Manchester City Council (202429704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429704

Manchester City Council

21 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband have a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority, and they occupy a 3-bedroom house. For ease, this report uses “the resident” to refer to the resident and her husband jointly and separately where the context allows and it is not necessary to distinguish between them individually.
The resident has advised the landlord of various disabilities and health issues, including “life threatening allergies”, “severe ear problems” and numerous infections. However, the landlord has told the Ombudsman there are no disabilities/vulnerabilities or reasonable adjustments recorded on the account.
Historical reports relating to various leaks, damp and mould appear to have been resolved by 2021. More recently, the resident reported a leak through the bathroom ceiling and an odour on 20 August 2023. Thereafter, she repeatedly reported issues with the roof repair, damp and mould. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that remedial works are still outstanding.

On 22 June 2024, the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. The “severe mould and damp … throughout the loft” had “caused severe harm to health”.
2. The problem had been ongoing for many years and, although the landlord had sent contractors to carry out various repairs to the roof, it had not resolved the underlying damp and mould inside the loft space.
3. She had been advised by a roofing contractor that “the mould was extremely bad and needs urgent attention”.
4. She could no longer shower in the bathroom “as the mould interacts strongly with the steam”.
5. She wanted to “live in a non-toxic house where our health is not being put at risk daily”.
6. She felt she had been ignored by the landlord.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response, and the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of its procedure on 16 August 2024 following receipt of an email from the resident’s local councillor on her behalf.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 1 October 2024, stated:
1. It accepted there were delays in addressing a roof repair logged on 20 August 2023. Repairs were carried out on 19 February and 11 April 2024, and further works were completed on 13 June 2024. However, the resident reported green mould coming in through the bathroom extractor fan, and she had chased this repair numerous times since this was initially reported.
2. An inspection was completed on 12 July 2024 and a job logged to renew the insulation to the loft above the bathroom and bedroom.
3. It had received a detailed report addressing damp and mould in the property from a full survey carried out on 20 September 2024. It had instructed the surveying contractor to undertake all work arising from this, and outstanding work with a previous contractor would be cancelled.
4. The resident’s report about the impact this repair was having on her health was not taken seriously and the appropriate follow-up action was not taken on a number of occasions. This was escalated to a manager, but it could not see she was contacted regarding this. It had now asked a repairs manager to contact her to discuss the matter and provide a resolution to the issues.
5. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and the inconvenience caused.
6. It acknowledged it was not delivering the repairs service to the expected standard and needed to improve this. It had undertaken a full-service review with its contractor, which had resulted in a service redesign with a robust service improvement plan to follow.
7. It would be introducing a case management system for planned and major works requiring project management, such as that required at the resident’s property. This would ensure it had full oversight of such repairs in order to make the process and communication more robust for its residents.
8. It offered £825 compensation, comprising:
  1. £25 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
  2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. £400 for delays in completion of the roof repair and the damage caused by this.
The complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. The resident told us:
1. She felt the surveyor’s report was misleading as it did not address the mould on the wall in the downstairs toilet, on all the rotten fascia boards outside all the bedroom windows, and the outside vent to the bathroom extractor fan.
2. High levels of “ammonium salt” were found to be present in the loft and the mould from the loft was coming through into the bedrooms. She was allergic to ammonia and had developed “really severe breathing difficulties”. Her husband’s health had also been affected.
3. The surveyor told her she needed a new roof as “it’s in a really bad way”.
4. In November 2024, the contractor said works would start in January 2025. To date (August 2025), the recommended works had not been completed.
5. She remained unable to sleep in the bedrooms due to the severity of the damp and mould. She only felt safe in the living room – all other areas were affected.
6. The bathroom ceiling was “about to give in”. She and her husband washed in the sink and did not use the bathroom to bathe. They went to their daughter’s house to bathe.
7. She felt the landlord’s compensation offer was “derogatory due to the years of stress and ill health suffered … due to severe allergies and chronic chest infections”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

While the historical reports relating to damp and mould give context to the complaint, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with the landlord and this Service in a reasonable timeframe, normally 12 months of the issues arising. Accordingly, we have considered events from June 2023 onwards, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline.
