One Manchester Limited (202119707)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119707

One Manchester Limited

21 December 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of pest control reports.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The tenancy started on 16 February 2004. The property is a three-bed semi-detached house. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded but acknowledged that the resident had made them aware within the complaint that their son was “autistic”.
Following a boiler repair, the resident raised a complaint regarding the quality of the work and damage caused by the leak. The landlord attended and surveyed the work and found no issues with the quality of the work.
The resident then raised further complaints, multiple repairs and made reports of pests in the property. The landlord completed repairs and pest control treatments were carried out but there were delays in its complaint responses.

Scope of the investigation

Within the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, there were numerous current and historical repairs issued mentioned within them. These were primarily managed as service requests, rather than as complaints. The first formal complaint around repairs was not raised until 25 November 2021. Therefore, this report will only consider repairs relevant to the complaint that occurred from six months prior to 25 November 2021 until the end of the internal complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Events from outside this period may be referenced but only for contextual purposes.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy uses three different response timeframes, these are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – Those with immediate or potential danger to a person or the property. These repairs have a 24 hour response time with some types of repair made safe within 4 hours.
2. Appointable repairs – Those that do not cause or have potential to cause immediate danger to a person of the property. These repairs have a timeframe of 20 working days.
3. Major repair – These are works that may require a longer lead in time due to supply or consents being required. These have a timeframe of over 20 days.
The landlord’s guidance around pest control indicates that the local council would treat instances of mice, rats and other pests.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy as follows:
1. Stage one – If the complaint can be dealt with quickly, the landlord should do so and provide a formal written response within 2 working days. If it requires further investigation, the complaints team should acknowledge within two days. The resident should be contacted to discuss the complaint and a formal response provided within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint.
2. Stage two – If the complaint is accepted for review at stage two, the landlord should arrange a meeting between the resident and a senior member of staff to discuss the complaint. A formal written response should then be provided within 20 working days of receipt of the review request.

