Manchester City Council (202505558)

Decision
Case ID	202505558
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Manchester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom property. In March 2025, she reported damp and mould in her home and said the landlord had failed to address the underlying cause for several years. She also asked the landlord to compensate her for damage to her belongings caused by the issue, and for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The landlord’s offer of redress fairly resolved the complaint about its handling of damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of damp and mould in the property

The landlord did not keep adequate damp and mould records or complete all repairs within its stated timescales, and it did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about health. However, it apologised for its delays, set out learning to improve its future handling of repairs, and offered compensation that aligned with our Remedies Guidance. This provided reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints or meet the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at either stage. However, both complaint responses were clear and explained the landlord’s position. These minor shortcomings did not disadvantage the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £1,050 compensation it previously offered for damage to decoration, distress and inconvenience. The finding of reasonable redress is based on this payment being made to the resident.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether the damp and mould repairs carried out in May 2025 have been effective. It should arrange any further inspection or follow-on works needed to ensure the ventilation and condition of the home are satisfactory. It should then update the resident in writing on the outcome.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to review and update any information it holds about the household’s health conditions or vulnerabilities. This will help ensure it considers any relevant needs when managing future repairs or damp and mould.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 March 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She said there was damp in all rooms of her home and that she had become unwell because of the property’s condition. She explained that, over the years, she had thrown out clothing and furniture damaged by mould and wanted the landlord to compensate her for these losses. She also asked the landlord to carry out a full survey of the property and complete lasting repairs.
27 March 2025	The landlord inspected the resident’s home. It found that the cause of mould growth was due to trapped moisture in the property without effective ventilation. It raised repairs to upgrade of extractor fans, clean and unblock trickle vents on the windows and doors, install a ventilation vent, and reseal the windows.
1 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It noted she had reported damp and mould issues since 2018 and said it had carried out several inspections and repairs, including mould washes, leak tracing, and servicing extractor fans. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in fully investigating her concerns. It also said it was carrying out a full service review and introducing a new approach where surveyors would be responsible for service delivery in a specific neighbourhood. The landlord offered the resident £550 in compensation.
3 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the compensation did not fairly reflect how long damp and mould had been present in her home or the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. She also said a member of her household had asthma and experienced regular chest infections because of the issue.
2 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had considered the resident’s request for additional compensation and would increase its offer to £1,050 in total.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She said she felt ignored and let down, as the landlord continued to clean and paint over mould rather than address the underlying cause.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord acknowledged the resident had reported damp and mould for several years. However, its records are limited prior to 2025, which prevents a full assessment of how it handled a longstanding issue. While it is reasonable that older records, dating back over 14 years, may no longer be available due to the passage of time, by 2023 the landlord had introduced its damp and mould policy. The policy commits to keeping clear, accurate and reliable records of all damp, condensation and mould issues. The available evidence from this point does not show that this standard was met. The absence of inspection notes or detailed repair records showing when a repair was raised and completed, makes it unclear what action the landlord took or how it monitored progress. This lack of information limits transparency, weakens accountability, and shows the landlord did not act in line with its policy.
The landlord’s records show that in August 2023 the resident reported that her bathroom extractor fan was not working. The landlord did not raise a job to install a new fan until April 2024, 8 months later, when it also raised a job to carry out a mould wash in all rooms. This shows damp and mould were still present in the property at that time. Under the landlord’s 2023 repairs policy, it had a responsibility to complete all standard repairs within 3 hours to 3 weeks, depending on the severity of the issue. The landlord therefore did not act within its published timescales. The delay in progressing this repair also shows the landlord did not take reasonable steps to implement a repair solution that could have assisted with managing and controlling humidity and condensation, as required by its damp and mould policy.