The resident has told us she believes the longstanding damp and mould issues in the property have made her unwell. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Roof repairs, damp and mould

Damp and mould are potential hazards under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Where landlords identify a hazard in the property, they should inspect, assess and take preventative measures within a reasonable time in order to minimise the risk of harm or injury to occupants. Landlords may also need to consider if a property affected by a hazard is fit for human habitation under section 9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy dated March 2023, and its strategy dated April 2023, state it will:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance, proactive and resident-focused approach to dealing with damp, mould and condensation.
2. Have the skills and knowledge to investigate and correctly diagnose the cause of damp, mould, and condensation, and carry out remedial repairs and actions to deal with the cause of the problem, not just the symptom.
3. Communicate effectively with residents affected by damp, condensation and mould, clearly explaining the actions to be taken, timescales for completion and aftercare arrangements.
4. Treat residents with respect, be empathetic and non-judgemental, and ensure they feel listened to.
5. Follow up with residents to check if the damp and mould have been resolved.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, dated October 2024, notes its aim to carry out repairs “right first time” and provides the following categories and timescales for completing works:
1. Emergency repairs – 3 hours.
2. Routine repairs – 28 calendar days.
3. Planned repairs – 60 calendar days.
4. Major repairs – 90 calendar days.
Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, there are gaps in the repair records, which make it difficult to ascertain the dates and outcomes of inspections and repair appointments. For instance, records indicate that, in response to the initial report of a leak on 20 August 2023, an appointment was booked for 15 November 2023. However, the works order was not marked as ‘completed’ until 19 February 2024. It is unclear from the available evidence if/when the contractor attended, the issues identified and recommended solutions, and what works were carried out. Also, there is no evidence relating to the resident’s reports of green mould or that works were carried out on 11 April 2024, as referenced in the stage 2 response.
There were numerous lengthy delays in addressing the leak, despite repeated reports that issues persisted. For example, the resident reported damp patches to her bathroom and bedroom ceilings on 23 October 2023. The landlord responded on 1 and 20 December 2023 to advise it could not order a repair because the resident was going through the Right to Buy (RTB) process.
The landlord says residents are only entitled to routine repairs up to the point they are admitted onto the RTB scheme. Thereafter, it will only carry out emergency repairs. It has told the Ombudsman the resident submitted a RTB application on 14 November 2024 and was admitted to the scheme on 17 December 2024. It is unclear if the date has been mis-stated and should be 2023. In any case, it was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse repairs in December 2023 because the reports pre-dated the resident’s RTB application.
Records show several repair orders raised by the landlord were not attended within the timescales provided in its repairs and maintenance policy, and many were subsequently cancelled. This often meant the landlord did not follow through with promised actions (either in a timely manner or at all), repairs were not completed right first time, and the resident’s expectations were mis-managed. For example, in response to the report on 26 January 2024 that the leak had spread from the bathroom into 2 bedrooms, it appears an appointment was booked for 2 April 2024. However, this was cancelled on 20 February 2024. There is no evidence the resident was informed of the cancellation or the reason for this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s notes dated 10 April 2024 indicate other issues with the roof repair. It recorded that the resident disputed there was no access on 8 April 2024, and the operative had told her they “would return as slates needed cutting to the right size”. She also advised that “scaffolding is in [the] wrong place” and “the scaffolders keep coming out to take scaffolding down and tenant is turning them away as the work is not complete”. This reflects a lack of management and oversight of the repair, which resulted in concern and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident reported that the bathroom extractor fan was not working on 2 May 2024. Records indicate that an appointment was initially booked for 22 May 2024, but the job was not completed until 13 June 2024. This was outside the 28-day timescale for a routine repair under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Further, the landlord failed to address the resident’s report of issues with the newly-fitted extractor fan on 14 June 2024, which was unsatisfactory.
Meanwhile, the resident had requested “a surveyor to inspect damages caused by roof leak” on 5 June 2024. The landlord said it would arrange for a joiner to inspect the woodwork in the loft area due to the leak. A job was raised for this the same day, and records indicate an appointment date of 9 July 2024. However, it is unclear if that appointment went ahead, and there is no evidence of any assessment of the loft at the time. It is also noted that the job was subsequently cancelled and re-raised on 3 September 2024.
