Manchester City Council (202517123)

Background

1. During November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his windows were draughty and his underfloor heating did not work. He has multiple medical diagnoses. The property is in an extra care living scheme.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s request for repairs
   2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs
   2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Resident’s request for repairs

4. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it resolved the issue with the underfloor heating. It failed to consider whether the “poor” window design contributed to the cold conditions reported by the resident. There’s also no evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response.

Handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord failed to provide a stage 1 complaint response. It also failed to carry out an open-minded and thorough complaint investigation.

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.

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’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.

6. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported concerns with the windows and underfloor heating during November 2023. He made further reports during December 2023 and January 2024. There’s no evidence that the landlord responded, which was inappropriate. This is particularly concerning given that the resident’s reports were made during the winter months.
7. An entry on the repair logs dated 14 February 2024 said the resident had called again to chase. It noted that he was disabled and had bad circulation. A further entry dated 29 February 2024 said the resident made a further report that he had no heating. A note against the entry says a commercial heating operative was required. There’s no evidence it responded which was unreasonable. It was particularly inappropriate given that it knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities.
8. The repair logs show the resident called again on 11 March 2024 to chase. An internal email dated 13 March 2024 said works had been carried out to the underfloor heating which had been tested. It’s unclear if the landlord considered the repair to be resolved at this point. It did not reply to our email of 11 February 2026 asking if it considered the underfloor heating to be resolved at any time between November 2023 and 9 April 2025. The entry on the repair log of 11 March 2024 also noted that the resident had raised concerns about the draughty windows.
9. The repair logs show that the landlord attended the property on 15 March 2024 to inspect the windows. It confirmed the windows were sealed on the inside and that they closed against the frame. The notes suggested there may be an external issue which should be investigated. The nature of this issue is unclear.
10. It was positive that the landlord attended to assess the repairs. However, this was 4 months after the resident first reported the issues. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the underfloor heating was fully operational at this point. There’s also no evidence that the landlord considered whether the windows were unreasonably draughty. This is particularly concerning given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
11. An entry on the repair logs dated 11 April 2024 noted that the resident again reported that he had no heating. It said a temporary heater was required. On 12 April 2024 the landlord raised a works order to remove the plastic window vent and replace the double glazed unit with a larger one. Although not explicitly stated in the landlord’s records, it’s reasonable to conclude this was to reduce any draughts. On 12 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the underfloor heating was outstanding and the temporary heater he’d been given was expensive to run. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s reports of no heating which was unreasonable.
12. On 7 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs. A file note dated 7 October 2024 shows that the landlord raised an order to inspect the underfloor heating. It also intended to fit an electric convector heater in the lounge. While this was positive, it was put on notice of the issue almost a year before, and therefore its response was unreasonably delayed. The file note confirmed it was chasing the window repair which was raised 6 months prior. Again, while this action was positive, the landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed.
13. The landlord’s contractor inspected the underfloor heating on 10 October 2024. It identified the fault and said the repair would need to be allocated to a different contractor. There’s no evidence that this was progressed. The ongoing delays were unreasonable, particularly given the time of year and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
14. On 9 January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to report that joints in the window frames were not sealed properly. He said he’d taped them up to stop the draught. There’s no evidence that the landlord responded in line with its repairs service standards (introduced in November 2024) to carry out routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s inaction caused time and trouble to the resident, who raised a formal complaint on 25 February 2025 to try to resolve the repairs.
15. An internal email dated 28 February 2025 confirmed the landlord had replaced 2 double glazed units. It also said it needed to raise a new order to check the seals and investigate the cause of draughts. While this was positive, it had been 15 months since the resident first reported issues with the draughts and the internal temperature within the property.
16. An internal email of 12 March 2025 confirmed the outcome of the landlord’s inspection of the windows. It said the frames were aluminium which were “cold by nature”. It said the living room bay window sat outside the main structure of the building, which may be contributing to the issue. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered whether these factors were impacting on the temperature inside the property.
17. On 8 April 2025 the landlord inspected the property. It did not respond to our email of 11 February 2026 asking it to provide a file note or report providing details of the outcomes.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 9 April 2025 set out the works it proposed to carry out following its inspection. However, there’s no evidence that they were carried out. It failed to respond to our email of 11 February 2026 asking it to provide evidence that these works were completed. Its inaction was inappropriate because its commitment to monitoring the completion of works was part of its complaint resolution.
19. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it resolved the issue with the underfloor heating first reported during November 2023 and then chased repeatedly by the resident. We acknowledge that it fitted a wall heater in the lounge sometime after October 2024. It inspected the windows and confirmed there were no fixable faults. However, it failed to consider whether the “poor” design contributed to the cold conditions reported by the resident.
20. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management says that landlords should consider residents’ vulnerabilities when deciding on their response. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of the issues he reported in this case. However, we acknowledge that the landlord identified some of its failures and offered compensation to try to put things right.
21. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Its offer of £325 compensation is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified above. Our remedies guidance says that payments of between £600 and £1,000 are appropriate where there has been a significant physical impact on the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it will offer compensation in this range where there has been a significant failure of service. In ordering £1,000 compensation we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures. The landlord may deduct the £325 compensation it offered if this has already been paid.

22. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
23. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 25 February 2025. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the following day. It said it would respond within 10 working days of receipt, by 13 March 2025.
24. However, the landlord failed to provide a response. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who contacted the landlord on 13 March 2025. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 April 2025. This was in line with its 20-working-day timescale.
25. We acknowledge that the landlord escalated the complaint to try to assist the resident. It also offered £50 compensation to try to put things right. However, it failed to comply with its policy and the Code, which say a stage 1 response must be issued. By not doing so it denied the resident the opportunity to benefit from its published 2-stage complaints process.
26. The evidence shows that the resident began reporting issues with both the windows and underfloor heating at the end of 2023. The landlord’s complaint investigation only considered its response from February 2025, when the original complaint was made. It therefore failed to carry out a robust investigation into its response. By not doing so it failed to fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was because it failed to consider the length of time the repairs were outstanding and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
27. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. This was because it failed to provide a stage 1 complaint response and failed to carry out a thorough investigation at stage 2 of the process. It also failed to use the complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issue.
28. Our remedies guidance says that compensation of £100 and above is appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it will offer compensation over £100 for failures which do not have a lasting impact. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered if this has already been paid.

Learning

29. The landlord’s complaint response appropriately identified its learning from the complaint.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. There were gaps in the information provided the landlord for the purposes of this report. Its failure to respond to our attempts to clarify events was inappropriate.
31. We recommend that the landlord review the failures identified in this report against our spotlight report on knowledge and information management to improve its repairs service to vulnerable residents.

Communication

32. There were times when the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for repairs. This caused him time and trouble because he had to repeatedly chase.