Manchester City Council (202423674)

Decision
Case ID	202423674
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Manchester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a house. She complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple repairs and the impact of these.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs including for leaks, the bathroom, the kitchen, asbestos removal, electrics, windows, radiators, external doors, bathroom ceiling insulation, and damage caused by contractors.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs including for leaks, the bathroom, the kitchen, asbestos removal, electrics, windows, radiators, external doors, bathroom ceiling insulation, and damage caused by contractors.
2. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The repairs

The landlord did not reasonably address all issues, or resolve them in a reasonably timely way. The compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, frustration and time and trouble that will have been caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response, took 4 months to provide a formal complaint response, and did not reasonably investigate and address all the issues. The compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, frustration and time and trouble that will have been caused to the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This comprises: The £650 it originally offered. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to the repairs. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 21 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

21 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This comprises:

The £650 it originally offered.
£400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to the repairs.
£100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in respect to its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

21 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident and review whether there are any costs she incurred for which it would be reasonable to reimburse her, for: a period when kitchen electrics did not work and she had to do laundry in a laundrette. a period during the bathroom works where she stayed away and washed elsewhere, such as at gyms.

Our recommendations

The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident and review whether there are any costs she incurred for which it would be reasonable to reimburse her, for:

a period when kitchen electrics did not work and she had to do laundry in a laundrette.
a period during the bathroom works where she stayed away and washed elsewhere, such as at gyms.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 June 2024	The resident made a formal complaint: She raised dissatisfaction with outstanding bathroom repairs. She said that she was awaiting works to replace the bath handle and tub, the fan did not work, the ceiling had damage, and there was mould. She raised dissatisfaction with the investigation of leaks that had caused damp patches to the kitchen and entrance ceilings. She raised dissatisfaction that kitchen electrics issues caused by leaks were only recently fixed. She said this meant the kitchen was in total darkness and she had to do laundry in a laundrette. She raised dissatisfaction with outstanding bedroom repairs. She said a window handle had fallen off, there were no lights in one bedroom, and switches were hard to press. She raised dissatisfaction with delays resolving water ingress to a back door which had been reported for years. She raised concern that issues such as leaks had gone on for too long and asked the landlord to say how long it would take to resolve them.
23 August 2024	The resident made a further complaint. She complained that contractors had caused damage during repairs and that: The stair and upstairs hall carpet had got stained. The kitchen ceiling was in a poor cosmetic condition. The stair bannister and the bathroom and downstairs hall doors, walls, ceiling and vinyl flooring had got damaged during works to fit a new bath and remove asbestos. She requested re-painting and for vinyl and carpet to be replaced.
5 September 2024	The resident’s daughter made a further complaint: She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided any meaningful updates or support after complaints. She raised dissatisfaction about issues with recent repairs. This included delays, missed appointments, exposure to asbestos, and bathroom repairs. These had left the resident without a functioning bathroom for weeks and her having to bathe elsewhere. She raised dissatisfaction about unresolved repairs, which included a roof leak and a broken stair window handle. She raised concerns about the property condition. She noted the resident had health issues and raised concerns the property was unsafe and uninhabitable. She also raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen, bathroom, heaters and external doors.
6 September 2024	The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and said it would respond in 20 working days.
11 October 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2: It noted that the resident complained about lack of a stage 1 response, outstanding repairs, and poor workmanship that had caused damage. It noted that the resident raised a number of repairs issues and addressed these. It noted the resident complained about an ongoing kitchen leak. It noted that a plumber attended 28 August 2024 and replaced the kitchen sink. A plumber then attended an emergency report the following day and completed the repair by tightening a waste trap. It noted the resident complained about an ongoing toilet leak. It said it could not find any reference to this and had arranged for a supervisor to assess this on 18 October 2024 It noted the resident complained about poor workmanship from the contractor. It said a contractor supervisor would assess this on 18 October 2024. It noted the resident complained about ceiling repairs after asbestos removal. It noted that an asbestos report was requested 30 July 2024 and it was confirmed that the ceiling contained asbestos the following day. It noted the ceiling was removed on 2 August 2024 and it was reboarded and replastered on 23 August 2024. It noted that the resident reported that plaster had come away from the ceiling on 29 August 2024 and this was attended the same day. It said that the urgency was to remove the ceiling to reduce the risk of asbestos exposure and its contractor was unable to urgently replace the ceiling. It apologised for the delay resolving the repair. It noted the resident complained that an operative had left off a bath panel due to timber and floorboard repairs being required. It noted that after a repair was raised in April 2024, an operative had said a bath replacement was needed, and this was done 17 July 2024. It said that the operatives had left no notes about repairs to the bath frame or floor, and staff did not consider that replacement of bath frame and flooring were needed, so the bath panel was replaced. It said that the supervisor could assess this at their visit. It acknowledged that there had been a communication breakdown for the issue and apologised for the inconvenience. It noted the resident complained that the shower was replaced before the tiles, so the shower had to be removed to do the tiles, exposed wires were left, and the shower was not in use for 3 weeks. It noted that after the repair was booked in for 2 to 4 September 2024, the tiling was rescheduled to 10 and 11 September 2024, which delayed the shower being refitted. It noted that the contractor spoke to the resident on 12 September 2024, but she was unavailable and said she could be without the shower until 25 September 2024. It noted that the shower was then fitted on 20 September 2024 after she contacted the same day and asked for the shower to be fitted that day. It noted that the contractor confirmed that the shower was isolated on 2 September 2024. It apologised for the delay resolving the issue, but said it had kept the resident informed and appointments were scheduled around her availability. It noted the resident complained about an outstanding landing window repair. It noted that no further action had been taken as an operative’s report of further work had not been picked up. It apologised for the lack of communication and said the supervisor would assess this at their visit. It noted the resident complained about bathroom window poor workmanship, including inadequate sealant, gaps, and paintwork damage. It apologised that this had not been done to the expected standard and said the supervisor would assess this at their visit. It noted the resident complained about radiators not heating up. It noted that staff had said that the resident had mentioned she may be getting air source heating. It said its major works team did not have the property down for heating. It noted that the resident had said to staff that she had issues with hall and bathroom heating and the supervisor would assess this at their visit. It concluded that there had been communication issues, repairs delays and poor workmanship. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. It said it would follow up with the contractor after the visit to discuss the outcome and ensure repairs were scheduled around the resident’s availability. It awarded £600, which comprised £250 repairs delays, £150 communication issues, £200 distress and inconvenience. It detailed steps it was taking to improve future service and said it was discussing the case internally.
17 October 2024	The landlord awarded an additional £50 for the lack of stage 1 response. It noted the resident had not raised the external doors in a call about the complaint, and said it had asked the contractor to contact her for these.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She raises dissatisfaction with delays, management and communication in respect to the repairs, and dissatisfaction with the impact on her mental health and finances. She seeks compensation to recognise these and issues she experienced.