The landlord failed to take timely and reasonable steps to address the resident’s report on 14 June 2024 that the ongoing damp and mould in the bathroom and bedrooms was “affecting her health”. In her subsequent complaint, the resident told the landlord she could no longer shower in the bathroom due to the mould interacting strongly with the steam.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s internal email of 24 June 2024 noted that it could not see any jobs raised for damp and mould and that a job relating to the roof repair “says cancelled due to duplicate job”. This further highlights the landlord’s failure to take timely and effective steps to address the resident’s reports relating to the roof repair and damp and mould, contrary to its damp and mould policy.
The contractor advised the landlord, on 12 July 2024, that they had cancelled all pending jobs as a surveyor was booked for 16 July 2024 and would book in the necessary works. On 26 July 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord that the surveyor had not inspected the loft space for damp and mould. She also reported debris and a bad smell being blown into the property when she used the newly-fitted extractor fan, attributing this to an old part on the outside that was not removed and was “all blocked up”. This reflects the landlord’s poor communication with the resident as she did not feel listened to, in line with its damp and mould policy.
The surveyor advised of the outcome of this visit in an email dated 27 August 2024:
1. There were no visible signs or smell of mould.
2. There was a small (approximately 0.5-square-metre) leak stain around the eave of the rear bedroom. The resident was unsure if a cracked tile over the area had been dealt with on a previous roofing job. The surveyor was unable to see this but had raised it as part of a schedule of works.
3. The resident was unhappy with a recent extractor fan replacement in the bathroom as the outside vent cover was not replaced. The surveyor explained this was normal practice if there was nothing wrong with the vent cover. However, as she was very distressed by this, they agreed to refer the request to a manager. She then said she also wanted the new extractor fan replaced as she believed it was contaminated due to the outside vent not being changed. They advised they would not replace the fan if it was functioning correctly.
4. The resident believed the loft space was filled with mould and wanted the full loft treated. The surveyor advised the loft was not a habitable space, so they would not do any mould washes, but would look to establish any cause of condensation and mould such as ventilation issues, leaks, loft insulation, etc. She was not happy with this.
5. There was some visible cracking to the bathroom ceiling, which needed boarding over and skimming. This was included on the schedule of works.
While an appointment was booked for renewal of the insulation to the roof space above the bedroom and bathroom, none of the other works identified by the surveyor were raised in July 2024. Nor is there any evidence the resident’s request for the outside vent cover to be replaced was referred to a manager. The landlord’s failure to follow up on actions was compounded by further delays as it subsequently advised the resident it would suspend the roof insulation job until the roof repair was completed, confirming an appointment for this on 18 September 2024. The resident reiterated her request to have the extractor fan and outside cover replaced “due to her health” and it said it would look into this and re-plastering the ceiling once the insulation had been replaced. As it happened, the appointment on 18 September 2024 was also aborted.
Instead, the landlord arranged a property condition survey on 17 September 2024. A detailed report dated 20 September 2024 set out, among other things, the following key findings:
1. The property was not considered unfit for human habitation
2. Damp and mould were present around the chimney area and showing on the ceilings and walls.
3. Moisture readings were obtained throughout the property but were within acceptable tolerance.
4. Where medium to high readings were observed, these were due to external factors requiring repairs, which would reduce the readings to within tolerance.
5. High moisture readings to the chimney breast wall were possibly due to hygroscopic salts, which “attract moisture and can provide false damp readings”. The resulting moisture was saturating the loft insulation, plaster and below, and was a potential cause of the ongoing issues.
6. Upon inspecting the roof, the underfelt was in good condition. However, some of the ridge tiles had areas of missing mortar, which could contribute to future leaks.
7. Several repairs and improvement works were recommended to alleviate damp and mould issues in the property.
The landlord’s emails of 18 October 2024 admitted it had overlooked the report, which it had received by email on 30 September 2024. This further highlights its failure to effectively monitor the outcome of contractor attendances and manage outstanding repairs.
