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 (202440330)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440330

Manchester City Council

25 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering from nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the bedroom and its handling of repairs to address a leak, damp, and mould in the bathroom.
    3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident occupies the property with her child, who has asthma.
  2. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 22 August 2024. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 1 November 2024.
  3. During the landlord’s internal complaint process, the resident:
    1. Expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking the landlord to clear the gutters and repair the kitchen, with the landlord’s management of appointments, and about miscommunication by its surveyors.
    2. Mentioned damp in the bedroom and bathroom as a result of blocked guttering and a leak in the bathroom. And expressed concern about the impact of this on the health of her child.
    3. Said the landlord should repair the gutter, cover the solar panels to prevent pigeons nesting, and replace the kitchen.
  4. The landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of the substantive issues in the final stage 2 complaint response. In summary, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for not issuing the stage 1 complaint response within the expected timescale.
    2. Noted its contractor had now fixed the broken downpipe, cleared the guttering, and fixed the leak on the bath. It apologised for not agreeing a solution to address the issues with pigeons earlier and committed to pest proofing the solar panels.
    3. Set out the action it had taken regarding the kitchen and the circumstances under which it would install a new kitchen. It apologised for its non-attendance in August 2024 and for any miscommunication that had arisen. It committed to confirming its next steps once it had seen the findings from its most recent kitchen inspection.
    4. Explained the steps it was taking to improve future service delivery and the customer experience.
    5. Offered £320 compensation in recognition of the failings it had identified. This comprised:
      1. £100 compensation for its failure to arrange preventive repairs to the solar panels to address issues with blocked gutters.
      2. £120 compensation for delay and issues with communication relating to kitchen repairs.
      3. £75 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £25 compensation for complaint handling delay.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint to us in January 2025. She said the landlord had fixed the leak in the bathroom and had painted over the mould. But all of the other issues raised in the complaint were unresolved.
  6. The resident told us in July 2025 that the landlord had installed netting around the solar panels in July 2025. But said this had not fully resolved the pigeon issue and the gutters were still getting blocked. She said the landlord had recently agreed to replace the kitchen. The resident said the landlord should resolve the outstanding issues and improve its communications.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering from nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs.

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior to the property in repair. And to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. What the landlord considers to be a reasonable timeframe, is set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. This policy states, the landlord will diagnose and complete emergency repairs within 3 hours, routine repairs within 28 days, planned repairs within 60 days, and major repairs within 90 days. Where a pre-inspection is required before a repair appointment can be arranged, this will be completed within 10 calendar days.
  3. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord may award between £25 and £100 compensation where there has been a minor failure in its service but a relatively small impact on the resident. It may award between £100 and £600 where there been a failure that has resulted in serious but not lasting detriment to the resident. And between £600 and £1,000 where there have been significant failures that have had a significant impact on the resident.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2024 to report the guttering was “blocked / damaged” by dead pigeons and pigeon debris. The landlord raised a routine works order on the same day, which was in line with its repairs policy.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate an inspection was arranged for 21 August 2024. It is unclear why the landlord’s contractor did not arrange this in a timelier manner, given the expected completion date stated on the works order was 14 June 2024.
  6. The landlord was unable verify during its own complaint investigation that its contractor inspected the guttering on 21 August 2024. The resident maintained in the stage 1 complaint, that its contractor actually scheduled the inspection for 22 August 2024. But its contractor did not attend. The resident indicated this had caused some inconvenience and frustration, as she had taken time off work to accommodate the appointment. It is reasonable to conclude from these accounts, that the landlord’s contractor did not inspect the guttering as it had committed.
  7. The landlord did, however, clear the gutters within 5 days of the stage 1 complaint being raised. This was positive given the resident was worried that pigeon mess was “seeping into the walls”.
  8. Ultimately, the overall time taken to unblock the gutters, significantly exceeded the landlord’s expected timescale for completing routine repairs. This delay was unreasonable. The landlord conceded in the stage 2 complaint response that it was not delivering its repairs service to the expected standard but said it was working to address this. It also shared some of the measures it was taking to address this, to provide reassurance.
  9. The landlord began exploring options on 23 August 2024 with other local authority departments for removing nesting birds and arranging pest proofing around the solar panels, to prevent the gutters becoming blocked again in the future. The landlord’s internal records from 17 September 2024 indicate the landlord was conversing with a solar panel company concerning its options. However, the landlord did not keep the resident proactively updated concerning the action it was taking. This created time and trouble for the resident having to chase the landlord for updates, including (not an exhaustive list) on 10 September 2024 and 23 October 2024. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s policy commitment to keep residents informed.
  10. The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 complaint response that it was committed to installing pest proofing around the solar panels. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining this could take some time to arrange, as it needed to procure a new contractor. It tried to put things right by offering £100 compensation for the issues experienced with the blocked guttering and for not arranging preventative repairs in a timelier manner. The compensation for these failings was reasonable up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response and was in line with its compensation policy.
  11. We note that the landlord offered an additional £75 compensation at stage 2, for general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the timeframe of the complaint. In the absence of clarity from the landlord, we have assumed this compensation was split equally across those complaint points where it found fault. This means the amount of compensation apportioned to this complaint point was £37.50, which seems low for the level of distress and inconvenience identified in our investigation.
  12. The resident told us in March 2025 that the landlord’s contractor had installed chicken wire around the solar panels, although she had needed to chase it several times before its contractor completed this. It was inappropriate that the landlord’s communications did not improve following issue of the stage 2 complaint response and shows a lack of learning by the landlord.
  13. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering caused by nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs.
  14. To remedy the complaint, the landlord ordered to pay £200 compensation, in recognition the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering from nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs, resulting in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This comprises:
    1. The £100 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2 for the issues experienced with blocked guttering and for not arranging preventative repairs in a timelier manner.
    2. £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, which largely arose due to inadequacies in the landlord’s communications. This is inclusive of the £37.50 the landlord offered at stage 2 for distress and inconvenience.
  15. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range where there have been failures but the landlord’s compensation does not quite reflect the detriment that was caused to the resident.
  16. The landlord should satisfy itself that the pest proofing it installed is fit for purpose.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the bedroom and its handling of repairs to address a leak, damp, and mould in the bathroom.