Summary of events

The resident reported leaks at her boiler on 12 October 2021. The landlord attended the same day and scheduled follow on works to “repipe condense pipe”.
The landlord attended the next day and completed the required work. The landlord noted that “one of their ops caused damage” to the boiler pipe when carrying out works the day before.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2021 as there was a leak coming from the boiler and there was no hot water. The landlord attended that day, identified the fault and booked follow on work to replace the “diverter valve”. The landlord attended again on 16 November 2021 to complete the repair.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 November 2021. She said that recent work on the boiler led to the pipe leaking, which damaged her recently installed flooring. She said that despite assurances around the work, nothing had been done and the leak had got worse.
On the same day, the resident contacted this Service for assistance due to pest control issues, the boiler leak and the damage it caused. The resident was directed to follow the landlord’s complaint process.
Following an email from the resident, a further works order was raised on the morning of 26 November 2021. This was recorded as the resident had described, “plastic pipe not fixed to wall properly”. An appointment was booked for 8 December 2021 and the resident was emailed confirmation of the appointment. It said that if any leak became uncontainable, she was to contact the landlord to book an emergency appointment.
The contact notes provided by the landlord show that it attempted to call the resident to discuss the complaint twice on 26 November 2021 and once on 1 December 2021 but it was unsuccessful.
On 7 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked about making a change to an upcoming pest control appointment. She asked if the neighbour’s landlord could be contacted to arrange a block booking. The resident said “this has gone on far too long, 4 years or more” she said that “we all had to sleep in living room over the weekend due to hallway, stairs and bedrooms smelling of rodents again”. The landlord marked this appointment as completed on 10 December 2021. It noted “advised I have visited next door and they have agreed to get their property treated but they have not got any issues with mice”.
The landlord notes show that it attended on 8 December 2021 to address the leak but when it attended the resident advised the work had been completed “last week”.
The landlord attended the property on 9 December 2021 to discuss the issues raised within her complaint. The notes said “damage appears superficial but have arranged for a surveyor to have a look as well”. It also said “workmanship on the condensate pipe was fine” it explained “space left on outer wall left in case pipe freezes in cold winter”.
Following the home visit on 9 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response on the same day. The response said “parts of our service have not been delivered in line with our expected standards”. The landlord acknowledged that photographs sent by the resident to show damage caused by the leaks had not been managed correctly. It said that following its visit it had arranged for a surveyor to attend, consider the damage and schedule any required works. The landlord did not indicate if the complaint was upheld or not. However, in relation to the work on the boiler condensate pipe it said “the repair has been done satisfactorily and in line with our expected standards”.
The pest controller from the local council attended on 16 December 2021 and said that despite the reports of a smell, there was none evident during the visit. It said that there were “no obvious proofing issues” but it was “difficult to inspect externally due to poor housekeeping”.
The pest controller attended again on 11 January 2022 and reported that there had been no takes from the previous baiting. It said that they would be left in place longer.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2022 and raised a formal complaint about outstanding repairs. She said she had not heard anything since the recent surveyor visit. She said that her daughter had not been able to sleep in her room for 2 years due to an ongoing issue and said she wanted a date for the completion of the repairs. However, she did not specify the reason or repair that was preventing use of the bedroom.
The landlord called the resident on 18 January 2022 to discuss the complaint and raised works orders for the outstanding works. These were for two leaking taps, a replacement of a rusty chrome rail and works to address leaks at the back window and back door.
A survey of the back door and window was carried out on 25 January 2022 to identify the required works to stop water ingress. It noted that previous repair attempts had failed and the back door leak was preventing the resident from having the floor tiled.
A follow on visit from the pest controller was carried out on 26 January 2022. The notes said “noise reported in floor void but no bait had been taken”. The resident had reported a “dead rodent smell” but the report said there was “none evident today”. The resident raised concerns around squirrels, so a tray of squirrel bait was placed in the loft.
A works order was raised on 27 January 2022 following the survey of the back door and it ordered a “new clip on rubber seal on under side of the back pvc door”. This works order was marked as completed on 1 March 2022.
The works orders for the tap repair and the replacement chrome rail were recorded as completed on 28 January 2022.
An urgent works order was then raised on 31 January 2022, as the resident reported a leak under the sink, following the tap repair. The landlord noted the works order as no access on 2 February 2022.
The resident called the landlord on 4 February 2022 and said that there were other jobs outstanding at the property. The following works orders were raised and the completion dates for each are included:
1. Repair the leak caused by the recent tap repair – 8 February 2022.
2. Repair the sink unit that was damaged following the leak – 9 February 2022.
3. Apply mold treatment to bathroom walls – 11 March 2022.
4. Skirting board repair following the boiler leak in November 2021 – 11 March 2022.
5. Inspect the attic and soil pipe for entry points due to pest control reports – 7 February 2022 and 17 February 2022 respectively.
6. Loose brick on the kitchen window – 11 March 2022.
7. Heater button repair – 11 March 2022.
8. Refit kitchen panels that were removed to assist with other previous repairs – 11 March 2022.
9. Lift floorboards in bedroom and at the front door to allow for pest control inspection – 22 March 2022.
