One Manchester Limited (202343807)

Decision
Case ID	202343807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Manchester Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a semi-detached house. She complained to the landlord that its contractor had stolen from her when it was carrying out work at the property. She asked the landlord to compensate her. She also raised concerns about the standard of some repairs it had carried out. The landlord addressed both these issues through its complaints process. The resident was not happy with its final complaint response and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor.
   2. Handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor.
   2. The landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaint about its handling of repairs.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the conduct of its contractor

6. The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns about stolen items. Its decision not to compensate her was evidence-based.

Handling of repairs

7. The landlord acknowledged it had not completed all repairs in the property to a good standard. It put this right through the complaints process by apologising, compensating the resident and resolving the repair issues.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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 complaint handling service failure identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failure identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 August 2023	The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to treat damp in a bedroom cupboard. The resident rang the landlord later that day and reported the 2 operatives in attendance had stolen £16,000 cash she had hidden under the floorboards in the cupboard. She also said they had stolen jewellery worth £9,000. The landlord advised the resident to report the incident to the police, which she did.
16 August 2023	The landlord spoke to the resident again and explained it could not investigate the reported theft through its complaints process while a police investigation was ongoing. However, it said it would raise a stage 1 complaint about the checks it carried out on its contractors.
29 August 2023	The landlord visited the resident in her home and discussed her complaint. During the visit the resident raised concern about the standard of finish to a bedroom cupboard. The landlord noted damp in the kitchen. It told the resident it would address these repair issues as part of the stage 1 complaint.
8 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It was sorry the work it had carried out to plaster the bedroom cupboard had “not been to a good standard”. It wanted to correct this. It also wanted to address damp in the kitchen. It asked the resident to contact it to schedule in an appointment for this work. It mostly appointed contractors through procurement frameworks. They were all required to comply with its code of conduct. It had obtained references for the contractor who attended the resident’s property. It would review its process for appointing contractors given the resident’s complaint.
28 September 2023	During an email exchange with the resident about the repair work, the landlord offered her £200 compensation for the disruption caused by it having to return to the property and rectify the plasterwork.
30 September 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She wanted it to investigate the theft incident once the police investigation concluded. She also asked it to confirm it would supervise any operatives attending her property to carry out repairs.
5 November 2023	The police informed the landlord that they would be taking no further action in relation to the reported theft incident “due to insufficient evidence”.
Between 5 January 2024 and 25 February 2024	The landlord conducted an internal investigation into the theft. This included meeting with the resident, reviewing the evidence she provided, and meeting with the contractor.
26 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: It had conducted a “comprehensive investigation” into the reported theft incident. It did not find any evidence to support the view that it was the contractor’s operatives who stole from her. It would therefore not compensate her for the loss. It had been in contact with the resident to arrange any outstanding repairs and confirmed that it would supervise the work. It was sorry it had delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. It offered her £100 compensation for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said the landlord: Had not taken accountability for the conduct of its contractors. She wanted it to compensate her for the stolen items. Had not completed all the repairs.

 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	Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor
Finding	No maladministration

9. When the resident first complained to the landlord about the theft incident, it advised her to report the matter to the police. It explained that until the police investigation was complete, it was limited in what it could say or do about the incident through its complaint process. This was appropriate as it was a criminal matter for the police to investigate in the first instance.  The landlord therefore agreed with the resident that its stage 1 investigation would instead focus on the more general issue of checks it carried out on contractors. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
10. Within the stage 1 response the landlord provided a reasonable explanation of how it appointed contractors and obtained references. It  said that as a result of the resident’s complaint, it would review its process for appointing contractors. It followed through on this commitment and as a result has since introduced a new supplier registration form. The new form requests more detailed background information about the contractor and its staff than the previous form.
11. We cannot say whether the landlord’s appointment process for contractors had any connection to the theft.  It has not been proven through either the police or landlord’s investigations that it was the 2 operatives working for the contractor who stole from the resident. However, that the landlord has improved its supplier registration form to more robustly vet potential contractors is a positive service improvement for all residents.
12. By the time the landlord was carrying out its stage 2 investigation, the police investigation into the reported theft incident had concluded. The landlord did not rely solely on the police decision not to take any further action due to “insufficient evidence”. It also carried out its own investigation. Although it did not have the full range of investigatory powers that were available to the police, it actively looked for evidence, which shows it took the matter seriously. For example:
    1. It met with the resident to discuss the incident and reviewed the evidence she provided. This included photographs of the operatives at her property and photographs of some of the missing jewellery. She also provided it with copies of bank statements showing she had withdrawn large sums of cash from her accounts.
    2. It asked the resident if she or her neighbours had any video footage from smart doorbells of the operatives arriving or leaving the property. However, no such evidence was available.
    3. It met with the contractor to discuss the incident. The contractor had carried out its own investigation which aligned with the police findings.
13. We are satisfied the landlord’s investigation into the reported theft was proportionate and that there was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns. It concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove the operatives had stolen the money and jewellery. This led to its decision not to compensate the resident for her loss. This decision was, understandably, upsetting to the resident and we sympathise with her. However, we are unable to direct the landlord to change its position given its decision not to compensate was evidence-based.

