Manchester City Council (202343802)

Background

1. The resident, who has since terminated his tenancy, lived at a flat in a block. He complained that the landlord had failed to do repairs, including for damp and mould. He also complained that the landlord had failed to do improvements it had said it would do, which included a new bathroom, a new front door, and re-wiring.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s repairs reports, including damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports about improvements to the property.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about the resident’s repairs reports, including damp and mould, is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about improvements to the property.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s repairs reports, including damp and mould

6. There is no evidence that the resident escalated this part of his complaint, to give the landlord the opportunity to respond at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. This part of the complaint therefore did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint procedure in order for us to investigate.

The resident’s reports about improvements to the property

7. The landlord failed to effectively address the issues and previous service the resident raised. This led to further contacts from him, likely led him to feel it was failing to do works it had previously identified were needed, and likely caused him frustration and undermined his confidence in the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the complaint reasonably in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

9. The resident moved into the property in June 2023. On 9 October 2023, he contacted the landlord about a letter from its improvement contractor, which said they would be re-wiring the property. He said he had contacted an improvement team about this but they had not been aware of the re-wiring. The landlord internally requested for this to be looked into.
10. The resident then says the property was asbestos tested on 10 November 2023. He says he was told this was because he was going to have a new bathroom, front door and re-wiring done. He later complained about these not being done, and the landlord’s stage 1 response said the improvements team would visit on 20 February 2024. The resident escalated the complaint as improvement staff had not visited, including on further appointments made on 27 and 28 February 2024.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the improvements team would contact the resident to arrange a visit. The landlord says that the property was subsequently added to a kitchen and bathroom improvement programme, but it was then identified that the property was not eligible as such works had already been done.
12. The landlord acknowledged issues with communication in its complaint responses. This was appropriate. The evidence shows that communication to the resident was poor around the time he made his complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it would visit him on 20 February 2024, which it is not evident happened, and the resident said visits on 27 and 28 February 2024 did not happen.
13. It is not clear there has been a significant failure to do improvement works. The landlord is obligated to ensure properties are reasonably modern. According to guidance, bathrooms need replacement every 40 years, while kitchens and electrics need replacement every 30 years. The property was added to then removed from a kitchen and bathroom programme, as such works had already been done. This does not seem unreasonable from photos where these seem modern. The landlord’s records also report that the property was re-wired in 2018. However, it could have investigated the issues and service more than it shows it did.
14. The resident and the landlord’s records referred to previous contacts in October and November 2023 about improvement works such as re-wiring. It is not evident that it responded to his October 2023 contact about re-wiring. It could have reviewed the apparent failure to respond to the October 2023 contact, the expectations he had been given in letters and at an asbestos visit, and learning from these.
15. The landlord and resident referred to 3 February 2024 visits from the improvements team which did not happen. The landlord acknowledged communication issues and said it had internally discussed these to improve service. However, it provides no evidence to clearly show it investigated how this happened multiple times and that it had taken effective steps to stop this happening again.
16. It is not evident that the landlord ever set out its position to the resident about re-wiring and renewal of the front door. It would have been helpful for it to set out its position on re-wiring, informed by the re-wiring in 2018. The failing to do this led to further contacts from him 3 months after its stage 2 response. It also would have been helpful for it to say whether the front door needed to be renewed and was included in a programme when the November 2023 asbestos visit happened, or whether this was miscommunication by the operative.
17. Overall, the landlord acknowledged communication issues and committed to review what improvements were required to the property, which was reasonable. It is not clear there has been a significant failing to do improvements. However, the landlord could have addressed the issues and previous service the resident raised more effectively. The failing to do this led to further contacts from him, likely led him to feel it was failing to do works it had previously identified were needed, and likely caused him frustration and undermined his confidence in the landlord. The Ombudsman finds a service failure in the landlord’s response about improvements and orders it to apologise to the resident for these failings.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It is unclear that the landlord acknowledged the complaints in line with this. However, it provided formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
19. While the above is the case, aspects of its complaints responses were confusing, which are commented on below.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The evidence is unclear about how the landlord responded to the resident’s October 2023 contact, what letters he received about improvements, the circumstances of a November 2023 asbestos visit, and the actions the landlord said it had taken for the communication issues.
21. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place, that a landlord has followed its own policies and procedures, or that a landlord has responded reasonably.
22. The landlord could reflect on these issues and consider what action it can take to ensure its records are accurate and detailed.

Communication

23. As noted in our assessment, there were multiple instances where the landlord did not communicate effectively to the resident, or take the opportunity to investigate and clarify previous communication to him. The landlord could reflect on how it communicates to residents for improvement works and ensure this takes into account its records and previous written and verbal communication.

Complaint handling

24. The stage 1 response said this was a final response to the complaint.  While the response did say the resident could take the complaint to the next stage, this had the potential to cause confusion. The stage 1 also gave an escalation email that seemed to omit a letter. This had the potential to impact the escalation of the complaint.
25. The stage 2 response was the final response to the complaint but also said the resident could take the complaint to a next stage. While the response included our contact details, this had the potential to cause confusion and delay, as it did not make clear that the response was a final one that the resident could refer to the Ombudsman to investigate.
26. The landlord could reflect on these issues and consider any learning and staff training needs.