The pest controller attended again on 11 February 2022 and noted that it would end the current treatment plan, as there had been no bait taken.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord completed several works orders at the property. Follow on work was booked to replace the sealant around the bath and to fit a new fire. Later in the day, another works order was raised to review the back door again, as despite a new rubber seal being fitted, it had continued to leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2022 and asked to add to her existing complaint due to the continued works and repeat visits to her property.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord raised a new stage one complaint (reference 15149) following a complaint being logged online by the resident. She said that jobs remained outstanding despite previous visits from the landlord. The landlord’s notes indicated that it had attempted to address the previous repairs logged on 4 February 2022 as service requests, but acknowledged some had not gone ahead as planned. It suggested that a home visit be carried out before issuing a complaint response.
The pest controller and the housing officer attended on 31 March 2022. The notes from the visit said “Noises and smells reported in hallway and front bedroom but no smell evident that day”. It said “floor lifted in bedroom and bait deployed in void”. The kitchen and loft were also baited and it reported “no obvious proofing issues”.
A pest control visit was carried out on 7 April 2022, however, no notes were provided from the visit.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2022, as despite its assurance of an acknowledgement of her complaint by 7 April 2022, she had not heard anything. A call back request was recorded within the landlord’s notes.
On 11 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said that the pest controller and housing officer failed to turn up on 22 March 2022. She said that they had turned up the week before, were unprofessional and “didn’t look under the floorboards properly”.
A works order was raised on 12 April 2022 to fit floorboards in two corners of the bedroom to assist with pest control. This job was booked for 19 April 2022 but was rescheduled at the resident’s request on two occasions.
A further pest controller visit was carried out on 22 April 2022. It noted “old mouse droppings bedroom floor void, mouse box deployed”.
Between 22 April 2022 and 5 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested a call back on three occasions to discuss her complaint. The landlord’s records do not show it responding to these requests.
On 6 May 2022, the pest controller attended and noted “no bait takes, no smell evident, baits removed”. It said there was a potential issue with birds entering a gap in the fascia boards above the front bedroom and sent evidence to the landlord. It noted it was unable to carry out a proofing inspection due to “clutter stacked along back wall”.
The landlord called the resident on 10 May 2022 to advise that it had been unable to source a fire for the visit the next day. A further visit was booked for 17 May 2022.
On 17 May 2022, the landlord attended an emergency appointment to secure a kitchen cabinet to the wall. On the same day, internal landlord emails show a further request for somebody to call the resident regarding her complaint. The landlord’s records do not show any call being made to the resident.
The landlord provided a stage one response for complaint reference 15149 on 13 June 2022. Within its response, some of the repairs predated the complaint so have not been included, those addressed were as follows:
1. Brick/concrete at front door preventing lifting of floorboards – The landlord said that it had made access available on 22 March 2022.
2. Bottom of back door leaking – It said that it had attended on 11 March 2022 but this did not resolve the issue. It said it attended again on 17 March 2022 and no further reports of this issue had been made.
3. Sink unit not fixed – The landlord said this work was completed on 9 February 2022.
4. Plastic pipe at the boiler was moving and outside is not secure, causing leaks – It said it attended on 13 October 2021, the same day it was reported. It acknowledged that this was raised again on 26 November 2021, with a gas engineer attending on 8 December 2021 to complete any work. It said that following recent concerns, it attended again on 29 March 2022 to ensure that it was fitted correctly.
5. Walls around the boiler pipe were crumbling – The landlord said that following your report on 28 October 2021, a plasterer attended and carried out a minor repair to return the surface to its original condition. It said it had not received any further reports of this issue.
6. Pest control not attended as promised – The landlord said that the local council had carried out treatment at the property and not identified any further works to be carried out. It agreed that joint treatment with the neighbouring property would be beneficial and if any further activity was identified, it would commit to undertaking any reasonable recommendations the council made.
Within its response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that there had been “a significant number of repairs required” over the previous twelve months. It said it was not aware of any further outstanding repairs at that time. It offered a goodwill payment of £100 in recognition of the complaint.
The resident contacted this Service following receipt of the stage one response. The landlord was asked to provide a stage two response for the initial complaint from November 2021.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord advised this Service that it would provide a stage two response that incorporated both complaints, references 14303 and 15149. It said it would provide the response by 21 July 2022.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 21 July 2022 following a meeting with the resident that day at her property. Some of the discussions held were around issues that predated these complaints. Within the response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns around delays in works being completed and the workmanship involved. As part of the response it offered a goodwill payment of £500 and to carry out the following works:
1. Investigate the sub floor and loft area for rodent entry points.
2. Rake out and repoint around the boiler pipe.
3. Replace the kitchen and the flooring in the kitchen.
4. Repair or replace two doors and frames.
5. On completion of those works, paint the kitchen, living room and hallway.
Within the stage two response, there was also an offer of potential temporary decant if there was significant work required following the inspection of the loft and sub floor.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 July 2022 and requested an investigation as she remained unhappy with the response from the landlord.
The landlord made offers to the resident for a temporary decant to allow works to go ahead. However, the resident decided to stay in the property during the works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