The resident’s complaint in March 2025 raised renewed concerns about damp and mould. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property 2 weeks later, which was a prompt response and within its 2025 repair timescale for routine repairs set at 28 days. The landlord identified what it believed to be the source of the problem as poor ventilation and trapped moisture and raised several jobs to address these issues. It also communicated its findings and the actions it planned to take through its stage 1 complaint response. This was in line with its damp and mould policy, which requires effective communication with residents about the action to be taken and the timescales for completion.
The landlord completed a mould wash a week later, in early April 2025, and installed a ventilation unit in mid-May 2025, both within timescales it had committed to. This demonstrated that it took practical steps to address the reported damp and mould and, in these instances, acted in line with its policy commitments to implement remedial repairs that eradicate damp, including managing and controlling humidity and condensation.
However, when the landlord scheduled works to upgrade the extractor fans, unblock trickle vents, and reseal windows, it told the resident they would be completed by mid-April 2025. These works were not completed until mid-May 2025, which was outside the expectation it had set. There is also no evidence it explained the reason for the delay or provided an update. This lack of communication likely caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident, particularly given the ongoing concerns about the condition of her home.
The resident told the landlord that damp and mould were affecting her household’s health including regular chest infections and worsening asthma. The landlord’s records do not show that it acknowledged these concerns or took any additional steps in response. The potential detriment of damp and mould to a person’s health has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould. The report explains that the longer damp and mould remain unresolved, the greater the impact can be on health.
In this context, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns into account when managing the case. The evidence does not show that it checked whether the household required any additional support or provided reassurance about how it would manage the issue. This was not a reasonable response in the circumstances, so we have made a recommendation to address this.
The landlord offered the resident £1050 compensation. This compromised of £400 for damage to decoration and £650 for distress and inconvenience. The resident also said she had thrown away personal belongings because of damp and mould. The landlord did not address this part of her claim. Its compensation policy says it will only consider reimbursement for damaged items where there is evidence of the damage and the cost, such as photographs and proof of ownership. In this case, the resident had already disposed of the items and did not provide any evidence to support her claim, which limited the landlord’s ability to assess it. While the landlord could have acknowledged the claim more clearly, it was reasonable that it did not make an award for personal belongings in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Additionally, the £400 offered for decoration was a reasonable contribution towards putting right damage caused by the damp and mould, particularly as the resident did not submit any evidence to support a higher amount. The £650 offered for distress and inconvenience also aligned with our Remedies Guidance, which sets out our approach to resolving disputes. That guidance suggests landlords should offer awards of £600 to £1,000 to recognise the significant impact on a resident as a result of its failings. The landlord’s overall compensation offer therefore broadly aligned with what we would have ordered it to pay the resident if it had not done so already. It should pay this compensation to the resident now if it has not done so already.
Finally, the landlord acknowledged that it should have managed the resident’s concerns better, it apologised and set out learning actions to improve its future handling of repairs. Taken together, the compensation and the learning commitments mean the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to put things right. In light of this, we have found reasonable redress in its handling of damp and mould in the property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
2. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and it issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after the complaint was submitted. This did not meet the Code’s requirements to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a full response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, or agree an extension in advance.
3. The stage 1 complaint response itself was detailed and clear, although as mentioned above, the landlord did not fully address all points the resident raised.
4. There is also no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It issued its stage 2 response in 21 working days, which was slightly outside the Code’s 20-day target, but this did not materially disadvantage the resident. The response was clear, addressed the issues raised and explained the landlord’s position.
Although there were minor shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, we have seen no evidence that these caused any detriment to the resident. We therefore find no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records in 2025 provided clear inspection notes, repair updates and job outcomes, which supported a transparent understanding of the repair journey. It should continue to maintain this standard of record keeping across all damp and mould cases to ensure it can demonstrate how issues are assessed, monitored and resolved.

Claims for damaged belongings

The case highlights the value of the landlord clearly explaining what evidence it needs when residents report damaged belongings, even where items have already been disposed of. Providing a clear explanation or signposting to insurance arrangements would help ensure residents understand their options in future cases.