Manchester City Council (202526310)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202526310

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Manchester City Council

Landlord type

Local Authority / ALMO or TMO

Occupancy

Secure

Date

25 March 2026

 

Background

  1. The resident reported several leaks to the landlord between August 2024 and October 2025. She told the landlord she was worried about a health and safety risk and damage to her property. She complained because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

 

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of leaks.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found:
    1. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. The landlord acknowledged its delays repairing the leaks. It offered the resident compensation that was proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble its repair handling caused her.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and tell her it needed to extend its response date. It recognised its complaint handling failings and offered the resident compensation. However, it was not proportionate to the time and trouble it caused her.

 

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

 

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up of:

  • the £25 it offered her at stage 1
  • £125 additional compensation for the time and trouble its complaint handling caused the resident

It must pay this to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

22 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We have made our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaks on the basis it pays the resident the £400 compensation it offered her in its complaint responses. It should pay the sum to her direct and not offset this against arrears where they exist. 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

9 December 2024

The resident complained to the landlord. She said she reported a leak from the flat above 4 months ago, but the landlord had not repaired it because the tenant refused to allow it access. She said because of the water from the leak her daughter slipped and fell, which resulted in her spending the night in hospital. She also said the leak damaged her carpet and she had to remove it.

21 March 2025

The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had repaired the leak and dealt with the lighting repairs she reported following the leak but accepted it had caused a delay. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and the inconvenience this caused. It upheld the complaint and offered her £100 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for its repair handling delays, and £25 for its complaint handling, totalling £175.

1 August 2025

The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she had reported another leak, and the water was coming through the bathroom light switch and ceiling lights which she believed was a safety risk. She said the landlord had carried out repairs before but had not found the source of the leak. She said she was worried about the extent of any further damage and said she did not have contact with the upstairs neighbour.

15 October 2025

The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It acknowledged she believed it had not found the cause of the leak or communicated well with her. It said it thought it had traced the issue to the property above in March 2025, repaired it, and checked with her that the leak had stopped. The landlord apologised for its delays and poor communication and offered her £250 for distress and inconvenience. It said it had learned from her complaint and would strengthen its repairs handling and its communication.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord should fix the leaks and improve its communication.

 

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 reports of leaks

Finding

Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  2. After the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure in October 2024, it logged a new stage 1 complaint about its handling of leaks and the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour. If the resident is unhappy about the way the landlord responded to her later complaint, she should escalate this with the landlord first and then to us if she is unhappy with its final complaint response.

