Manchester City Council (202530796)

Decision
Case ID	202530796
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Manchester City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord’s records show that the resident is visually impaired and has mobility difficulties. The resident reported several outstanding repairs, including issues with damp and mould. She also raised concerns about the behaviour of the landlord’s operatives. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in completing the repairs and offered compensation, increasing the amount during and after its internal complaints process. The resident remained dissatisfied because she said some repairs were still outstanding and she felt the compensation offered did not fairly reflect the damage, distress, and inconvenience she had experienced.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Damp, mould and associated repairs.
   2. The conduct of operatives.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to damp, mould and associated repairs.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the conduct of operatives.
6. We have found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord identified its failures, apologised, put things right in its compensation offer. It also identified learning from the complaint.
8. The landlord investigated the conduct of operatives, put performance monitoring measures in place, identified damaged items and put things right by fixing the damage.
9. The landlord did not evidence it had acknowledged the complaints, it delayed in providing its stage 1 response and did not make it clear what it was compensating for after the stage 2 complaint response.

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 11 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £3000 compensation in accordance with the offers it made during the complaint process and shortly afterwards.
The landlord should contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the outstanding issues, provide a clear action plan with estimated timescales for completion of the remaining works, and consider whether additional compensation is warranted for the period from July 2025 until the works are fully completed. The landlord should also provide information to the resident of her right to submit a further complaint if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these issues.
The landlord should signpost the resident to make an insurance claim for any damaged and disposed of goods.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2025 to May 2025	The resident made a complaint on 7 April 2025 about several repair issues including damp and suspected woodworm. She said the situation was severely affecting her wellbeing and that she was “at breaking point.” She also explained that she had been staying with her sister. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 May 2025. It explained: The first report of a leak, damp and mould was made on 18 September 2024. A surveyor attended on 24 September 2024 and arranged repairs, including work to the chimney stack, reboarding and reskimming a ceiling, renewing a wall vent, and applying a 3‑stage damp treatment and damp proofing to the lounge walls. Some repairs were delayed because scaffolding was required. Additional works were completed, such as replacing trickle vents, handles, latches, rehanging an internal door, repairing window hinges and the front door, and replacing window handles. An operative raised concerns about woodworm and requested a joint visit with a surveyor. This took place on 19 February 2025, and it was decided that parts of the bathroom and lounge floors needed replacing. Work began on 30 April 2025. A further survey on 15 May 2025 confirmed no woodworm was present in the lounge floorboards or joists. It also identified work needed in the shower area to ensure there were no leaks. The landlord confirmed it would arrange temporary hotel accommodation due to unusable washing facilities, though the resident said she preferred to stay with family. It stated that all outstanding work had been prioritised, and it would carry out a post‑inspection survey and update the resident on when she could return to the property. The resident escalated her complaint towards the end of May 2025.
19 June 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 and told her: Minor work had been completed however major work was ongoing. During its visit, the resident had told it that all items in the outhouse could be disposed of. It would therefore not compensate her for the items. It apologised for the debris in the garden which was removed on 13 June 2025, and it would arrange for the green bin to be emptied. The damaged toilet seat was replaced on 18 June 2025. The missing boiler thermostat was replaced on 16 June 2025. It summarised repair work that had been completed to the shower, tiling/plastering, skirting, bathroom, ceilings, outhouse, and flooring. Plaster work had been booked, and kitchen work was due to be completed 26 to 27 June 2025. It apologised for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It increased its compensation offer to £1200 that included: £600 distress and inconvenience. £450 delays in completing repairs. £150 damaged wallpaper.
July 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. In response, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £3,000 however it did not provide a breakdown of how it had reached this sum.   An issue remained with damp on the upstairs chimney breast. The landlord asked the resident to send photographs so it could review the issue and arrange any further necessary work.
Referral to the Ombudsman October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to us, explaining that all of her belongings had been damaged by the damp and that the situation had seriously affected her health. She had been staying with her sister, but due to personal circumstances this arrangement had become difficult. As a result, she said she was spending a lot of time walking the streets because she had nowhere else to go. During our recent introductory call with the resident, she told us that she has recently moved back to the property after 2 years staying with her daughter and sister. The resident states the level of compensation offered does not reflect the extent of her losses.

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	Damp, mould and associated repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