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy and damp policies, the landlord has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It will triage every report of damp and mould and will respond by arranging a specialist inspection that will remove any immediate health risks and identify the root cause of the issue. It will carry out any works required to treat the root cause. The landlord will encourage residents to get in contact if there are any problems following completion of works. But it will also follow up the repair 4 weeks after completion, to ensure the issue has been resolved.
  2. The first report about damp and mould made by the resident we have seen within the timeframe of the complaint, was on 10 September 2024 when she raised the stage 2 complaint. The resident said there was damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom, which she attributed to leaking gutters. She added that her child had stopped sleeping in the bedroom because of the mould. As previously referenced, the landlord had cleared the gutters in August in 2024.
  3. The landlord raised an emergency inspection on the same day to investigate the source of the leak. It also requested a damp and mould inspection. This was positive and shows the landlord was treating the resident’s reports with the attention they deserved.
  4. The landlord attended the property on 11 September 2024 to investigate the source of the leak and to investigate the cause of the damp and mould, which was within the expected timescale. The landlord raised several works orders between 13 September 2024 and 17 September 2024 to fix a downpipe, to address a leak on the bath, and to carry out a mould wash in the bedroom and bathroom.
  5. The landlord completed the mould treatment on 17 September 2024, which would have removed any immediate risk to the resident and her family. The evidence suggests the leak from the downpipe was repaired sometime prior to 19 September 2024 although the exact date is unclear.
  6. The landlord arranged to address the leak on the bath on 19 September 2024, however, its contractor was unable to complete any repairs, as it was unable to gain access. The resident maintains that its contractor must have attended earlier than was agreed, as there was someone in at the time of the appointment. We were unable to determine from the evidence seen what time its contractor attended. But the landlord did make arrangements for its contractor to return on 25 September 2024 at the resident’s request. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 September 2024, confirming that its contractor had “sorted” the bath leak and had replaced the bath panel.
  7. The landlord followed up with the resident around 4 weeks after it had completed the repairs. The resident confirmed that the damp and mould had not returned, which suggests the repairs had been successful. The landlord advised the resident to get in contact if the mould returned. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy.
  8. The landlord did not indicate in the stage 2 complaint response that it had identified any failings in its handling of the substantive issue.We accept that the situation was worrying for the resident, given her child’s health diagnosis. But our investigation found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the bedroom and its handling of repairs to address a leak, damp, and mould in the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