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	The landlord’s handling of repairs including for leaks, the bathroom, the kitchen, asbestos removal, electrics, windows, radiators, external doors, bathroom ceiling insulation, and damage caused by contractors
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident’s daughter later referred to a roof leak, and said after the stage 2 that an operative had recommended further investigation of the property. We have not investigated this as this was not the subject of original reports, which were about bathroom and toilet leaks. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to raise a new complaint about any additional issues, and to refer it to us for a separate investigation.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s response was reasonable for some issues such as asbestos and leaks. It is not clear there were failings for asbestos. It removed the asbestos and then restored a ceiling at a later date, which seemed reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. It is not clear there were failings in the handling of leaks in this complaint timeframe, as the landlord seemed to respond in line with its policy for any reports about leaks and crumbling plaster.
The landlord reasonably acknowledged issues with delays, communication and workmanship, and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. It awarded £600 compensation for the repairs, which is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been severe maladministration and failures that have had a significant impact. However, this and the response was not entirely satisfactory.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with how long kitchen electrics repairs took, which meant the kitchen was in total darkness and she had to use a laundrette. The repair for this was raised on 5 April 2024 and completed on 17 May 2024. This was 37 days after the 3 working days that repairs for partial loss of electric power are expected to take in the Right to Repair Regulations, which say up to £50 is applicable for this delay. The landlord did not address this or show it considered whether the resident incurred additional laundry costs due to the delay, which would have been reasonable.
The resident complained in June and September 2024 about the condition of the external doors, and a repair was raised on 23 August 2024 to renew them. The landlord’s records say this was completed on 25 September 2024 but it is evident the works were not actually completed then. The landlord did not address the doors in its stage 2 response, and the resident contacted it after its stage 2 response about a lack of communication for the doors.
The evidence shows that external door works were completed by January 2025, but it is not clear if the repairs were completed within timeframes in the landlord’s policy, due to the poor records supplied. The landlord not addressing the doors in the response missed the opportunity to review the service and clarify matters, and likely caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident.
The resident’s daughter said on 5 September 2024 that the property was uninhabitable, and raised dissatisfaction that bathroom works delays meant household members were washing elsewhere. The landlord internally noted the following day how the issues were reportedly impacting the resident’s health issues. It noted these and lack of a bath and shower were leading her to stay away and wash elsewhere, such as at gyms. On 12 September 2024, the contractor said they had scheduled repairs for 25 September 2024, after the resident had reportedly declined works that day.
We cannot say that the shower was unusable or the property was uninhabitable, and the resident temporarily staying away and using facilities elsewhere may not be unreasonable for a short period. Staying with friends or family for temporary works is an option commonly stated in many landlords’ decant policies. However, we cannot see specific evidence the resident was offered and declined the completion of the shower works on 12 September 2024, and it does not seem reasonable that the contractor action represents all the action on the issue.
We would have expected the landlord to show more clearly that it considered whether the property was habitable and the shower was usable, considered the resident’s support needs while the shower repair was outstanding, and considered if compensation was applicable under its policies (such as decant policy) for any costs incurred staying away or using gyms to wash. It comes across as lacking sufficient engagement with the resident and the issue, which is not reasonable and likely led her to feel unsupported.
The landlord also comes across as lacking sufficient engagement with some of the repairs issues and the resident’s concerns. It could have shown it investigated the issues and monitored its October 2024 stage 2 response commitments more effectively. Its handling of these also likely led to avoidable delays in the resolution of issues and the resident feeling unsupported.
The supervisor’s report for their 18 October 2024 visit addressed a number of issues, but it did not address all the issues. They did not address issues with hall and bathroom heating, as the landlord had promised they would in its stage 2 response. They also did not address the resident’s concerns that contractors had caused damage to carpet, and action was not taken for this until July 2025.
The landlord could have generally taken a more active role in considering the resident’s concerns about workmanship and damage caused by contractors. This also included damage to walls when baths were removed and put in, and damage to walls when material was reportedly stapled to walls to catch asbestos. It would also have been reasonable for it to inspect the issues itself in addition to its contractor.
The contractor scheduled repairs with the resident in October and November 2024, after the 18 October 2024 supervisor visit. It is unclear what happened with these and it could have been beneficial for the landlord to provide the resident with a written follow up with the findings for each of the issues in the stage 2 response and the next steps.
The resident then chased outstanding repairs from at least January 2025, there was a further supervisor visit in May 2025, and repairs were completed in July 2025. The resident seems satisfied these resolved the issues she raised, but this was 9 months later. This was a lengthy delay in resolution to issues after the stage 2 response, and shows it did not meet its commitments in a timely way. Some July 2025 works to fit insulation above the bathroom ceiling also seem 15 months after a repair raised for this in April 2024.
The compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, frustration and time and trouble that will have been caused to the resident. We do not make decisions about liability for the impact on mental health, finances and lost wages, as this is for the courts. But a further £400 is reasonable to recognise this, considering the service issues and impact evident. This is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration, and a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not gone some way to provide a remedy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

