Manchester City Council (202402012)

Decision
Case ID	202402012
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Manchester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat within a 2-storey block containing 8 flats. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise from the flat above her and the actions of the staff dealing with the issue. She also complained that a CCTV camera was not working.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports about staff conduct.
3. Provision of closed-circuit television (CCTV).
We have also investigated how the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports about staff conduct.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the provision of CCTV.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

ASB

There were counter allegations of ASB from the resident and the neighbour above. The landlord acted reasonably when dealing with these.

Staff conduct

The landlord investigated the allegations made by the resident and communicated the outcome within a reasonable timeframe.

CCTV

The landlord fitted a CCTV camera but due to unforeseen reasons it did not work. There was a delay in its communication regarding this. However, this did not cause significant detriment to the resident because other CCTV provision covered the area.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided full and timely responses and followed through with promised actions.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendation
The landlord should continue to collaborate with any other agencies working with the resident. All parties, should commit to referring to, or engaging with, appropriate support to help ensure more harmonious relationships within the block and future tenancy sustainment for the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: When 2 operatives were at the property completing work, the resident above started to bang on her ceiling. She had also seen the neighbour staring at her from the upstairs window when she was in the garden with her dog.
8 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint.
17 April 2024	The resident completed further complaint forms in which she said that: A CCTV camera had not worked since it was installed in November 2023. She was unhappy with the actions of staff who she felt were “gaslighting” and using “manipulative tactics”. She was unhappy that the landlord had referred her for support from a community care navigator.
18 April 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that: It had investigated the actions of staff dealing with the ASB case and found that a staff member had emailed the resident after her neighbour had reported her for acting in an antisocial way. However, they should have spoken to her about it first before concluding there was any wrongdoing on her side. It apologised for this error. The tenancy warning letter issued to her had been in line with its procedure and staff had acted appropriately. It had offered her appointments in the office to discuss the matter, although in 1 letter the date of the appointment was unclear. However, the resident had indicated that she would not attend either appointment, so this had not had any detrimental effect. Staff had followed its safeguarding policy which said that if they were concerned about the immediate welfare of residents, they were expected to call an ambulance. Therefore, they had followed correct procedure. It understood that the tenancy warning may have brought about feelings of mistrust. However, it was keen to ensure that she felt she could report issues to it. It was aware that she was working with the local talking therapies service who had referred her to an advocacy service so that an advocate could help with liaison in the future. It had arranged for contractors to fit a camera at the property following a previous incident when unknown youths targeted it. However, the camera was not suitable due to software issues. Therefore, it had identified that a Ring doorbell would be a suitable alternative. A contractor would contact her with an appointment to fit this within the next 4 weeks. It apologised that its communication regarding this had not been consistent
19 April 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that she was still unhappy with the actions of 3 staff members.
29 April 2024	The resident emailed the landlord about the complaint. She said that she was unhappy that the landlord had offered her a referral to the community care navigator scheme. She felt that this was “atrociously emotional manipulation”.
3 May 2024	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It had reviewed the actions of staff members and found that they had adjusted normal practice to accommodate her needs. For example, allowing her to report repairs through the team at the office, rather than through its usual process. It pointed out that she had complained about each of the housing officers she had dealt with in the 6 years she had lived at the property. This meant that she had complained about 6 housing officers and 2 neighbourhood managers. It had checked the tenancy warning letter sent to the resident again and found that it was issued in line with procedure. Therefore, it did not uphold this part of her complaint. It apologised that the original CCTV had not worked. However, it had offered a Ring doorbell as an alternative which the resident had not allowed the operative to fit. It had suggested a referral to the community care navigator. However, the resident refused this and therefore it had not made the referral. It had made the suggestion with her best interests at heart based on evidence that she may benefit from further support.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us in November 2025 that the outcome she was seeking from her complaint was a severe maladministration decision. She said that she thought the landlord should give her a sincere apology and 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 ASB
Finding	No maladministration

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation considers the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair considering all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will not investigate actions that are considered to be normal everyday noise and reports related to staring with no other reports of ASB.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 12 December 2023 after the tenant who was moving into the flat above the resident contacted it to tell it that she had been rude to him and started shouting at him for making a noise.
The resident also called the landlord that day to tell it that the neighbour was making a noise. The landlord explained that there would be more noise than usual as the neighbour was moving in and asked for her patience regarding this.
Over the following 3 weeks the neighbour and resident reported further similar issues to the landlord. The landlord visited the neighbour who had been laying new carpets. The landlord explained this to the resident when she visited its offices and it agreed to ask the neighbour to put a note through the door if he was doing any noisy DIY.
The landlord asked the resident to attend a meeting at the office to discuss the allegations made by the neighbour. However, the resident declined the invitation. The landlord advised her in writing that it was beneficial for her to attend so that she could relay her side of the story.
On 6 March 2024 the resident and neighbour both reported incidents. An operative was at the property completing repair work and the resident said that the neighbour above was banging on the ceiling. The landlord asked the operative about the incident which was appropriate action to take. The operative said that he was working and heard drilling and hammering from the flat above. However, he considered this to be normal household noise.
Following the resident’s decision not to attend the office to speak to the landlord about the allegations, it wrote to her on 20 March 2023. The letter included a tenancy warning about her reaction to the noise of DIY and moving of furniture, because it felt her reaction was not reasonable. This was part of its responsibility as a landlord and in line with its policy. On the day the resident received the letter she emailed the landlord. Within this she expressed thoughts which were concerning to the landlord. It called her when it received the email to ask if she needed an ambulance or further support. The resident told it that she did not and that she did not want it to contact her again.
The landlord acted appropriately by calling the resident to check on her wellbeing. It also acted appropriately when it asked if she wanted it to refer her for further support. There is evidence that it has also liaised with other agencies to try to help her maintain her tenancy which was a responsible action to take.
There is evidence that the landlord considered mediation between the parties in July 2024, which was an appropriate action to take. It has told us that it did not consider this sooner and did not proceed with this action due to the vulnerability of the neighbour and based on previous experience. The landlord closed the ASB case when the neighbour moved to another property.
In summary, the landlord received counter allegations from the resident and the neighbour. It dealt with these in line with its policies and acted appropriately considering all the circumstances of the case.

Complaint	Reports about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available.
When the resident complained about the actions of members of staff dealing with the ASB case the evidence seen demonstrates that the landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the case and the actions taken by the relevant staff members.
It then reached a view based on its findings and communicated these to the resident in a timely manner.

Complaint	Provision of CCTV
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord offered to provide a CCTV camera at the property following a previous incident. A contractor went to fit the camera in November 2023. However, the camera supplier had changed the type of camera they provided. This meant that the contractor was unable to fit it as a laptop was needed to set the camera up. As the landlord’s laptops were strictly controlled no external devices could be plugged into them.
The landlord decided to install a Ring doorbell instead on 21 November 2023. We have seen no evidence that it communicated this to the resident at that time. This error meant that she emailed the landlord on 22 March 2024 to ask for an update.
The landlord updated her on 18 April 2024 in the stage 1 complaint response. It told her that it would arrange an appointment to fit a Ring doorbell within 4 weeks. However, when the operative attended the appointment, the resident said she did not want the equipment fitted.
In summary there was a lack of communication from the landlord following the unsuccessful fitting of a CCTV camera. It decided to fit a Ring doorbell but did not communicate this with the resident. However, it has advised us that other CCTV cameras in the area record footage of the front of her home, which she was aware of. The landlord offered an apology for its lack of communication in the stage 1 complaint response and arranged for a Ring doorbell to be fitted. Therefore, we do not consider that there was significant detriment to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord responded to the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the timeframes specified in the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
It followed through with promised remedies and provided full responses to all the complaint points.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure that it keeps written records regarding its decisions. For example, why it did not feel mediation was appropriate.

Communication

The landlord should have communicated more effectively regarding the CCTV camera and Ring doorbell.