  1. The landlord had a schedule for upgrading its kitchens through a planned investment programme. The landlord explained in the stage 2 complaint response, that it would only consider carrying out a full kitchen upgrade outside of its planned investment programme, where all repairs have been exhausted and the kitchen does not meet the Decent Homes Standard. This would not be an unusual position for the landlord to have adopted, as it would have to manage and make best use of the finite resources there were available to it. The landlord did not confirm when the kitchen was next due for renewal.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2024 reporting the kitchen was in need of repair. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the kitchen in a reasonable timeframe on 28 June 2024. The landlord’s surveyor maintained that the resident refused repairs because she wanted a new kitchen so not follow-on repairs were requested. The resident maintains that its survey or did not offer any repairs and agreed she should have a new kitchen. It has not been possible for us to determine what was agreed by the parties during the inspection, from the available evidence.
  3. The landlord raised another inspection request on 21 August 2024 for the kitchen. The resident stated in the stage 1 complaint that this appointment was actually booked for 22 August 2024. The resident said she contacted the landlord when its surveyor did not arrive, to be told the appointment had been moved to 27 August 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not contact the resident to agree a new appointment if this had to be changed. This created avoidable inconvenience for the resident, who had taken time off work to accommodate the appointment. The parties rearranged the inspection to 29 August 2024.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the kitchen on 29 August 2024 as it had committed. We have not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report, so we cannot determine what the landlord identified. But we note the landlord’s surveyor asked for a second opinion. This shows the landlord was giving the matter its full attention.
  5. The landlord’s records show the landlord reinspected the kitchen on 10 September 2024 as it had committed. Again, we have not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report, so we cannot determine what the landlord identified. But we note the landlord did raise several works orders on 13 September 2024 for repairs to the kitchen. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 September 2024 confirming various appointment dates throughout October 2024. The landlord’s complaint handler instructed its contractor on 21 October 2024 to reinspect the kitchen, to satisfy itself that all of the repairs raised had been completed.
  6. The landlord’s contractor reinspected the kitchen on 25 October 2024 but did not send its observations to the landlord immediately. So, the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response based on the information it had, to avoid delaying the complaint process further. This was appropriate. The landlord accepted responsibly for the delays in it progressing repairs to the kitchen and for miscommunication. It explained that it had been experiencing a high turnover of surveyors and temporary surveyors, which had resulted in inconsistency with outcomes following surveys and delays resolving repairs. It described some of the changes it was making to avoid similar service challenges in the future, to provide reassurance.
  7. It sought to put things right by apologising for the failings it had identified, by committing to update the resident with next steps concerning the kitchen once it had received the latest inspection report, and by making a combined offer of compensation for delays, poor communication, distress, and inconvenience amounting to £157.50. The landlord’s combined offer of compensation at stage 2, was proportionate to the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue, based on the evidence it had available to it at the time.
  8. However, it would have been evident to the landlord on 8 November 2024 when it obtained the latest inspection report, that the majority of the repairs it had instructed to the kitchen were incomplete. It did not contact the resident with its intentions for addressing the outstanding repairs. This was unreasonable given the commitments it made in the stage 2 complaint response and left the resident unclear about how and when it was proposing to resolve the matter.
  9. We note the resident was still chasing the landlord for a decision concerning the kitchen in March 2025. Its contractor was unable to evidence in May 2025 that it had ordered any parts for the kitchen, despite the landlord stating it had given instructions concerning this. This suggests there was an inadequate level of oversight by the landlord over its contractor following issue of the stage 2 complaint response, which unreasonably prolonged the resolution of the matter for the resident. We note that the landlord has more recently agreed to replace the kitchen.
  10. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
  11. The landlord is ordered to pay £250 compensation, in recognition the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This compensation is inclusive of the £157.50 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2.
  12. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where have been failures in the service the landlord has provided and the landlord’s offer of compensation does not quite reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 workings. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and will issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord may seek an extension to these timescales if it finds it needs more time to investigate a complaint. However, any extension should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s approach is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 22 August 2024. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement the next day. The landlord committed to issuing the full stage 1 complaint response by 9 September 2024, in line with its policy.
  3. However, the landlord did not issue the stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe it committed, which was inappropriate. The landlord apologised for this on 10 September 2024 when the resident attended its offices. And immediately raised a stage 2 complaint on behalf of the resident, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 10 September 2024 committing to issue the full complaint response by 8 October 2024. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 complaint response within the timeframe it committed.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a letter of extension on 23 October 2024, which was 4 working days after the stage 2 complaint was due. The landlord said it would issue the stage 2 complaint response by 1 November 2024, which was in line with its policy. The landlord said this extension had been agreed with the resident, although we could not verify this was the case from the available evidence. This was a record keeping failure.
  6. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 1 November 2024 as it committed. The landlord apologised for not issuing the stage 1 complaint within the time frame it had committed and offered £25 compensation for this failing, which was in line with its compensation policy.
  7. As previously referenced, the landlord made a separate offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience, amounting to £75. It was unhelpful that it did not explain how it had apportioned this compensation between each complaint point. This made it more difficult for the resident, and for us, to assess the adequacy of the compensation it awarded. We have made a recommendation later in relation to this.
  8. On balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  9. The landlord should pay the £25 compensation it offered at stage 2, for the failings it identified in its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering from nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs.
    2. No Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the bedroom and its handling of repairs to address a leak, damp, and mould in the bathroom.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay £450 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £155 if the landlord has already paid the £295 compensation it previously offered at stage 2. This compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 compensation, in recognition the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address blocked guttering from nesting pigeons, and its handling of follow-on repairs, resulting in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. £250 compensation, in recognition the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. The landlord must write to the resident confirming its intentions and expected timeframe for repairing and / or replacing the kitchen. The landlord must commit to providing regular updates to the resident until such time as the repairs have been completed or the kitchen is replaced.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider if the pest proofing it installed is fit for purpose. And then update the resident within a timely manner, depending on its findings.
  2. Our determination of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the understanding that the £25 compensation the landlord offered is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if this has not already been paid.
  3. The landlord should reflect on the way it presents its awards of compensation for distress and inconvenience, given the issues that surfaced in this case. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.