As detailed above, there were multiple contractor attendances, repeat inspections, cancelled appointments, and several works orders were raised, cancelled and re-raised, which contributed to the overall delays. This demonstrates a prolonged failure by the landlord to monitor the outcome of appointments, manage repairs and oversee the outstanding works to completion.
The resident visited the landlord’s office in person on several occasions – 2 April, 5 and 14 June, 26 July and 7 and 14 October 2024 – to report issues with the ongoing roof repair, extractor fan and resulting damp and mould, to chase repairs and to obtain updates. Each time, the landlord chased the contractor and/or said it would update the resident. This demonstrates a lack of proactivity on the landlord’s part to take timely and effective action, as well as inadequate communication which caused a significant amount of frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time.
The stage 2 response addressed the resident’s concerns, accepted the landlord’s failings, and sought to show learning had been taken and improvements made as a result of the resident’s experience. However, its assurance – that all works arising from the survey would be completed by the surveying contractor – later transpired to be inaccurate, as they could not carry out the repairs. The Ombudsman understands the recommended works are still outstanding in August 2025, despite approval of a quotation on 28 February 2025.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £400 for the delays in completing the roof repair and resulting damage, and £400 for distress and inconvenience. It is unclear from the response if the latter amount was for both the substantive issues and its complaint handling, so the Ombudsman cannot determine if the compensation awarded was reasonable under its compensation policy. In any case, as remedial works have not been completed, the compensation totalling £800 does not reflect a proportionate remedy for the severe impact to the resident as a result of the 2-year delay in dealing with matters. Essentially, it has failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the complaint.
Finally, while the Ombudsman notes the surveyor’s conclusion that the property was fit for human habitation, we recognise the resident’s concerns about her health conditions. There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to discuss this with the resident or understand the impact on her. In her complaint, she noted her belief that she could not use the shower in the bathroom. Upon referring her complaint to us, she stated she could not use the bathroom or the bedrooms due to the severity of the damp and mould. The landlord has not demonstrated, to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction, that it addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the health impact of the damp and mould she had reported.
Overall, it is appropriate to make a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repair and damp and mould in the resident’s property because:
1. Gaps in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggest a failure to keep adequate records and/or to provide information for our investigation.
2. There were numerous lengthy delays in responding to the resident’s reports relating to the roof leak, damp and mould, and the landlord failed to take timely and effective action to address matters.
3. The landlord unreasonably stated it could not order repairs because the resident was going through the RTB process, failing to recognise the reports pre-dated her application.
4. No remedial works were carried out following a survey on 16 July 2024.
5. A full property condition survey was not carried out until 17 September 2024, 13 months after the resident’s initial report in August 2023.
6. The recommended works are still outstanding at the time of our investigation, 2 years after the resident first contacted the landlord about the issues. This is excessive against the longest (90-day) timescale for completing major works in its repair and maintenance policy.
7. There were multiple attendances, repeated inspections and cancelled appointments, which did not progress the works required to address the resident’s reports. This represents a failure to monitor the outcome of appointments and follow up on recommendations.
8. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor and she persistently chased for progress and updates, both via email and by visiting its office. This highlights the impact and inconvenience caused to her.
9. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the increased impact of the damp and mould issues on her specific health conditions.
10. The landlord did not utilise its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.
11. The level of compensation offered in its stage 2 response did not reflect the significant and long-term impact of its multiple failings over a prolonged period of time.
In the absence of clear evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about being unable to use the bathroom and bedrooms, the Ombudsman considers she has experienced, at the very least, a loss of enjoyment of her property for which it should pay compensation, in accordance with our remedies guidance. The Ombudsman considers 20% of the weekly rent is proportionate, having regard to the nature of the concerns expressed by the resident. This has been calculated from 17 June 2024 (the first concern about not being able to use the shower being expressed on 14 June 2024) to 24 August 2025 (104 weeks) less 4 weeks (being the appropriate timescale in the repairs and maintenance policy for it to complete works), as follows:
1. (Weekly rent 2024/25 £100.01 x 20%) x 43 weeks = £860.09
2. (Weekly rent 2025/26 £102.79 x 20%) x 20 weeks = £411.16
In addition to this, we find the landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over 2 years. In line with its compensation policy, it is appropriate to award compensation of over £1,000 in recognition of the significant long-term effect on the resident due to its “serious and sustained mishandling” of the roof repair and damp and mould reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy, dated April 2024, provides the following timescales, which are consistent with the Ombudsman’s statutory Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”):
