Manchester City Council (202510566)

Decision
Case ID	202510566
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Manchester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats (the block) owned and managed by the landlord. On 27 April 2025, the resident’s car was damaged in the block carpark. He reported the incident on 29 April 2025. He then complained to the landlord about its failure to control antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the block and about other issues on or about 1 May 2025.

What the complaint is about

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB at the block.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB at the block.
2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s actions were appropriate. It responded fully to the resident’s reports of ASB. It has investigated appropriately and agreed to install CCTV to help prevent future incidents and identify perpetrators.

The Complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint promptly, in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 April 2025	The resident’s car was damaged by an object thrown into the car park at the block.
29 April 2025	The resident reported the incident to the landlord and complained formally about it.
2 May 2025	The landlord launched an ASB investigation with the police.
6 May 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said: It was sorry to hear about the incident involving the resident’s car. It was investigating this incident under its ASB procedure. It had inspected CCTV footing but the objects seem to have been thrown from the rear balcony of the building and so the throw was not visible. This appeared to be a “one off” incident but it would continue to investigate.
25 May 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
27 May 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. He said: The landlord’s response to the incident had been inadequate. The incident had cost him money both in repair costs and increased premiums.
29 May 2025	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said: Its investigation into the incident was ongoing. The police also continued to investigate. The landlord had arranged nightly security patrols. It had commenced a review of CCTV at the block and intended to upgrade it once it understood the cost. It was sorry about the cost to the resident. However, it continued to seek the perpetrator who would be made to pay. It could not reimburse him but would offer him £150 from its Community Living Fund. It would also offer him a garage free of charge for a year. He could then rent it at the standard rate. It had written to all residents to say that throwing of any objects was unacceptable behaviour.
16 June 2025	The resident asked us to investigate on 16 June 2025. He said the landlord’s investigation had been inadequate. He said he wanted financial compensation for emotional distress and financial loss.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

We may not, under usual circumstances, consider complaints which, in our opinion are made prior to a complainant having exhausted their landlord’s complaints procedure.
In his complaint to us, the resident complained about various issues as well as the landlord’s handling of his reports of damage to his car. He mentioned concerns about the standard of the service provided by the utility provider at the block. He also raised concerns about the way the landlord handled his move from his previous property, also owned by the landlord, to his current home. He also said that there had been frequent floods at that previous property and the landlord handled these badly. He added that there had been other incidents of ASB not linked to the incident involving his car.
The resident did not complain about any of these issues in his complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2025. There are no reasons that would allow us to investigate those parts of his complaint and so we have not done so.

Reports of ASB

It is not our role to determine whether the ASB alleged occurred or who is responsible. Instead, we assess how a landlord dealt with reports of ASB and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice. We also consider whether it behaved reasonably in all the circumstances.
When the resident discovered that his car had been damaged he was understandably angry. He wanted to catch the perpetrator and he was concerned about the cost to him of the incident in repair costs and increased insurance premiums. He reported the incident to the police and to the landlord.
The resident came to believe that the residents of a particular flat were responsible for the incident. He asked the landlord to take action against them. It said it was unable to accept his circumstantial evidence as sufficient to act against those residents. It explained this to him. The police had the same objections to his evidence saying that, without some tangible evidence they could not arrest the resident’s suspect.
The resident was equally angry with police and landlord and did not seem to recognise their separate roles in his emails. As the Housing Ombudsman, we have no jurisdiction over the police. We only investigate landlords.
The resident states that there had been numerous incidents of ASB at the block in the period running up to the incident of 27 April 2025. He does not accept the landlord’s position which is that this appeared to be a “one off incident”.
We are not able to reach a view on whether this was a “one off” incident or not. This is, in any event, a matter of opinion. We have seen no evidence of other similar incidents and the resident has not suggested that the other ASB he mentioned involved objects thrown into the car park.
Our role is to look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s report, not to consider whether the landlord should have had CCTV in place prior to the incident. we cannot say what security measures a landlord should have or find that existing systems are inadequate. We can only look at the landlord’s response to a resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that, on receiving a report of ASB, it will, interview the reporter to establish the facts. It will form an action plan. It will often carry out a wider investigation and cooperate with the police or other agencies.
The policy says that, in the early stage of any investigation, the civil standard of proof will apply. This means that, in order to take further action, it must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that someone is responsible for ASB before it takes action against them.
The landlord continued to investigate, in conjunction with the police throughout May 2025. It set up nightly security patrols to control similar behaviour.
In our view, the landlord’s response was appropriate and proportionate. It investigated over a lengthy period. It looked into installing new CCTV. It warned residents that throwing objects would not be tolerated. It cooperated with the police in seeking evidence. It also apologised to the resident and offered him £150 as a gesture of good will and a garage rent free for a year. This was, overall, a good response.
We understand the resident’s frustration that he faces increased insurance and had to pay for repairs. However, as the landlord stated in an email to the resident, residents used the car park at their own risk. It said that it sympathised with his predicament but did not accept that it had been to blame.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:

The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales which says that landlords should provide a complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint. It must provide a stage 2 response within working 20 days of a request for a stage 2 review. It can ask for a maximum of 20 extra working days to deal with complex complaints which require further investigation.
In this case, the resident complained on 29 April 2025. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 May 2025, well within its service standard. He asked to escalate his complaint on 27 May 2025. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 May 2025, again, well within the prescribed time limit.

Learning

The landlord’s collation of its dealings with the resident was clear and appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was good.

Communication

The landlord responded to the resident promptly.