One Manchester Limited (202402238)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom flat and has since moved to an alternative property with the same landlord. This case relates to his former tenancy. He complained about outstanding repairs, missed contractor appointments, and issues bidding on different properties.
2. A representative managed the complaint on the resident’s behalf. For ease and clarity, we refer to “the resident” throughout this decision.

What the complaint is about

3. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Reports of technical problems with an online application used to bid for properties.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
      1. Reports of problems with an online application used to bid for properties.
      2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were avoidable delays completing repairs within the property. The landlord’s communication was poor, and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. However, it recognised and apologised for its shortcomings and offered reasonable compensation.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

6. The resident said that the landlord’s actions harmed his mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident told us he wanted compensation for repair issues dating back to 2015. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in October 2023 and the related responses.
8. In the resident’s communication with us, he referred to several repair issues in his new home. We are unable to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to. There is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about these matters. We have, therefore, not considered this further. He may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord directly.

What we have considered

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
10. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is. This depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
11. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it aims to attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and urgent repairs within 5 working days. It schedules appointable repairs within 20 working days. Major repairs have variable timescales depending on complexity.
12. The landlord provided sufficient evidence about the repairs for this investigation, and we found no issues with its information management.
13. Records show that the landlord raised kitchen repairs following an inspection but missed the first appointment due to no access and the second due to an administrative error. The resident requested all repairs within the property to be completed together, which led to delays due to contractor scheduling. It later identified additional damage to the units and arranged a full kitchen replacement, scheduled for March 2024. It was appropriate for it to clarify its position and provide a clear timescale.
14. The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised and scheduled repairs for lighting, bathroom fittings, and the door spy hole. It is evident contractors missed or rescheduled some appointments, causing frustration to the resident. Additionally, we note that confusion over resident-installed items contributed towards a delay. Following the initial complaint, the landlord scheduled the outstanding repairs within a reasonable period.
15. The landlord’s repair history and contact records demonstrate the resident reported issues with the windows over several years and the landlord failed to manage the repairs in line with its policy. It also did not communicate effectively or manage his expectations. At stage 1, it explained it had decided to include the property in a pilot window modification scheme. At stage 2 it said it aimed to progress window replacements within 6 weeks of measurements being taken. This did not progress as promised, and there were further shortcomings in the landlord’s communication.
16. After completing a damp survey on 10 January 2024, the landlord found no high moisture levels. Staff linked minor mould to trapped air beneath vinyl flooring laid over wooden floors. They explained that a breathable layer is normally required under non-breathable coverings. It is not clear from the evidence available who installed the vinyl flooring. Additionally, it advised the resident to stop drying washing on a line he had set up in the lounge. The landlord relied on the professional opinion of its qualified staff and contractors, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
17. The resident explained that he had to use electric heaters at personal cost because of ongoing heating issues and the poor condition of the windows. We recognise that multiple failed repair visits caused significant disruption and distress. The resident experienced several repair delays and felt ignored by the landlord’s staff and contractors throughout the process.
18. The landlord failed to maintain effective communication with the resident during this case. It did not provide regular updates, and he spent considerable time chasing for information and progression of the repairs. These communication failures worsened the situation and increased the impact. It also damaged the relationship between the parties.
19. Within its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £2,000 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, for cases where there have been a series of significant failures which have had a detrimental impact on a resident.

 What we have not considered

20. The application mentioned in the complaint is a local authority online system for allocating social housing. We cannot consider complaints about the local authority’s role in this process. This falls within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, we can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports.

What we have considered

21. The resident said that 3-bedroom properties were not showing up for him on the online bidding system, however they were showing for his neighbours.
22. The landlord provided an audit trail of the entries submitted on the online system. At stage 1, it informed the resident that his application was active, and he could bid on 3 and 4-bedroom properties. System records from 9 November 2023 show a “size override” which set his bedroom need to 3. The landlord has not explained how 4-bedroom bidding was possible in this context. However, a note on the system states he should not be bypassed for 3-bedroom homes, as the family was willing to accept one despite a 4-bedroom need.
23. At stage 2, the landlord explained that the resident’s representative had arranged for someone from the online system to assist with the issues, which was appropriate given its limited access. It advised the resident to let it know if the problems persisted, showing it took the matter seriously.
24. The landlord provided limited evidence of its communication with the local authority about the issues experienced by the resident, which reflects a shortcoming in its record keeping. However, the available information is insufficient to find fault in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

25. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20. Landlords should not exceed these timeframes without good reason.
26. The landlord responded within 15 working days at stage 1 and 31 working days at stage 2. It did not demonstrate that it informed the resident about extending the expected response date. This was a minor shortcoming in its complaint handling which did not cause a serious detriment. While this does not warrant a failure finding, we have raised this as a learning point.

Learning

27. The landlord can improve its service by:
    1. Communicating more clearly and consistently, especially when repair timeframes change.
    2. Ensuring it schedules repairs and follows through, avoiding administrative errors that lead to delays.
    3. Responding to complaints within expected timeframes and informing residents when it needs an extension.