One Manchester Limited (202335229)

Decision
Case ID	202335229
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Manchester Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	18 February 2026

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy agreement was a 12-month fixed term tenancy. The property was a rent to buy property. From at least February 2023 the resident reported damp, mould and condensation around the windows. The landlord attended on multiple occasions and in August 2023 it noted a specialist contractor needed to attend. The resident gave notice to end his tenancy in April 2024. He asked the landlord to reduce his notice period because of the damp and mould issues and the impact on him. The landlord declined his request the following month.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request to reduce his notice period.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its response to his request to reduce his notice period.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated formal complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There were communication failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reduce his notice period. It apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy to put things right.
7. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It offered reasonable financial redress to put things right but did not take action to resolve the substantive issue, and this was only resolved by the resident moving out.
8. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of both of the resident’s stage 1 complaints. It did not acknowledge these or offer redress to put things right.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 March 2026
	Case review order The landlord must complete a case review to identify the failures in its handling of the damp and mould and any learning it has implemented/ can implement to avoid similar failures happening in the future. The landlord must confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident and us.	No later than 01 April 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.	No later than 18 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 September 2023	The resident made his first complaint. He said the landlord had not taken action regarding the windows since its visit in August 2023. He felt these had been poorly fitted with not enough insulation and were causing damp.
9 October 2023	The landlord’s stage 1 response to the first complaint said it believed the cause of the damp and mould around the windows was condensation. It had arranged a surveyor inspection and suggested works it could do once it knew the outcome of this. It apologised that the service received was not satisfactory.
8 November 2023	The resident escalated the first complaint saying no progress had been made to resolve the damp and mould, which was affecting his health. He asked the landlord to confirm an action plan to address this and pay compensation.
6 December 2023	The landlord’s stage 2 response to the first complaint acknowledged there had been failures in its handling of the damp and mould. It said it wanted to complete a specialist survey and would agree an action plan once this had been done. It apologised and offered £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
22 May 2024	The resident made his second complaint. He said it had taken the landlord an unreasonable amount of time to respond to his request to reduce his notice period. He asked it to reconsider its decision.
19 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint. It said the complaint was not upheld because it had acted correctly and in accordance with the law in respect of the notice period.
22 July 2024	The resident asked to escalate the second complaint.
17 September 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response to the second complaint confirmed the notice period it held him to was in accordance with the law. It said because of the impact of the damp and mould, it should have exercised its discretion and  agreed to reduce the notice period. It apologised it did not do this and offered £200 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us the compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient because of the impact on his health, which is ongoing to date. He said he had to move because of the damp and mould, which impacted him financially.

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 resident’s request to reduce his notice period
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. When the resident’s 12-month fixed term tenancy came to an end it automatically continued as a monthly periodic tenancy. The monthly period started on the 12th of each month and ended on the 11th of the following month. Common law in England says tenants must give one full months’ notice for these types of tenancies. This must conclude on either the first or last day of the rental period.
10. In this case, the resident gave notice to end his tenancy on 26 April 2024 and the landlord told him this would end on 11 June 2024. As he was required to give a minimum of 1 months’ notice, ending on the 11th or 12th of the month, the notice period calculated was correct. The landlord was not obligated to reduce the resident’s notice period. However, it was appropriate that it considered his request and responded to this.
11. The resident asked the landlord to reduce his notice period on 26 April 2024. The landlord’s website says it aims to answer any questions about rent to buy properties via email within 5 working days. The landlord formally responded to this request 17 working days later, on 22 May 2024. This was more than 3 times the committed timescale and too long considering the nature of the request. During the period of delay the resident spent time and effort chasing a response on at least 3 occasions, which was frustrating for him.
12. We understand it was disappointing for the resident that the landlord did not agree his initial request to reduce the notice period. However, as it was not obligated to do so, it was entitled to reach this decision. While the landlord told the resident it had declined his request, it gave no reasons for this. It would have been appropriate for it to explain its decision making so he was reassured it had properly considered his request.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 response subsequently said it should have agreed the request. As this was a discretionary decision, it was not a failure that the landlord had not previously agreed this. Its change of decision showed it had reconsidered the matter and was taking the resident’s concerns seriously, which was appropriate. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to change its mind and doing so was not indicative of a failure.
14. While there was no failure in the landlord’s decision, there were communication failures in its handling of the resident’s request. At stage 2 the landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
15. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £101 and £300 for service failures that cause moderate disruption. Considering the full circumstances of this matter, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified. The resident has confirmed he has received the compensation awarded so we have not made a recommendation in respect of this.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

