Manchester City Council (202447212)

Background

1. The resident lived in an upstairs 2-bedroom flat at the time the complaint was made. There is a brick storage cupboard at the bottom of the stairs next to the front door. The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her property and cigarette smoke was entering the bedrooms from a neighbouring flat. She also said the landlord failed to carry out repairs in a timely manner and the situation was affecting her family’s health. The resident moved properties in February 2026.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cigarette smoke entering her home from a neighbouring property.
   4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
   5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of smoke entering her home from a neighbouring property.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.
7. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bedroom or address her concerns in its complaint responses. Whilst it offered the resident compensation, it did not do this until after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy
9. The landlord responded to the majority of the resident’s request for repairs in a timely manner. It offered an apology and compensation for the repairs that were not completed on time.
10. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and there is no evidence it carried out an investigation or undertook any repairs to stop the transference of smoke. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses.
11. The landlord provided the resident with timely advice and information regarding her rehousing prospects.
12. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

13. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. In this case, the resident noted in her complaint that she made a disrepair claimin 2020. This included a claim for personal injury against the landlord for failing to repair the front door, re-render the brickwork around the door and remedy the problem with damp and mould in the storage cupboard. The claim was settled without the need for court proceedings in October 2020 for £2000.
14. Whilst it is noted the resident said she continued to experience problems following the settlement agreement, this investigation has focused on the period leading up to when she made her complaint in February 2025, up to when the landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 March 2025. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
15. In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her family’s health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

What we did investigate

16. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord lacked detail and has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. What is evident is that the landlord was placed on notice on 2 December 2024 when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her property.
17. The landlord told the resident on 9 December 2024 that it had arranged an appointment to inspect the storage cupboard on 19 December 2024. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
18. It is unclear from the housing records if the landlord carried out the inspection on 19 December 2024 or if it provided the resident with an update. This was not consistent with this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould. This says landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
19. The resident told the landlord on 2 February 2025 that the storage cupboard was ‘‘riddled with damp’’ and noted there was also mould in the bedroom. She also said she was asthmatic and the situation was not good for her health.
20. The landlord responded on 3 February 2025 and noted it would need to raise a job to treat the damp and mould. It asked the resident for details about which rooms were affected and arranged an inspection for 14 February 2025. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
21. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2025.
22. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
23. In this case, the landlord noted that an inspection was carried out on 14 February 2025. No details about the inspection findings were shared with this Service. It said the storage cupboard was not a habitable room. This provided clarity. It also said it was likely the mould was due to the poor thermal performance and ventilation of the walls. The landlord confirmed the room was too small for a radiator or internal insulation to be installed. It said it had raised a job to install a vent in the storage cupboard on 7 March 2025. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
24. The landlord did not address the resident’s report of damp and mould in the bedroom. This was a failure and meant she was not clear what action was being taken by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
25. The resident noted on 24 February 2025 in her complaint escalation request that she had to use her inhaler more frequently due to the mould.
26. It is unclear from the housing records whether the vent was installed in the storage cupboard on 7 March 2025.
27. The landlord reconfirmed its position in its final complaint response on 24 March 2025. This included noting that it carried out an inspection on 14 February 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding the installation of the vent in the storage cupboard. Again, the landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bedroom.
28. The landlords most recent actions and offer of £750 compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the offer of compensation was made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation.
29. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

30. The resident told the landlord on 20 July 2024 that she could not open her front door. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the property.
31. The landlord raised an emergency job and repaired the door on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was appropriate.
32. The resident told the landlord on 12 August 2024 that a metal fence near her home was collapsing. The landlord responded on the 14 August 2024 and advised the resident it had reported the issue to the rail company responsible for the fence. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances
33. The resident told the landlord on 3 September 2024 that the drainpipe at the front of her property was broken and rainwater was pouring everywhere. The landlord raised a job on the same day to replace the drainpipe in accordance with its responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This was appropriate.
34. The drainpipe was replaced on 23 September 2024 in accordance with the 28-day timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. A further job was raised on 30 September 2024 to replace the drainpipe at the side of the property. This was done on 14 October 2024 in accordance with the timescales for completing routine repairs.
35. The resident told the landlord on 14 October 2024 that she needed a new front door. She said this was because the door and surrounding brickwork were loose. The landlord raised a job on the same day to re-render the brickwork around the door. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
36. The landlord also arranged for the front door to be inspected on 5 December 2024. Whilst this was appropriate, no details about the inspection were shared with this Service and it is unclear from the housing records whether the resident was provided with an update. This led to her making a complaint on 5 February 2025. She said she had been told different things by different people and noted the front door and surrounding brickwork were loose.
37. The resident told the landlord on 5 February 2025 that the fence had not been repaired and children were climbing over it. The landlord visited the resident on 6 February 2025, during which she said she had reported the matter to the rail company.
38. The landlord raised a further repair on 18 February 2025 to re-render the brickwork around the front door and inspect the roof following a leak.
39. The landlord confirmed on 21 February 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it carried out an inspection on 14 February 2025. It said the front door would be replaced and an appointment had been arranged for 27 February 2025 to measure the door. It also said the rail company was responsible for the fence. This provided clarity as the landlord could not repair a fence it was not responsible for. It also noted the resident had reported the matter to the rail company.
40. The landlord said an appointment had been arranged for 7 March 2025 to re-render the brickwork around the front door. Whilst this provided clarity, this was almost 5 months after the resident first raised concerns and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It also confirmed the surveyor who carried out the inspection on 14 February 2025 identified issues with the roof and gutters. It said it had arranged for the gutters to be cleared on 7 March 2025 and the roof inspected on 4 April 2025. This was appropriate.
41. The landlord noted that it needed to improve the way it delivered its repairs service and said it was undertaking a review. This demonstrated it took learning from the resident’s complaint. It also offered the resident an apology and £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repairs. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
42. It is unclear from the housing records whether the brickwork surrounding the front door was re-rendered on 7 March 2025. The resident confirmed on 12 April 2025 that the gutters were cleared on 7 March 2025.
43. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 24 March 2025 regarding the resident’s front door in its final complaint response. Whilst this was appropriate, no timescales were provided for doing this. It also said an appointment had been arranged to re-render the brickwork on 4 April 2025. No explanation was provided for the delay in carrying out the work. This was a failure.
44. The landlord offered a further apology and increased its offer of compensation from £150 to £300. This was in line with this Service’s compensation guidance. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £700 on 21 January 2026.
45. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