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 at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident complained on 10 June 2024 and 23 August 2024 and her daughter complained on 5 September 2024. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response in line with its policy. The landlord then said on 6 September 2024 that it had escalated the complaint and would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It ultimately responded in 25 working days but it appropriately provided prior notice of this.
The landlord did not address the delays in its stage 2, but it acknowledged and apologised for this a week later and offered £50. This shows it sought to acknowledge and remedy the issues with its handling. However, the compensation awarded will not go far enough to remedy the full extent of the delays, frustration and time and trouble that will have been caused to the resident.
The landlord took 4 months to provide a formal complaint response, after repeated chasing. It did not address all the issues that were raised in the original and later complaints. This may have been reasonable if agreed with the resident, but this is not evident. It also does not show it effectively monitored commitments as noted in our assessment of the repairs. This likely left the resident feeling other issues were unresolved, caused uncertainty and frustration, and contributed to the repairs delays after the stage 2 response.
A further £100 is reasonable to recognise this, considering the service issues and impact evident. This is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration, and a failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not gone some way to provide a remedy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

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.
The repairs records often do not accurately reflect whether a repair was completed on a certain date, and the resident has referred to findings at visits that were not reflected in reports.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also noted the resident mentioned she may be getting air source heating, and said its major works team did not have the property down for heating. However, the resident has a 2023 letter showing it previously told her the property was included on a programme for air source heating system, and it is understood that heating works were subsequently done around July 2025.
The landlord could reflect on how to ensure that reports and its records accurately capture visit outcomes and the status of repairs, for its own benefit as well as ours. It could reflect on how effective its current approaches are if it is unable to locate correspondence it has sent to its residents about major works.

Communication and complaint handling

The evidence shows there were repeated delays responding to multiple complaints, limited investigation of and communication about some issues, including at the time they were occurring, and an apparent lack of effective monitoring to ensure issues progressed in a timely manner after the stage 2 response. There is potentially an over-reliance on its contractor’s supervisors and contractor’s complaints team to investigate, resolve and communicate about repairs complaints.
The landlord could reflect on these issues and consider any learning.