10. The landlord is obliged to keep the property free from damp, mould, and hazards and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018’). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
11. The landlord’s repairs maintenance service standard sets out how it deals with reports of damp and mould. It states that it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp, mould and condensation and it is proactive in identifying the root cause of the issue and carrying out work to tackle this. It commits to undertake a proactive and risk-based approach to identify properties at risk of condensation, damp, and mould.
12. It is not in dispute that there were delays with the landlord’s works to address the reported damp, mould and various repairs including the identification and remedy of woodworm in the property. The landlord has acknowledged this and offered compensation in recognition of the impact this had on the resident. Therefore, we will consider whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
13. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
14. The resident raised a complaint about concerns of damp in April 2025. The landlord responded at stage 1 towards the end of May 2025. It told her that damp and mould had first been reported in September 2024, at which point its surveyor attended within a reasonable timeframe (late September 2024) and arranged remedial works.
15. The landlord explained that an operative later requested a joint inspection with a surveyor due to suspected woodworm. This inspection took place on 19 February 2025, following which the landlord arranged works to replace parts of the bathroom and lounge flooring. The works commenced on 30 April 2025 and were completed in August 2025.
16. In May 2025, a further survey confirmed that there was no woodworm present in the lounge floorboards or joists. The landlord acknowledged that some works were delayed due to difficulties erecting scaffolding. It stated that the remaining works would be prioritised, apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, and offered compensation of £400.
17. While the landlord’s resolution‑focused response was positive, due to limited evidence, it is difficult to determine the extent of the delays and the level of damage incurred. It is therefore unclear whether the £100 awarded for distress and inconvenience, and the £300 for damaged decoration and belongings, were proportionate in the circumstances.
18. The resident escalated her complaint in May 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response in June 2025. It acknowledged that major works were still ongoing and apologised for the damage caused to the resident’s items. It also confirmed that repairs to the damaged fixtures and fittings were completed in June 2025.
19. The landlord declined to offer compensation for items stored in the outbuilding, stating that the resident had previously advised that these items could be disposed of. However, it increased its overall compensation award to £1,200. This comprised of £600 for distress and inconvenience, £450 for delays in completing the repairs, and £150 for damaged decoration. Overall, it was positive that the landlord demonstrated a resolution‑focused approach in responding to the complaint.
20. The resident remained dissatisfied, and shortly after issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord reviewed its position in July 2025. As a result, it increased its compensation offer to £3,000 and agreed to carry out the remaining works required to resolve the damp issues.
21. In conclusion, while the landlord has not provided a breakdown of its increased compensation offer, we consider £3,000 to be at the higher end of what is considered appropriate for cases involving significant failures and a significant impact on the resident.
22. We consider that the landlord’s final offer was made within a reasonable timeframe of its final stage 2 response. As such, we are satisfied that the total amount offered can be considered in how we assess its overall response to the complaint under investigation. While it is not clear what the additional £1800 was for, we are satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, its final compensation sum offered full and proportionate redress for all the failures.
23. The landlord has fully acknowledged its shortcomings, including poor coordination and management of the works, as well as failures in communication. It has also set out how it will learn from the complaint. The landlord’s resolution focused approach is aligned with our dispute resolution principles and therefore we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould and associated repairs.
24. The resident reports that some work remains outstanding which has resulted in further delays in her moving back to the property. We therefore recommend that the landlord contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the outstanding issues, provide a clear action plan with estimated timescales for completion of the remaining works, and consider whether additional compensation is warranted for the period from July 2025 (the date of its final compensation offer) until the works are fully completed. The resident has a right to submit a further complaint to the landlord for the period of outstanding works – July 2025 up until the present day. We also recommend that the landlord signpost the resident to make an insurance claim for damagedpossessions.

Complaint	The conduct of operatives
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord’s code of conduct policy sets out clear principles of expected behaviour of employees. Its contractors are expected to adopt the key principles of the policy.
26. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in May 2025, she referred to several instances of damage and loss to her belongings. She attributed some of this damage to the actions of operatives. For example, she stated that operatives had left the outhouse insecure, which resulted in damage/loss to sentimental items. She also reported misuse of the garden and bin, as well as damage to fixtures and fittings.
27. In its stage 2 response issued in June 2025, the landlord apologised for the damage reported and set out its account of events relating to the outbuilding. It stated that the resident had previously told it that items stored in the outhouse could be disposed of and, on this basis, it declined to offer compensation for those items.
28. Given the limited evidence available and the conflicting accounts provided by both parties, we are unable to establish the full facts of the matter. However, the landlord has told us that it raised the concerns with senior managers and the contractor, who confirmed that the individuals involved had been spoken to and that performance was being monitored. The landlord also stated that the reported damage had been rectified and that post‑inspection checks had been carried out.
29. In relation to the resident’s disposed possessions, it would be more appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to make a claim through its public liability insurance.
30. In conclusion, we are satisfied that the landlord appropriately investigated the issues, apologised for the service failures, and provided a resolution‑focused response. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

31. The Complaint Handling Code states Stage 1 complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 within 5 working days of the complaint being received. Landlords must issue a full response at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
32. The resident raised her complaint on 7 April 2025. We do not have evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 May 2025, 32 working days later which was inappropriate.
33. The Code states requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 2 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the escalation request being received. Landlords must issue a final response to the stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. The landlord responded within 17 working days and in compliance with the Code. However, there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
34. The resident made the landlord aware she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation. In July 2025, the landlord reviewed the level of compensation and increased the amount. However, the landlord should have been transparent in how it reached the £3000 by providing the resident with a breakdown of how it had apportioned the sum to different aspects of its failures.
35. In conclusion, we have found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling due to its non-compliance with the stage 1 response timeframe, its lack of evidence of acknowledgement of the complaint or transparency on how it had reached its final compensation figure. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

36. The landlord has identified learning from the complaint, including the need for improved oversight of contractors and better coordination of works involving multiple trades. Given there appears to be further delays after the stage 2 response in completing the work we are not convinced the landlord has learnt from the complaint. The landlord must ensure that these service improvements are implemented. It must also learn from its complaint‑handling failures to ensure future compliance with the Complaint Handling Code.