46. In cases involving cigarette smoke transference, it is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported incidents occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
47. Having been notified of the issue of cigarette smoke entering the resident’s property, the landlord was required to investigate whether the transference of smoke was due to any defects with the structure of the building which needed addressing.
48. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 3 April 2024 that cigarette smoke was entering her son’s bedroom through the air vents. She said her son was autistic and the situation was making him very unhappy. The resident asked the landlord to block the air vents or install new ones.
49. Whilst the landlord arranged for the resident’s property to be inspected in accordance with its repairs policy, it did not do this until 24 April 2024. This was 15 working days after the resident raised concerns. The inspection appointment was arranged for 14 May 2024.
50. It is unclear from the housing records what the outcome of the inspection was. A job was raisedon the same day to‘‘complete work in the bedroom’’, but no further details were shared with this Service. This demonstrated poor record keeping.
51. The resident reported a further concern about smoke transference on 12 June 2024. Whilst the landlord responded on the same day and said it would arrange for her housing officer to look into her concerns, there is no evidence it did so. This was a further failure and led to the resident chasing up the landlord on 20 June 2024. Again, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. The situation is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It is evident she was concerned about the effect of the smoke on her family’s health.
52. The resident noted on 8 July 2024 that the surveyor had agreed to plaster over the vents in her son’s bedroom. She also said there was smoke in the other bedroom and noted that she was asthmatic and her son had a number of health conditions.
53. The landlord noted on 16 July 2024 that an appointment had not been arranged to complete the work. It said it would contact the resident once the work had been booked in. Whilst this was appropriate, it is unclear from the housing records if the landlord carried out the work
54. The resident noted on 5 February 2025 in her complaint that she was subject to passive smoking due to cigarette smoke entering her home.
55. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about cigarette smoke transference in its stage 1 complaint response or final complaint response. This was a failure and may have led to the resident concluding that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and was likely to have caused her further distress and inconvenience.
56. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

57. It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
58. The housing records confirm the resident asked the landlord for an update on her housing application on 29 July 2024. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed the resident was in band 2. This provided clarity. The landlord also noted that demand for social housing was extremely high and provided the resident with details on average waiting times and information about letting agencies. This was appropriate.
59. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 16 September 2024. This included noting its medical panel had reviewed the information she had provided and it had been determined her housing application would remain in band 2. The landlord confirmed the resident would be considered for properties that had or could be adapted. This was consistent with its allocation scheme.
60. The resident told the landlord on 2 February 2025 in her complaint that the situation was not good for her family’s health and she needed to move.
61. The landlord noted on 24 March 2025 in its final complaint response that the resident was placed in band 2 on 2 June 2021 and she required a 3-bedroom property with an upstairs and downstairs toilet. It also noted the average waiting time for applicants in band 2 requiring a 3-bedroom house was 4 years. It said waiting times were increasing and the resident would have to wait longer given she needed an upstairs and downstairs toilet. In addition, the landlord confirmed additional rehousing priority could not be awarded for passive smoking and provided the resident with information about exchanging properties with other residents. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
62. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

63. The resident made a complaint on 2 February 2025. The landlord responded on the same day and noted that she had submitted a service request rather than a complaint. It asked the resident to confirm if she wished to make a complaint. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
64. The resident resubmitted her complaint on 5 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and said it would provide a response within 10 working days. This was consistent with the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
65. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2025. This was consistent with the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
66. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 February 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 24 March 2025.
67. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 24 March 2025 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
68. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Learning

General learning

69. The landlord should ensure it addresses all of the issues raised by residents in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

70. The housing records provided by the landlord lacked detail and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

71. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of his request for updates.