We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

One Manchester Limited (202329265)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329265

One Manchester Limited

23 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:
    1. The resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen.
    2. The resident’s reports about graffiti.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom terraced house and has lived there since April 2015.
  2. On 29 September 2022, the resident reported issues with her kitchen cupboards and asked for the graffiti on a wall to be removed. The resident raised a complaint on 21 April 2023 because she said the landlord had not contacted her to resolve the issues.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It said that although an inspection had been arranged, no further action was taken. It arranged a full inspection of the kitchen for 21 June 2023. It also said that the graffiti had been removed 3 days earlier and apologised for the service provided.
  4. The resident initially attempted to escalate her complaint with the Ombudsman on 21 November 2023. She said she was unhappy that the works to the kitchen had not been completed, and the graffiti remained. The Ombudsman advised the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 with the landlord, as the case had not completed the internal complaint process (ICP). It is unclear when the resident requested the complaint to be escalated but the landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 2 February 2024.
  5. On 29 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for poor service and awarded a total of £800 in compensation. It acknowledged that the graffiti was not fully removed in May 2023 and said it would be removed by 8 March 2024. It also said that a manager would contact the resident to arrange the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 April 2024 because the replacement of her kitchen had not been completed and the graffiti was still outstanding. The landlord completed the kitchen replacement in March 2025. The graffiti is still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen.

  1. The resident reported issues with the outer coating of the kitchen cupboards chipping and coming off on 29 September 2022 and asked for the issue to be investigated. There was no evidence of any contact with the resident, and it is unclear when an inspection took place, though evidence suggests this took place in November 2022. The landlord’s repair policy would classify this as an appointable repair and as such, repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The policy also said that residents would be informed about progress with the repairs as they develop. The landlord failed to complete repairs within 20 working days, though the inspection may have taken place within this period as the evidence is unclear on when the inspection took place. Nevertheless, there was a failing as the landlord also failed to provide updates to the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 February 2023 to request an update. The landlord provided no update and there was no further action on the case until 21 April 2023, when the resident raised a complaint. She said:
    1. She’d reported issues in September 2022 and November 2022 but heard nothing back. There was no evidence provided of any contact in November 2022.
    2. The landlord said it would call her back within 48 hours every time she called, but this never happened. There was no evidence provided of any call records between the resident and landlord.
    3. The landlord had told her that the issue would be passed to kitchen planners due to damaged worktops and a tap needed replacing. Repair issues concerning the tap would have greater impact for sanitation purposes than the aesthetic issues of chipped cupboards, but there was no evidence provided about when the landlord was alerted to the issue or what action was taken.
  3. The Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. Though the landlord provided records of repair logs, there were clear service failings as repairs had not been completed, and the lack of contact was a missed opportunity for the landlord to attempt to resolve the case before a complaint was raised.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 April 2023 and requested photos of the damaged kitchen cupboards, worktop, and tap. Although it is reasonable for the landlord to assess the repairs, there is no evidence that the landlord checked with the resident whether the tap was in working order in the interim or that she had alternative facilities. This was a failure, as the resident had reported the issue with the tap from at least 2 months previously and a repairs should have been completed within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It apologised and said that although the kitchen repairs had been inspected, no work had been completed. It also said that the kitchen was not scheduled for replacement, and a full inspection was arranged for 21 June 2023. This was completed as arranged, though following this no update was provided to the resident about repairs and no further action was taken.
  6. On 12 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. There is no evidence that one was provided and there was no further contact until the resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2023. The resident told the landlord that no works had been completed and that no one had contacted her. The landlord replied on 11 October 2023 and said that the job was cancelled in July and should have been rescheduled. The landlord should have had better oversight / monitoring practices to prevent works from being cancelled for 3 months without noticing. The landlord failed to apologise for the cancellation. Its actions and responses during this period were not deemed reasonable.
  7. The landlord rescheduled the appointment to 15 November 2023. There is no evidence that the appointment was completed as scheduled. The resident told the Ombudsman on 2 January 2024 that:
    1. The landlord had sent joiners out 3 times and surveyors 3 times to the property. They took photographs, but no work was completed. The landlord provided no evidence to the Ombudsman that any surveyor attended the property.
    2. The kitchen tap was rusty and leaking and had damaged shelves inside the cupboards.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 February 2024. The stage 2 complaint response was completed on 29 February 2024. Within the response, the landlord apologised for the poor level of service and awarded £400 in compensation due to the ongoing repair issues with the kitchen. The compensation awarded and response provided was deemed reasonable in consideration of the issues that had occurred.
  9. The landlord also agreed to replace the kitchen in the stage 2 complaint response. Although the landlord did not provide a specific timescale for this, the resident has told this office that the kitchen replacement was not completed until March 2025, over a year after the stage 2 decision.
  10. Though it is accepted that a replacement of a kitchen would take longer than a standard repair, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide updates about the timescale for replacement. The landlord contacted the resident to provide an update in December 2024, around 10 months after the stage 2 complaint response was sent. The landlord’s continued poor communication with the resident during this period did not demonstrate good customer service.
  11. It is also accepted that the initial repairs request was of an aesthetic nature, and although they should have been dealt with in line with the repairs policy, the impact would be minimal to the resident. However, the resident made the landlord aware of issues with the kitchen tap in February 2023 which were never addressed until the kitchen was replaced in March 2025. This had a greater impact as the resident had to deal with leaks and damages to the interior of the kitchen cupboards for a long period.
  12. We consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her kitchen and requests for a kitchen replacement. Given that the resident had already waited a significant length of time to progress the repairs to her kitchen, in the Ombudsman’s view, any remedial action taken by the landlord should have been done quickly. It was unreasonable that the works were not completed until a further year. 
  13. In accordance with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 to account for the additional time the resident had to wait until works were completed. This increased the distress and inconvenience already experienced by the resident.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of graffiti.