In addressing the repairs to the boiler, which were the basis of the initial complaint (reference 14303), the landlord attended those repairs within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. When leaks were reported, it attended within 24 hours, with follow on works also attended within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its own policy.
It was reasonable that the landlord attended the property on 9 December 2021, to inspect the quality of the work that was the basis of the resident’s complaint. Following its visit, it stated it was satisfied with the quality of the work and no follow on works were scheduled.
It is evident that following the agreed surveyor visit, no further works orders were raised relating to the boiler leak or any associated damage. However, it is evident that skirting boards repairs were required. The resident had to chase these with the landlord, when she raised a further complaint on 14 January 2022. This is a failure on the part of the landlord, as it failed to schedule the required works following the surveyor visit. This meant that the resident was left with these outstanding repairs and had to take time to contact the landlord and chase further action from it.
Although the landlord recorded that the resident raised a complaint on 14 January 2022, the landlord managed it as a service request. It raised works orders to address leaking taps and leaks from the back door and window. The works orders to replace the towel rail and the leaking taps were completed within the timeframe specified within its policy. However, the works order to repair the rubber seal on the bottom of the back door took 23 working days to be completed. This is a failure by the landlord as it took 3 working days longer than its stated policy, which meant she had already waited a month for this repair. This would have that the resident experienced further water ingress during this time. Although this delay may seem relatively minor, the water ingress at the door presented a hazard that the resident would have needed to be continually aware of during this time, especially with children in the house. This delay would have caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident during this time.
When the resident raised a further complaint on 4 February 2022 regarding outstanding repairs, most of these were either recent, or historical issues. The only repairs reported since the complaint in November 2021 were the skirting board repair and those linked to the tap repair work carried out on 28 January 2022. The landlord later indicated that these were managed as service requests. However, most of the works were not completed within the timeframe set out in its repair policy. Six of the works orders raised were not addressed until either on, or after 11 March 2022. This is another failing by the landlord, as it failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in its policy. Given the number of outstanding works that the resident was trying to have completed, these delays could only have added to the frustration the resident felt in trying to get them completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s next complaint, reference 15149, on 24 March 2022, which included several repairs, some of those were historical and outside the scope of this investigation and some more recent. This was managed as a complaint by the landlord but despite referencing several repairs, most had been completed. The landlord took reasonable action to address the only outstanding works, as it attended the property again 5 days later to ensure that the boiler pipe was fitted correctly.
It is evident that throughout the complaint period, the landlord raised multiple works orders for different works at the property. Although they were completed, the majority of these repairs were completed outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. This meant that the resident had to continue to chase these repairs with the landlord throughout, while living with the effects of those outstanding works. This could only have led to additional and unnecessary distress and inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident during this time. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of pest control reports

