One Manchester Limited (202503707)

Decision
Case ID	202503707
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Manchester Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported several repair issues to the landlord, including plastering and repointing. She later complained of prolonged delays, poor quality repairs and that external works were incomplete. She also raised concerns about the conduct of one of the landlord’s staff.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Reports of various repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The complaint about staff conduct is outside our jurisdiction.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
6. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about staff conduct

7. In her complaint to us, the resident said she remained unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns about staff conduct. She described a telephone call with the repairs manager as condescending and said the manager spoke to her unprofessionally.
8. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident raised her concerns about staff conduct during her December 2024 complaint, and the landlord addressed these points in its stage 1 response. However, there is no evidence that she formally escalated the staff conduct issues after that stage. Because of that this part of the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

Reports of various repairs

9. The landlord acknowledged delays in completing repairs, failures to follow its repairs policy, and poor communication. It offered proportionate remedies, including an apology, compensation and a commitment to resolves issues.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord issued its complaint responses within its policy timescales.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £500 as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not done so already. We found reasonable redress for its response to reports of various repairs based on this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 December 2024	The resident complained that the landlord did not progress multiple repairs, leaving bedrooms unusable for extended periods. She reported poor quality plastering works, delays and a failure to provide a schedule of works. She also complained that external repointing was incomplete.
30 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted delays in completing repairs and shortcomings in communication, and apologised for the poor service. The landlord agreed actions to complete outstanding works, improve communication, provide future updates and a schedule of works. It paid £750 towards a new carpet.
5 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint saying she was unhappy with the standard and timeliness of repairs. She reported a lack of communication and unannounced contractor visits. She also raised concerns that works did not match the schedule provided. As an outcome, she wanted repairs completed promptly to an acceptable standard.
9 April 2025	–       The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and apologised that repairs took too long and communication was poor. It accepted that many works were unresolved, some pre‑dating the stage 1 response, and acknowledged it failed to follow its repairs policy. The landlord set out a revised schedule of outstanding works and agreed to provide fortnightly updates. It offered a further £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us the landlord did not resolve repair issues despite repeated visits and poor quality works over a lengthy time. She said the landlord refused to redecorate after plastering and failed to update her. She felt the landlord treated some repairs as new issues rather than unresolved repairs. As an outcome, she wanted repairs completed and further compensation.

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 various repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

11. The resident repeatedly reported extensive repair issues, including failing bedroom ceiling plaster, incomplete and poor quality plastering works, external repointing defects, and outstanding repairs to window, doors, and the driveway. She explained that contractors failed to complete works as agreed, returned repeatedly following inspections, and left areas unfinished. She raised concerns about poor workmanship, changes to the agreed scope of works, operatives attending without notice, and prolonged delays.
12. The landlord accepted that its actions fell short of its repair service standards. It acknowledged delays, poor communication and oversight of contractors, and a backlog of outstanding works. In response, it provided a schedule of outstanding repairs, committed to completing them, apologised, and offered compensation. This included £500 compensation for inconvenience, together with £750 for replacing carpet. The landlord did not dispute its failings.
13. When a landlord acknowledges failings in its services our role is to consider whether its response and remedies were proportionate, and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The evidence showed the resident contacted the landlord frequently throughout 2024 with limited progress achieved. While contractors attended on occasions, works were not coordinated or completed as agreed, leading the resident to repeatedly report unfinished repairs and poor workmanship. The landlord did not provide a clear explanation for the limited activity or managed expectations over this period.
15. In its final response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the prolonged delays and poor communication and oversight, and apologised for the impact this had on the resident, as well as committing to complete repairs.
16. Following its final response in April 2025, the landlord took steps to progress the repairs. It attended the property in mid-April 2025 and again in May 2025, setting out the outstanding repairs and clarifying repair responsibilities. It explained that while it would complete plastering repairs, redecoration generally remained the resident’s responsibility, with stairway decoration agreed as part of the complaint resolution.
17. The evidence showed the landlord accommodated the resident’s request to pause some works to reduce disruption and continued to engage, providing updates and responding to her preferences.
18. Although the resident later disputed whether some matters were new repairs, the evidence showed that the landlord managed the outstanding issues appropriately. The landlord carried out a property visit on 14 May 2025, which identified new issues that had not previously formed part of this complaint but were later raised in a subsequent complaint. The landlord acted fairly by setting out its inspection findings in writing, clearly explaining the next steps, noting the resident’s preferred coordination of works, and confirming its position on redecoration.
19. In its final stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint. It recognised that complex cases involving multiple repair issues required clearer, more consistent communication and committed to improving how it updated residents on progress and next steps. While the landlord did not provide updates in the exact table format as promised, the evidence showed it kept the resident informed through contact in April and May 2025.
20. During its visit on 14 May 2025, the landlord clearly set out the planned works and managed expectations appropriately, including acknowledging the resident’s request for some works to be paused before others proceeded. The evidence also shows that from May 2025 onwards the landlord engaged constructively with councillor enquiries. By October 2025, the landlord confirmed that it had completed the agreed repairs, broadly in line with the schedule set out in its subsequent correspondence.
21. Overall, while the landlord’s initial handling of repairs was delayed and fell below expected standards, its response to the complaint was reasonable. The combined redress of £750 for carpet and £500 compensation for delays was consistent with our compensation guidance and proportionate to the impact on the resident. Taken together with its apology, commitment to complete the works, evidence of follow up action, and identified learning, were reasonable and proportionate remedies, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles and adequately put matters right.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

22. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in both definition and response timescales.
23. The resident complained on 19 December 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days as required by its policy, although the delay was only slight and occurred during the festive period.
24. On 20 January 2025, within the initial 10‑working‑day stage 1 timeframe, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that it could not meet its original response deadline. It provided a clear revised response date of 3 February 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 30 January 2025, which appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
25. Although the stage 1 response was issued a few days outside the landlord’s policy timescale, there was no evidence that this short delay caused any detriment to the resident.
26. After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days in line with its policy timescales. Overall, the landlord handled the complaint fairly, followed its policy, and complied with the Code by responding when it said it would.

Learning

27. The landlord demonstrated effective complaint handling by recognising the value of the resident’s complaint and committing to learn from it to improve its future service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

29. The landlord acknowledged it communication fell short and recognised in complex repair cases involving multiple issues, it should provide clear and consistent communication so residents are fully informed of progress.