  1. The resident reported graffiti on a wall on 29 September 2022. An appointment was booked on 28 November 2022 with evidence provided that the job was attended, though not completed. There was no further action on the case until 3 March 2023, when the landlord’s internal notes mentioned needing to investigate the works around the graffiti that were supposed to be raised and contacting the resident. There was no evidence that the landlord followed up with any action.
  2. Although this issue had been ongoing for almost 6 months and was not acceptable, it is acknowledged that there is no evidence that the resident raised the issue again from September 2022 until March 2023. Therefore, the landlord may not have known this was still an issue until it was raised again in March. However, works should have been monitored by the landlord, and its records should have identified that the job was outstanding.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2023 to complain about the repairs and the lack of action. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 days later and said it would raise it with the repair team. It also asked for pictures of the graffiti and made further requests for pictures on 4 May 2023. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it acknowledged and replied to the complaint within its complaint policy timescale.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It apologised for the poor service and said that it had removed the graffiti the weekend before. There was no evidence provided that the removal had been completed and no evidence that the resident complained about this again until she escalated her complaint to stage 2 in January 2024. While the resident didn’t follow matters up for a few months, the landlord should have been aware that the job was incomplete and should have arranged for follow up works to completely remove the graffiti. This was an oversight that could have avoided a complaint escalation and could have saved the resident from frustration and needing to take further time and trouble chasing the issue herself.
  5. Within the stage 2 complaint response on 29 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged it attended the resident’s property to remove the graffiti in May 2023 but did not complete the job as the operator ran out of water. The landlord also apologised for the poor level of service and awarded £400 in compensation due to the graffiti removal not being completed in May 2023. The compensation awarded was deemed reasonable in consideration of the issues that had occurred.
  6. The stage 2 complaint response also agreed to remove the graffiti by 8 March 2024. The resident reported the issue on 29 September 2022. However, the resident has told us the issue remains almost 3 years after it was first reported. This is not reasonable or acceptable. The landlord should have followed through with all complaint resolutions to show the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
  7. We consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the removal of the graffiti. The stage 2 decision was completed over 18 months ago and the issue remains. The resident has told us that the prolonged wait for this issue to be resolved has been frustrating as the graffiti has been present for around 10 years, but she has spent the last 3 years contacting the landlord trying to resolve this issue unsuccessfully.
  8. In accordance with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £200 to the resident for its poor communication and failure to complete the promised actions to remove the graffiti in March 2024. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s previous redress in relation to the issues was considered reasonable, however the issues have continued to date which is not deemed acceptable. This figure reflects the landlord’s previous redress in February 2024 and the fact that the resident has waited a further 19 months and the issue remains.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling reports about the condition of the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling reports of graffiti.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the delays in completing the kitchen replacement and failure to remove graffiti for 3 years.
    2. Completely remove the graffiti on the property.
    3. In addition to the £800 that the landlord has already paid, the landlord must pay a further £500 in compensation directly to the resident. This includes:
      1. £300 for the poor communication and delays in completing the kitchen replacement.
      2. £200 for the poor communication and failure to remove graffiti since September 2022.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.