It is accepted that the resident had historically raised concerns relating to pests in the property. However, the local council was responsible for any treatment of pests in and around the property, not the landlord. The landlord would be expected to act on the advice of the pest control contractor from the council, such as filling potential rodent access holes.
The resident had reported a strong smell that she believed to be caused by potentially dead mice, rats or squirrels somewhere in the property. She said that this had serious effects on the household, as they were unable to stay in certain rooms due to the smell. However, the notes provided by the pest controller said that there was no smell evident during its eight recorded visits to the property. Despite baiting the property, it found that none of this was taken on subsequent visits and it then ended the treatment plans.
The pest controller did check for any access points for any pests but was unable to find any during its inspections. It did request that the landlord provide access to underneath the floorboards in some of the rooms due to obstructions, however, it found no evidence of pests once it did carry out its inspection.
It is evident that the landlord actively engaged with the pest controller throughout the complaint. The notes provided by the pest controller did not detail any clear evidence of pests, across its eight visits to the property. Further to this, the pest controller could not identify any potential access points that the landlord would need to address.
Throughout the complaint, there are suggestions that the neighbouring property may be providing access for pests. The landlord explained that as the neighbouring property was a private rental, it could not take any action to inspect it. However, the landlord engaged with the neighbour and discussed the concerns around pests but they explained that they had no such concerns.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps in addressing the resident’s concerns around pest control at the property. No evidence of pests was provided by the pest controller and no access points were identified for the landlord to block or repair. The landlord attended to allow access to under the floors when required and also engaged with the neighbour to identify any similar concerns they may have had. The resident’s concerns around potential pests are understandable as this would affect the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, in the absence of any evidence of pests or any outstanding actions required of the landlord, there was no maladministration found in its management of these concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord provided a stage one complaint response, for complaint reference 14303, in line with its complaint policy on 9 December 2021. However, it failed to acknowledge the stage two request made by the resident on 14 January 2022. Within this complaint, the resident said that no action had been taken following a surveyor visit. As this was agreed as part of the stage one complaint, this demonstrates a failure by the landlord to follow up on an agreed action.
The landlord took action to address the issues raised within the complaint on 14 January 2022 and took similar steps when it received a further complaint on 4 February 2022. Although the majority of the repairs listed within that complaint were not related to the first complaint, one of them was linked to the surveyor visit that was undertaken as part of the stage one complaint. As this remained outstanding and given that it was the second complaint logged within a short period, the landlord should have identified and acknowledged this as requiring a stage two investigation. This is a further failing by the landlord as it failed to progress the complaint to stage two, delaying the resident’s access to independent review.
The resident raised a further complaint on 24 March 2022 and this was acknowledged and managed as a new stage one complaint. However, the stage one response to this complaint was not provided until 13 June 2022, some 53 working days after it was raised. During this period, the resident requested a call back to discuss their complaint on five occasions and the landlords contact logs show no evidence of these calls being made. A delay in providing a complaint response is reasonable, if the delay allows for a thorough investigation, or a resolution to be put in place. However, the information provided within the stage one response was all available to the landlord by 29 March 2022. This is a significant failing by the landlord as not only was the response issued well outside the timeframe in its policy, the resident was ignored when requesting an update on it. This could have only added to the frustrations she had around the way her complaints had been managed throughout.
The landlord failed throughout this period to utilise its own complaint process as it should have progressed complaints to stage two on at least three occasions prior to it issuing a stage two response. This not only adds to the resident’s frustrations but it also prevents them from utilising this Service for an independent review.
As part of its stage two investigation, the landlord did attend the property to discuss the resident’s outstanding concerns. Within its response, the landlord acknowledges the issues raised by the resident and makes offers to address some of the resident’s concerns. However, it does not detail any actual investigation of the issues raised by the resident. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as in line with the Complaint Handling Code, it should be providing its findings from its investigation into the residents complaint. This shows no acknowledgement of its failings during the complaint period and prevents it from taking any learnings from the complaint.
Throughout its management of the resident’s complaints, the landlord failed to differentiate between new service requests and those that would be considered complaints. Although the resident’s complaints were around the landlord’s management of some repairs, this should not have meant that new requests were then considered part of the overall complaint. Had the landlord addressed the resident’s complaints in line with its complaint policy, this would have allowed for a much clearer definition of exactly what the complaint was. Instead, the complaint changed throughout and allowed it to incorporate more factors into it, becoming more complex as it progressed.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints in line with its own policy. The resident requested that a formal complaint be raised on at least four occasions but only two complaints were raised by the landlord, with the stage two escalation being a result of this Service becoming involved. The stage one response in June 2022 took 43 days longer than it should have, with no reason for the delay. The resident had to chase responses throughout this period but received no replies from the landlord. This could only have left her feeling ignored and frustrated with the landlord’s actions. The stage two response then incorporated two complaints but failed to show an investigation into the reason for the complaint. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of pest control reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord carried out required repairs but in the majority of cases, these were significantly in excess of the timeframe set out in its repair policy. The resident was left chasing individual repairs when the landlord could have managed it more efficiently through a survey of the property.

The landlord’s handling of pest control reports

The landlord met its responsibilities around pest control at the property as it engaged and acted upon any recommendations from the pest control contractor. No evidence of pests was recorded by the contractor and the landlord made the resident aware that it would assist if she had any further concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord ignored requests for complaints to be raised, which would have allowed for the resident’s concerns to be managed in a much more efficient manner. It did not manage the complaints in line with its own complaint policy, it failed to escalate the complaints when requested and failed to provide a response which demonstrated a full investigation into the residents complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £800 to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report. This payment is made up of the following elements:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
If it has not done so in the past six months, the landlord to review its complaint management and oversight process within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that all relevant staff:
1. Understand what constitutes a complaint.
2. Understand the landlord’s complaint policy.
3. Carry out a full investigation of the issues raised within a complaint and provide complaint responses which detail the investigation and its findings.
4. Provide complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the policy.