What we have investigated

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says it will usually treat a ‘containable leak’ where there is no immediate threat as a routine repair and complete it within 28 days. It says it will make the situation safe within 3 hours if there is a serious risk, such as an ‘uncontainable leak’. The policy also says it may need to follow-up an appointment to complete the repair to a satisfactory standard.
  2. On 27 August 2024 the resident told the landlord water was leaking into her bathroom from the flat above. The landlord said it would speak to the upstairs neighbour about the leak the same day. The outcome of this is unclear as it did not keep records of its conversation with the neighbour, or its actions.
  3. The resident reported the leak again 3 working days later. The landlord raised works to track and repair an ‘uncontrollable’ leak the same day. It is not clear if the leak had been ongoing since 27 August 2024, or the resident reported a new leak as the landlord’s records were not clear. The impact of the leaks on her between 27 and 30 August 2024 caused her distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident reported a further leak on 5 September 2024. The landlord raised emergency works but recorded the upstairs neighbour said there was no leak.
  5. The resident reported leaks again on 8 September 2024, 14 and 29 October 2024, and 29 November 2024 before she complained in December 2024. On each occasion, the landlord raised and completed emergency works. It is unclear whether it traced and repaired the cause of the leak or made the situation safe because its records did not say.
  6. The landlord did not update the resident on its handling of the leaks or reassure her that it was working to resolve the problem. Intermittent leaks can be difficult to trace and can take multiple attempts. However, the landlord’s poor communication and its failure to resolve the issue between August and December 2024 caused the resident considerable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
  7. The resident did not report any further leaks before the landlord sent its stage 1 response in March 2025. In its response, the landlord accepted there had been delays in its repair handling and complaint response. However, it confirmed it had repaired the leak and dealt with the resident’s further concerns about lighting repairs. It apologised for any inconvenience it caused and offered the resident £150 compensation. It also agreed to review the function of the resident’s wet room, which it completed between April and June 2025.
  8. The resident reported a leak on 29 May 2025. The landlord made the area safe, traced the leak to boiler and pipework in the block, and ordered parts. We do not know when the landlord repaired the boiler. However, it responded on an emergency basis and contained the leak within its repairs maintenance service standard timescales.
  9. The resident reported another leak from the flat above on 8 July 2025. The landlord raised an emergency repair to make the home safe because the leak affected the electrics. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s property on 15 July 2025. It is unclear whether the landlord found and repaired the source of the leak as its records do not say.
  10. After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord arranged for a surveyor and a plumber to visit the upstairs property on 7 August 2025. They found gaps in the tiling which the landlord repaired on 3 September 2025. This met its routine repair target timescale.
  11. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 9 and 17 September 2025. She said she was upset about ongoing leaks and she was worried her ceiling might collapse. The landlord did not raise any work orders to investigate her concerns. Instead, it sent an email to gather information about the leak for it to respond to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord should have checked the resident’s home to assess and deal with any health and safety risks, or leaks.
  12. On 18 September 2025, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint again. It contacted her that day and agreed to arrange a surveyor’s visit. It raised the inspection at the upstairs property on 22 September 2025 and completed it the next day. During the inspection, it removed a bath panel and checked the pipework for leaks. It completed the inspection within its 28-day routine repair timescale but it did not record the outcome, so it is unclear what it found.
  13. On 1 October 2025, the landlord told the resident there were no issues in the upstairs property. However, it also said it needed to stop the source of a leak which was contradictory. The landlord did not take any further action until it visited the resident at home on 10 October 2025, after she told the landlord the situation was causing her significant distress. During the visit, the landlord found no signs of damp or leaks in her bathroom. It gave the resident information about support agencies and mental health support.
  14. In its stage 2 response the landlord summarised the surveyor visits and the repairs it did to track and fix the leaks. It reassured her it had found and resolved the intermittent leak. It said it would repair her bathroom ceiling and lighting and inspect the upstairs property again 2 weeks later as an extra precaution. It also offered her a further £250 compensation. It did not explain how it calculated the additional £250 so we assessed it as compensation for the impact of its repair handling, bringing the total compensation to £400.
  15. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether its response was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord apologised for its repair handling delays, said it had learned from the complaint and introduced a repair improvement plan. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience its handling of the leaks caused the resident and offered her compensation for this. Its offer was in line with our remedies guidance as the failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience but had no lasting impact.
  16. Overall, we found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its repair handling failings. We have recommended it pays the compensation it offered if it has not already done so.
  17. The resident reported a further leak and a collapsed ceiling to the landlord on 3 December 2025. She has since confirmed the landlord repaired the leak and her bathroom and it responded to a further complaint about these matters. We have not made any orders for the landlord to complete any further repairs.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It also did not send its response until 61 working days later than its complaint policy target. The Code explains landlords may extend target response dates by a further 10 days. However, the landlord did not consider whether to extend its complaint response target and inform the resident of any new response timescale.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint, but the landlord did not acknowledge this. It said it was unsure whether it had reallocated her complaint on 15 September 2025. On 18 September 2025, it told the resident it had extended its complaint response date by 10 working days.
  4. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 15 October 2025 which was 9 working days later than its extended response date.
  5. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaints, apologised for its complaint handling delays, and said it had learned from the complaint. However, its stage 1 compensation offer of £25 for the delay in its complaint handling was not proportionate to the time and trouble this caused the resident. It also missed the opportunity to explain how it calculated its stage 2 compensation offer. Overall, we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an extra £125 compensation, totalling £150 for its complaint handling failings. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for maladministration which caused the resident time and trouble.

 

Learning

  1. The landlord should review its repairs policy to decide how it responds and prioritises repairs for ‘containable’ leaks which do not meet its emergency response criteria.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord did not keep detailed information about the reported leaks on its repair records. It should learn from this complaint to ensure it keeps clear and complete records and it can provide them when asked.

Communication

  1. The landlord should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates.