From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Manchester City Council (202412846)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412846

Manchester City Council

27 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
    1. repairs to the kitchen.
    2. damp and associated repairs in the ground floor bathroom.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated March 2011. They live in a 3 bedroom, 2 floor house. The landlord is a local authority and is aware the resident lives with school aged children.
  2. The resident reported issues with her kitchen cupboards on 11 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 December 2023 and attended on 5 February 2024. Between 27 February and 28 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord for an update about the kitchen cupboard repairs 5 times. She also contacted her local councillor and asked them to raise the issue on her behalf. The resident reported damp in the ground floor bathroom on 1 March 2024.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2024, she said she wanted the work to be completed as soon as possible and to be compensated for the time and trouble taken to chase the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the service from the landlord because:
    1. it had visited the property twice in February 2024 and taken measurements but not carried out work.
    2. she had called several times to ask for updates and had been told measurements needed to be taken before work could be ordered.
    3. the landlord had not turned up for appointments on 20, 22 and 28 March 2024. She had not been notified of the cancellations.
  4. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 17 May 2024. It upheld her complaint and said the delays exceeded its timeframe. It offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused and said it had booked the following works:
    1. brickworks for 7 June 2024. It is unclear from the evidence if this related to the bathroom or kitchen repairs.
    2. damp work and plastering in the ground floor bathroom on 17 June 2024.
    3. to put the toilet back in on 18 June 2024.
    4. skirting board work on 19 June 2024.
    5. kitchen cupboard work on 20 June 2024.
  5. On 18 June 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord to ask whether it would be attending the property as agreed. The landlord told her the appointment needed to be rearranged due to staff sickness. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with this.
  6. Between 24 June and 16 July 2024, the resident telephoned the landlord 3 times to ask for an update. On 28 June 2024 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated via phone call. The landlord acknowledged this on 19 July 2024 via a phone call.
  7. The landlord completed repairs in the kitchen and a damp proof course in the ground floor bathroom on 22 July 2024. The resident reported further issues in the toilet on 24 July 2024. On 2 September 2024 the resident reported there was still damp in the toilet.
  8. The landlord gave a stage 2 response on 3 September 2024. It apologised for service delivery failures and offered £500 compensation. It stated the damp course plasterwork needed further time to dry. It said if it was not showing signs of drying by 12 September 2024 if would inspect the work again.
  9. Further communication about required repairs and repairs took place on the bathroom and kitchen between September 2024 and April 2025. In July 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that all work was complete. However, she remained unhappy with the landlord’s service because of the time and trouble it had taken her to get things resolved and the quality of work undertaken initially in the toilet. She said she had been very stressed by the situation and wanted the landlord to acknowledge this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations including:
    1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
    2. ensuring that the landlord can easily interrogate databases, and that data can be extracted when needed.
  2. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will complete repairs in a reasonable time. When residents report repair issues, it will tell the resident when the work will be completed by. The resident is responsible for reporting faults or damage and allowing access to inspect and carry out repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs maintenance service standard says it is responsible for repairs to kitchen units, drawers and worktops that are considered fair wear and tear.
  3. The landlord’s repairs service standard states it will attend:
    1. emergency repairs within 3 hours to make safe. This is where there is a serious risk to the resident or their home.
    2. routine repairs within 28 days. Appointments will be booked at a mutually convenient time. This includes faulty taps and containable leaks.
    3. planned repairs within 60 days. These are significant repairs which require extensive prep and planning.
    4. major repairs within 90 days. This includes kitchen/bathroom replacements, multiple jobs or repairs that are complex in nature.
  4. The landlord had poor record keeping in relation to its repairs. Its repair records did not accurately reflect when jobs were cancelled, attended or completed. On some occasions it incorrectly labelled all jobs as ‘completed’, when it had not yet carried out the repairs. The records do not show how it categorised repairs, when it confirmed appointment times to the resident, nor whether any of these were missed or late, with any associated reasoning.
  5. Given that a central aspect of the resident’s complaint is about the impact of missed appointments, the limited records provided by the landlord has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, without evidence of categorisation of its repairs, we cannot fully assess whether it adhered to the time limits set out in its repairs policy. These are record keeping failures by the landlord.
  6. The resident reported issues with her kitchen cupboard doors and drawers on 11 November 2023. The landlord did not respond until 28 December 2023 when it acknowledged the repair and said it had passed this to its contractors, who would contact the resident. It did not tell the resident when the repair would be completed by, which was not in line with the tenancy agreement.
  7. On multiple occasions the landlord struggled to identify which actions had taken place. The lack of clear records may have contributed to the delays. The landlord relied on a contractor to fulfil some of its repair jobs but has not provided evidence of the contractor’s communication with the resident. This was a record keeping failing.
  8. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to categorise the resident’s initial report as a routine repair and then to raise a planned or major repair if deemed necessary on a property visit. The landlord did not attend the property until 5 February 2024 which was a failure when assessed against its repairs policy.
  9. Between 5 February and 28 March 2024 the landlord attended the property twice. It is unclear how the landlord categorised the follow-on repairs. It is reasonable to assume the landlord recognised planned or major works were needed as it said a surveyor needed to attend.
  10. The landlord booked 2 appointments which it did not attend. It did not notify the resident of the cancellations in advance. This was unreasonable and likely caused the resident time, trouble and distress as she had to contact the landlord. The resident said she missed work because the appointments were cancelled without notification.
  11. The landlord inspected the kitchen and ordered repairs on 29 April 2024. In its stage 1 response it told the resident the necessary repairs to the kitchen would take place on 5 days between 7 and 20 June 2024. The landlord’s repair log does not record these individual visits. This was another example of the landlord failing to proactively communicate with the resident and no notice cancelled appointments likely causing her further time and trouble.
  12. Between 24 June and 16 July 2024 the resident asked for an update about repair timeframes and missed appointments 3 times. The landlord did not demonstrate it took steps to learn from the stage 1 complaint and proactively update the resident on the works or changes to appointments. The landlord marked all kitchen works complete on 22 July 2024. This was 8 months after the resident first reported the issue and was significantly outside of its repairs policy timeframe for all categorisations.
  13. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the kitchen repairs and offered £250 compensation for this. It said it had made changes to the surveyor system, which meant that individual surveyors would be ‘accountable’ to geographic patches. It intended this would mitigate the problems the resident had experienced.
  14. In conclusion we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen. This is because of:
    1. its poor record keeping.
    2. the 47-day delay between the resident reporting the issue and the landlord acknowledging the report.
    3. the 3-month delay between the resident reporting the issue and the landlord attending the property.
    4. the failure to follow the tenancy agreement and inform the resident when the repair would be completed by.
    5. repeated communication failures by not:
      1. telling the resident when repairs would be completed by.
      2. notifying the resident in advance of cancelled appointments.
    6. the 8-month delay between the resident reporting the issue and the works being completed.
  15. Though the landlord acknowledged the resident’s time and trouble and took steps to learn from outcomes in its stage 2 response, the compensation offered did not reflect the likely impact on the resident. The resident was likely caused time and trouble by both the delays and the lack of notification of changed appointments.
  16. In line with the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 to recognise the likely distress caused by the delays to complete kitchen repairs and the landlord’s communication failures. The £250 offered in the complaint response can be deducted from this amount if it has already been paid.

Damp and associated repairs in the bathroom

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will:
    1. use a no blame approach.
    2. investigate to determine the cause of damp and mould and carry out repairs and actions in accordance with tenancy agreement. It will diagnose the cause of damp correctly and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with cause, not just the symptoms.
    3. ensure effective communication with residents affected by damp, condensation and mould being clear about the action, timescale and aftercare.
    4. contact residents to see if damp and mould has returned after works.
    5. revisit property if works are not successful.
    6. use every opportunity to collect and report issues with damp and mould in its homes through visits.
    7. ensure clear, accurate and reliable records of damp and mould are kept.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states pre-inspections may be required before repairs can be arranged. These will take place within 10 calendar days and be completed by a surveyor.
  3. The resident reported damp in the downstairs toilet on 1 March 2024. The landlord did not follow the tenancy agreement and tell the resident when the repairs would be completed. After inspecting on 29 April 2024, the landlord ordered a damp proof course in the ground floor bathroom. This was 40 working days after the resident reported the issue and was a failure when assessed against the damp and mould policy.
  4. It is not clear how the landlord categorised the damp at inspection, nor if it considered the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and assessed if the damp was a potential hazard in the property. This was a failure when assessed against the Housing Act 2004.
  5. On 18 June 2024 the resident reported the plasterer had not attended as planned for the ground floor bathroom. The landlord marked repairs to damp in the toilet complete on 22 July 2024. This was 143 days after the landlord became aware of the issue. Due to the landlord’s failure to categorise the repairs, it is not possible to fully assess this against its repairs policy. However, this was outside of the longest timeframe given for major repairs (90 days). The landlord did not explain the delay or apologise to the resident. This was not reasonable when assessed against its repairs policy.
  6. During the second half of August 2024 and on 2 September 2024 the resident reported the plasterwork was not drying as expected. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord had a duty to make full, effective and lasting repairs. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would inspect the plasterwork if it was not showing signs of drying by 12 September 2024. The landlord took steps to investigate and set a timeframe by which it would inspect the property. This was appropriate.
  7. The landlord attended and provided a heater for the toilet in September 2024. The resident expressed concern as she felt it had been a very hot summer and there was a deeper cause of the problem. She was worried about the cost of the heater. The landlord inspected again and applied a salt wash on 25 October 2024. This was 2 months after the resident reported issues with the plaster drying. The landlord’s failure to categorise the repair, means it is not possible to assess this against its repairs policy timeframes.
  8. The Ombudsman understands that some complex repairs may take multiple visits and may require different approaches to resolve. The landlord’s repair policy notes pre-inspection surveys may be required. However, the landlord did not fully record these inspections or clarify why multiple visits were necessary. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable time. These were failings when assessed against the landlord’s repairs and damp and mould policies.
  9. The resident reported damp and a smell of drains in the toilet on 14 January 2025. She said she had expected the landlord to contact her after the work in October to confirm its attempt to resolve. The landlord did not follow its damp and mould policy and did not contact the resident to ask if the problem had been resolved.
  10. The landlord recorded damp repairs in the toilet completed in April 2025, more than a year after it was made aware of the issue. The resident continued to report a smell from the drains that she felt was related to the works and the landlord stated the contractor would return to check the work.
  11. The landlord’s records do not mark when all works were completed, but in July 2025 the resident confirmed to this Service that all works were finished. The landlord failed to make a full, effective and lasting repair within the policy timeframes set out. Its poor record keeping made it difficult to assess when work was completed but there were delays of at least a year. This was not reasonable when assessed against the landlord’s policy.
  12. In conclusion we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the toilet. This is because of:
    1. its failure to tell the resident when works would be completed.
    2. its record keeping failures.
    3. its failure to categorise the damp and mould repairs or demonstrate it had considered the HHSRS and if the damp was a potential hazard.
    4. its failure to follow its damp and mould policy and check if works were sufficient after completion.
    5. a delay of over a year in resolving the damp problem in the toilet.
  13. The landlord acknowledged some delays in its stage 2 response in September 2024 and offered £250 compensation for this. The resident said she found trying to resolve the issues ‘overwhelming’. Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 for the likely distress, time and trouble caused to the resident. The £250 offered can be deducted from this amount if already paid. We have also ordered the landlord to provide documentary evidence that all works to the toilet have been completed and checked following its damp and mould policy.

The associated complaint

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
  2. The landlord’s policy stated stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response given within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The resident complained on 28 March 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint which was not in line with its policy or the Code.
  3. The landlord responded 34 working days later. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it had needed to carry out further investigations on the issues raised. The evidence provided does not justify the landlord’s explanation. The landlord did not update the resident on the delay prior to its response, which was a failure when assessed against the Code.
  4. Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and a final written response provided within 20 working days. The resident told the landlord she was not happy with the quality of works agreed in the stage 1 response on 18 June 2024. The landlord should have asked the resident if she wanted to escalate the complaint.
  5. The resident then contacted this Service on 27 June 2024 and then formally asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 28 June 2024 via a phone call. She contacted the landlord on 19 July 2024 to ask about her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 19 July 2024. This was 23 working days after the resident said she was very unhappy with the landlord’s actions on 18 June 2024. This was a failure when assessed against the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  6. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 3 September 2024. This was 47 working days after the resident formally escalated and 32 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This unreasonably delayed the resident in receiving a response to the issues she raised and in bringing her complaint to this Service for investigation. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in response or offer appropriate redress in line with the Code.
  7. The resident was likely caused time and trouble by the delays and having to ask for updates. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, and the landlord did not consider the steps it could take in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes.
  8. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the likely time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and associated repairs in the ground floor bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord is order to:
    1. apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £950 compensation, comprising of:
      1. £400 for the likely time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs.
      2. £400 for the likely time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the ground floor bathroom.
      3. £150 for the time and trouble likely caused by its complaint handling failures.
      4. the £500 already offered in the landlord’s internal complaints responses can be deducted from the total amount if this has already been paid.
    3. provide this Service with documentary evidence that all repairs to the bathroom have been completed and checked following its damp and mould policy.
    4. provide documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.