak on 22 November 2023. The landlord raised a surveyor’s inspection on 8 December 2023. A surveyor attended on 3 January 2024. This was 27 days after being notified of the issue, and therefore not in accordance with the landlord’s policy timescales. It is unclear why the surveyor could not attend sooner after the inspection was raised. It is noted that the Christmas period may have impacted the timeliness of the landlord’s approach. However, it should reasonably have identified this initial delay when it responded to the resident’s complaint and explained why the inspection could not take place sooner. This was a missed opportunity.
  4. The surveyor recommended the installation of a new airbrick. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that on 23 January 2024, it raised the work, but that it was not completed as it was “abandoned at tenant’s request”. It is not clear what this means and why the landlord did not reschedule the work, particularly because the resident reported the leak again on 1 February 2024. The landlord stated this work was completed on 13 August 2024. However, this is not evidenced within the repairs log. There is also no information about what caused the delay, which is a failing. The landlord should reasonably have ensured that information relating to why the initial appointment was cancelled, why it was not rescheduled and why the work could not take place sooner was accurately recorded. This would have ensured that it had a clear audit trail to support its actions.
  5. The evidence shows that between 3 January 2024 and 20 June 2024, the landlord carried out no further inspections or repairs. It is not clear why there was a significant period of inactivity or that there was an unavoidable reason for this delay. The landlord commissioned an asbestos survey on 20 June 2024. There is no prior reference to asbestos in the evidence, so it is unclear when the need for this survey was established. Information relating to this should reasonably have been recorded. However, on 4 July 2024, it was confirmed there was no asbestos detected.
  6. On 13 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to investigate the cellar due to damp. It is not clear what prompted this communication exchange; however, it is noted that the landlord had not undertaken any works to resolve the initial leak that had been reported by the resident at this time. The landlord assignedroutinepriority to this job, and it attended the property on 24 August 2024. This was in accordance with its policyin terms of timescales. However, it is not clear what repair, if any was carried out on this visit or what was found on inspection. The repairs logs show the landlord raised an emergency repair on 27 August 2024, however there is no further information about what happened. This was not appropriate and therefore it has not been possible to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately.
  7. Over the course of approximately 9 months between the resident’s initial reports of a leak and his complaint, there is very little evidence demonstrating what action the landlord took and why. There is also no evidence to suggest that there was a legitimate reason for the delay in resolving the issue the resident had reported.
  8. The resident made his complaint on 29 August 2024, which prompted the landlord to investigate his concerns about the leak further. It arranged to send its own surveyor to assess the leak on 13 September 2024. This was appropriate and took place reasonably promptly. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of its overall plan to monitor the leak until the resident chased it twice. There is no evidence to show that the landlord explained to the resident what the monitoring would entail. Had it done so, it could have helped managed his expectations and potentially given him some reassurance about the matter given the issue had been outstanding for 9 months. This was a failing.
  9. During September and October 2024, the landlord considered a number of options as a resolution in response to the resident’s unhappiness with the wait and monitor approach it had proposed. The landlord took 24 days to decide on what course of action it wanted to take. This was overall reasonable given that this was not a straightforward repair. However, it is noted that the time taken to reach this decision compounded the resident’s distress given how long the leak had been outstanding.
  10. The landlord considered investigating the drainage to understand whether the water was ground water or sewage. It is unclear why the landlord did not seek to establish this sooner given the hazards associated with coming into contact with sewage or waste water. It initially concluded that because it would need a detailed drainage map and access to at least 6 properties, this would not be a practical course of action. It was appropriate and reasonable for it to consider the challenges of this course of action.
  11. The landlord also considered installing a sump pump. There is evidence to show it considered a number of factors such as the associated costs and that the cellar was an inhabitable room. It also noted that installing a sump pump would not resolve the leak, however the surveyor suggested it could alleviate the symptoms.
  12. On 17 October 2024, it contacted its drainage contractor to arrange dye testing. This was in a bid to establish the source of the leak. This was carried out over 18 and 19 October 2024. This established that there was a suspected broken pipe within the foul line of the neighbour’s property. This was causing a leak into the resident’s cellar.