Complaint	Handling of repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

14. The landlord identified during its stage 1 investigation that it had not completed plastering work to a bedroom cupboard to a good standard. It appropriately apologised for this in its stage 1 response. Before issuing its stage 2 response, it offered the resident £200 for the disruption caused by it having to return to the property and replaster the cupboard. This was in line with its compensation policy which suggested an award of £100 to £300 for “moderate disruption”.
15. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it would replaster the cupboard and also treat damp it had identified in the kitchen during its complaint investigation. After it issued the stage 1 response, the resident raised additional concerns that the plasterwork in the bathroom was not finished to a good standard. The landlord agreed with her. It therefore appropriately committed to replastering the bathroom when attending to the cupboard.
16. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what date it completed the replastering work and treated the damp. However, it provided us with a record of a phone call with the resident on 29 February 2024 in which she confirmed she was satisfied the work was complete. She also confirmed this to us when we spoke with her recently. She told us that the landlord’s internal repairs team carried out the work as she did not want contractors entering her home after the theft incident. She said that a manager attended on a number of occasions to supervise the work while it was ongoing. This meant the landlord followed through on a commitment it made in its stage 2 response to supervise the work.
17. Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs. It acknowledged it had failed to plaster the cupboard to a good standard, apologised and compensated the resident. It then repaired the plasterwork and attended to other repair issues it identified during its complaint investigation. It respected the resident’s wishes and supervised the work. It said it would learn from the complaint by increasing the number of post-completion inspections it carried out. Its response therefore aligned with our Dispute Resolution Principles to “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

18. It took the landlord 16 working days from the date it received the resident’s complaint before it issued its stage 1 response. This was not in line with its complaints policy at that time or the Code, which required it to issue the response within 10 working days of receipt.
19. While this was service failure in its complaints handling, we have seen no evidence that this short delay caused an adverse impact to the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to her for the delay.
20. The landlord also delayed in issuing its stage 2 response. When it received the resident’s escalation request, it should have responded 20 working days later in line with its policy and the Code. Instead, it responded 102 working days later.
21. An internal administrative error in logging the escalation request caused an initial delay of approximately a month. However, from that point onwards the landlord kept the resident informed about further delays to the response. It appropriately apologised for the delay within the stage 2 response and explained it was due to the “complexity of the case”. It offered the resident £100 compensation. This was in line with guideline amounts contained within its compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance.
22. Aside from the delays in issuing its responses, the landlord complied with all other aspects of its complaints policy and the Code. It demonstrated some good practice. For example:
    1. At both stages of the complaint process, the complaint handlers met with the resident to discuss her complaint before issuing a response. This was good practice as, in line with the Code, it gave the resident a fair chance to set out her position and helped the landlord to better understand the complaint.
    2. The resident raised concerns about repairs when the landlord carried out a home visit as part of its stage 1 investigation. She had not raised these concerns when she initially submitted her complaint. In line with the Code, the landlord agreed to address the repair issues within its complaint response.
    3. Within both complaint responses the landlord set out learning it had taken from the complaint and steps it had taken to improve service delivery. This was good practice in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles which state that landlords should “learn from outcomes” of complaints.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate records of all repair jobs, including those carried out by its internal repairs team. It should ensure that details such as the completion date and outcome are clearly recorded within the records.