16. The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
17. When the resident first reported condensation around the windows on 17 February 2023, the landlord attended on 18 April 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time said it would carry out an inspection to identify the cause but did not give a timescale in which it would do this. As it took the landlord around 2 months to do an inspection, this was too long and it should have attended sooner.
18. There is no evidence of the outcome of the visit in April 2023 or that the landlord considered or identified the cause of the condensation at that time. Similarly, there is no evidence it took any further action to investigate or address this. This was disappointing for the resident and contributed to the overall delay in its handling of this matter.
19. The resident reported damp around the windows in June 2023. On this occasion, the landlord attended quickly, 4 days later, and noted the resident did not give access. It is not clear from the records if the resident was told about this appointment. If he was not, it was unreasonable of the landlord to expect him to give access. As we do not know if he was made aware of the appointment, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
20. The resident made a third report on 31 July 2023 and the landlord attended promptly 7 working days later. The landlord noted a specialist contractor needed to attend. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord did anything to progress this until after the resident spent time and effort chasing this up on at least 2 occasions in August and September 2023. This included raising his formal complaint.
21. The landlord inspected the property on 27 September 2023 and noted it believed the cause of the damp and mould was condensation. It gave advice to the resident about wiping this down. This was appropriate to help him understand how he could manage this situation. It agreed to arrange a further survey to test the walls for damp, which it completed 5 days later, on 2 October 2023. This was timely and showed it was taking the matter seriously.
22. We have seen photos showing damp readings were taken at this inspection but there is no written record of this. Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord confirmed the outcome in writing to the resident or told him the next steps. This resulted in him spending time and effort chasing for updates on at least 4 occasions in October and November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these contacts, which resulted in him escalating the complaint.
23. In the stage 2 response the landlord agreed to complete a specialist damp and mould survey. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy at the time which said the landlord may appoint a specialist surveyor to carry out a full damp survey. While reasonable that the landlord decided to do this, by that point it had been 10 months since the resident first reported this issue. The landlord should have considered this sooner.
24. The landlord committed on 6 December 2023 to do the specialist survey, but it did not complete this until nearly 4 months later, on 3 April 2024. This was 14 months after the resident first reported this issue. Considering the failures it had already identified, and that the resident had told it the damp and mould was affecting his health, it should have done this sooner and prioritised any works to resolve the damp and mould as quickly as possible. Its failure to do this caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord.
25. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £800 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £301 to £400 for severe disruption by service failures that had a high impact over an extended period and included communication failures. The landlord’s award of £800 is above these amounts and shows it recognised the impact on the resident over the extended period, which is positive.
26. The resident has said the damp and mould negatively affected his health and this is ongoing. We cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. This must be considered by a public liability insurance claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures and determined the financial redress offered was sufficient to address this.
27. At the time of the stage 2 response, the damp and mould issue was unresolved. While the landlord committed to do a specialist survey, it did not progress this in a timely manner and the resident has said this contributed to his decision to leave. This issue has only been resolved for the resident because he moved out and not as a result of any action by the landlord.
28. Our outcomes guidance says the substantive issue must have been resolved before we can say the landlord adequately addressed this. In this case, as the substantive issue was only resolved because the resident moved out in May 2024, the landlord did not do enough to put things right in the 15 month period it was aware of this issue. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
29. As the financial redress offered was sufficient and the resident has confirmed he received this, we have not made any orders in respect of this. However, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident and complete a case review to identify its failures and any learning it has implemented/ can implement to avoid similar failures happening in the future.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

30. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the first complaint said it would log and acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days of receipt. It would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalation request.
31. The landlord acknowledged the first stage 1 complaint in 11 working days and sent the response in 18 working days. Both of these were over the committed timescales set out in its policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 20 working days, in line with its committed response time.
32. The landlord’s complaints policy was updated in March 2024. This says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
33. The landlord acknowledged the second stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2024, 21 working days after the complaint was made. This was over the committed response time set out in its policy. During the period of delay the resident spent time and effort chasing a response on at least 1 occasion. This was frustrating for him and made him feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously. It sent the stage 1 response 20 working days after the acknowledgement. This was again over the committed timescale set out in its policy.
34. The landlord acknowledged the second stage 2 complaint on 29 July 2024, 5 working days after it was escalated. This was in line with the committed response time set out in its policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 35 working days, over the committed timescale. The stage 2 response said the landlord had agreed an extension to the deadline with the resident. This was in line with its complaints policy which says if it cannot respond within the target timescale, it may extend the deadline.
35. We have not seen evidence confirming how long the extension was for so cannot assess whether the landlord met the extended deadline. However, the landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond no later than 40 working days after the acknowledgement. As the landlord responded within this timescale and had made the resident aware of the extension, this was not a failure.
36. The delays in the landlord’s complaint handling were not significant. However, there were delays in it acknowledging and responding to both of the stage 1 complaints. Considering the cumulative effect of the failures and that the landlord did not acknowledge these or take action to put things right, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures that had a low impact and caused minor disruption.

Learning

37. The landlord should take timely action to identify the cause of damp and mould and resolve this.
38. The landlord should consider its complaint handling as part of its complaint investigations. Where it has not complied with its policy timescales, it should acknowledge this and offer appropriate redress.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord should keep detailed records of all its actions and decisions so it can account for these to residents and us, where required. In this case, there are gaps in the landlord’s records that have prevented us from making a full assessment of its actions.

Communication

40. There were failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. It should respond to requests or enquiries in a timely manner and explain its decision making. It should provide proactive updates to residents and not rely on them chasing for updates to be given.