  13. The landlord spoke to the utility company, which was reasonable. However, it was informed that this was a private matter between the landlord and the private landlord of the neighbouring property. Following this, the landlord took appropriate steps to contact the private landlord. This included leaving contact details with the tenants and contacting environmental health for assistance. It also considered legal action to take enforcement action against the neighbourin the event that they did not cooperate. While this was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, the landlord failed to update the resident. During discussions with the resident on 30 October 2024 about the complaint, the landlord learned that a builder for the private landlord had already attended and diverted the pipe,which resolved the issue.If the landlord had engaged with the resident in an appropriate and timely manner, it may have become aware of this sooner.
  14. The landlord also raised an urgent job for a specialist contractor to install the sump pump on 22 October 2024. The specialist contractor attended on 31 October 2024 to assess the job. It concluded that there was not enough standing water to warrant installing a pump. While this may have been disappointing for the resident to learn. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its specialist contractor. Following this, it arranged to clear the standing water using its drainage contractor, which was a reasonable and appropriate response.
  15. The resident raised concerns about the leak being near the electrical consumer unit when he made his initial report. We have seen no evidence which demonstrates that the resident’s concerns about electrical safety were considered further by the landlord. This was inappropriate. Within an internal email of 16 September 2024, it was noted that “there are electrics at just below ceiling level in the chimney alcove so little to no risk to them from flooding”. It is unclear if this was in relation to the electrical consumer unit. Nevertheless, this was nearly a year after the resident first raised concerns about the leak and the potential impact of this on the electrical consumer unit. The landlord also failed to address this issue in its complaint responses. The resident told us from his recollection an electrician visited to check the unit after October 2024. It is unclear what the outcome of this was. As such we will make an order below for a post inspection survey of the unit.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repair once the complaint was made was appropriate and reasonable. Prior to this its handling of matters was inappropriate. The evidence suggests that the landlord was compelled to take action as a result of the complaint, and this should not have been the case. In addition to failing to take timely action, the landlord did not keep the resident updated regularly. This compounded the resident’s feelings of distress and inconvenience. The landlord also failed to adequately investigate the resident’s concerns about the proximity of the leak to the electrical consumer unit. As a result, we have found there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the leak.
  17. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it appropriately acknowledged that it had delayed in taking action to resolve the matter. It offered £200 compensation for delays, the inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble incurred by the resident. However, given the failings identified, we do not consider this to be a proportionate amount. We order the landlord to pay a further £200 in addition to the £200 it offered. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident.
  18. The landlord has also offered to reimburse the resident for damaged belongings. We understand that it has already offered to compensate for items with receipts and for items without receipts it has offered to pay up to the value of £50 per item in in accordance with its compensation policy. This is reasonable.

The associated complaint

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
  2. The resident raised his concerns about the leak being located near the electrical consumer unit in his complaint. The stage 1 and 2 responses made no reference to this. Therefore, the landlord missed a vital opportunity to investigate this issue, assess its handling of this issue, and provide a response to this. Its failure to not address this issue was not appropriate.
  3. The resident also informed the landlord that he had purchased a wet vac at a cost of £70. This was noted in the stage 2 response. However, the response did not address this point. It should reasonably have considered what its position was in relation to this and whether it was prepared to reimburse the resident for the cost of purchasing this.
  4. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to provide a response to this issue now. We have also ordered it to pay compensation of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to respond to this sooner. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have caused an adverse impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the cellar.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident a further £250 compensation in addition to its final offer of £200. This comprises of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the cellar.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
    1. Provide a written response to the resident in relation to his concerns about the leak being close to the electrical consumer unit and its position in relation to the resident purchasing a wet vac. It should confirm whether it is prepared to reimburse the costs of this.
    2. Complete an inspection of the electrical consumer unit in the cellar. A copy of the report and its findings should be provided to the resident. If any further work is required, the landlord should detail what that will be and when it will be completed.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must complete a post inspection survey of the cellar and the associated leak. A copy of the report and its findings should be provided to the resident. If any further work is required, the landlord should detail what that will be and when it will be completed.
  3. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should arrange to meet with the resident to carry out an inventory of damaged items and make further compensation payments in line with its compensation policy. It should also arrange for the safe disposal of damaged items, as it previously offered to do so.