1. Acknowledgement at both stages – within 5 working days.
2. Stage 1 response – within 10 working days, with an extension permitted of up to further 10 working days.
3. Stage 2 response – within 20 working days, with an extension permitted of up to further 20 working days.
4. Where the landlord is not possible to respond within these timescales, it will contact the resident by telephone to explain the reason for the delay and to agree an extension to provide its response. Any extension will not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 22 June 2024 promptly, within 2 working days. It advised that it aimed to provide a full response within 10 working days but, if it needed more time, it would tell her the reason for this and update her on its investigation. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s internal email dated 24 June 2024 confirmed the deadline for its stage 1 response was 8 July 2024. It noted the resident’s concerns about “severe damp and mould within the property and … she has life threatening illnesses”. Despite this, the landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response, contrary to its obligations under the Code. In fact, the lack of a stage 1 response was not identified until it was contacted by a local councillor on the resident’s behalf on 13 August 2024. This suggests the landlord had inadequate procedures and/or systems in place to log and monitor complaints from residents.
Despite internal emails chasing for an urgent response to the complaint, none was forthcoming. This compounded the landlord’s failure up to this point to address the resident’s long-outstanding roof repair and related damp and mould reports. Ultimately, the complaint was escalated to stage 2 due to the councillor’s involvement. Acknowledgement of the escalated complaint was sent to the resident on 16 August 2024, noting the deadline for providing its response would be 20 working days, so by 16 September 2024.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 September 2024 and agreed an extension for it to provide its stage 2 response by 30 September 2024. This was to allow for a survey to be carried out, together with pictures of the reported issues, which was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with its policy. The extended deadline for its response was confirmed by the landlord in writing to the resident on 11 September 2024. It stated that, if it was unable to provide its response by 30 September 2024, it would update her.
Although the stage 2 response was dated 1 October 2024, the evidence suggests it was not sent to the resident until, at the earliest, 18 October 2024. Therefore, it was issued at least 45 working days after the stage 2 acknowledgement was issued, which was an unreasonable delay. The Ombudsman has reached this conclusion because the response confirmed receipt of the surveyor’s report, which it was not aware it had received until 18 October 2024. In the circumstances, the landlord ought reasonably to have updated the resident, but there is no evidence it did so, which was unreasonable. This is also a further example of its poor record keeping practices.
As noted above under the substantive complaint, the stage 2 response itself did not resolve the resident’s complaint. In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, while it acknowledged the delay in providing its response and offered compensation of £25 for this, this was not proportionate to the significant failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. For instance, it did not adequately recognise the lack of a stage 1 response.
In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to award compensation in the £100 to £600 range for failures result in serious, but not lasting, detriment to the resident. This is also in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports relating to roof repairs and damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
2. Contact the resident to discuss her disabilities/needs and any reasonable adjustments she requires it to make. It should ensure its records are updated accordingly and accessible by staff.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £2,621.25, which comprises:
  1. £1,271.25 for the loss of enjoyment of her home due to the longstanding damp and mould issues.
  2. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of her reports relating to the roof repair and damp and mould in the property.
  3. £150 for its failings in the handling of her complaint.
  4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  5. If already paid to the resident, the landlord may deduct from the total compensation payable under this order the £825 offered in its stage 2 response dated 1 October 2024.
The landlord must, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, commence the outstanding works, as approved on 28 February 2025. It must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a timebound schedule of works ahead of commencement, as evidence of the planned completion of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord must, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, carry out a review of its handling of matters in this case. It must produce a report detailing the outcome of the review should be shared with its governing body and the Ombudsman, and should identify:
1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it will do differently to avoid the same happening again.
2. Any changes (or planned changes) to its processes and practices to ensure it deals with damp and mould effectively and without delay. This should include, but is not limited to, consideration of its communications with residents and the contractor, appropriate oversight and monitoring of issues.
3. Any staff training needs to ensure policies and procedures are embedded in everyday practice.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals, unless it has done so within the last 12 months.