One Manchester Limited (202425038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425038

One Manchester Limited

29 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The management of bins being kept in the communal area.
2. The resident’s reports that he felt harassed by the landlord over the bins issue.
3. Repairs to gaps in the structure of the property.
The landlord’s record-keeping has also been investigated.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. He lives with his wife. The tenancy began in September 2008.
On 26 April 2023 the resident reported he could smell cigarette smoke from the flat below coming into his flat. The landlord did an inspection on 15 May 2023 and raised a works order to seal a gap around the soil stack.
On 16 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to inspect for gaps in the structure of the property where mice could get in. The landlord did the inspection on 30 August 2023.
On 27 February 2024 the landlord sealed the gap around the soil stack.
On 11 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to inspect for and seal all gaps in the property, including any behind cupboards.
On 1 May 2024 the resident complained about outstanding repairs to gaps in the property. The landlord’s 31 May 2024 stage 1 response said there had been a “no access” appointment on 1 May 2024, and this had been re-booked for 5 June 2024. On 6 June 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
In the landlord’s 11 July 2024 stage 2 response it apologised for delays doing repairs to seal gaps. It said it would do the repairs at the end of July 2024. It offered £100 compensation.
On 29 July 2024 the landlord filled gaps behind the kitchen unit, and did work to the communal storeroom doors to prevent mice getting in.
On or around 31 July 2024 the resident made a new complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 August 2024. It said it had done work to stop mice getting in on 29 July 2024, but on 7 August 2024 the resident said mice were still getting in. It apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and said it had booked another inspection for 9 September 2024. It offered £250 compensation.
On 4 September 2024 the landlord inspected the outside of the property and found no holes where mice could get in.
On 19 December 2024 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
In landlord’s 3 March 2025 stage 2 response, it said Pest Control had tried to investigate 7 times since March 2024. Two of the reports showed ‘low’ signs of infestation, and the landlord had done the recommended actions at the time. The last report on 29 October 2024 showed no signs of infestation, and there were no recommendations. As the resident was still concerned mice and smoke could get in, it would arrange an inspection by a private pest control firm, and it would check again for possible entry points. It offered £350 compensation. As the resident had been dissatisfied with the property and the landlord for a number of years, it had also put him forward for a move to a new property through a direct let.
In April 2025 the landlord raised works orders for a CCTV survey of the drains and further inspection and mouse-proofing works.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
The resident’s complaints about the landlord’s management of bins being kept in the communal area, and the landlord’s handling of his reports that he felt harassed by it over the bins issue, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because these matters are currently the subject of court proceedings.

Repairs

The tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s duty under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, the communal areas, and the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation. Landlords have a duty to repairs for which they are responsible within a reasonable time of being notified.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency – immediate or potential danger to a person, or serious risk of damage to a property – to be attended and made safe within 4 or 24 hours, depending on circumstances.
2. Urgent – to bridge the gap between emergency and appointable repairs (e.g. partial loss of water supply) – to be attended within 10 working days.
3. Appointable repairs – no potential to cause immediate danger to person or serious damage to property – completed within 45 working days.
The policy says the landlord expects residents to provide access for repairs at the appointed time, and if no response is received following no access, the repair may be closed.
Between April 2023 and March 2025, the landlord did 4 inspections to identify any gaps in the structure of the property where mice or smoke could get in:
1. On 15 May 2023.
2. On 30 August 2023.
3. On 17 June 2024.
4. 4 September 2024.
It was appropriate that the landlord did inspections in response to the resident’s expressed concerns. Although it took 45 working days for it to do an inspection after the resident’s 11 April 2024 request, it recorded 3 earlier attempts to do the inspection which the resident either cancelled or did not give access for, which may have been beyond its control. When considering the impact of this delay on the resident we have noted that the 25 March 2024 report from Pest Control said there were no signs of infestation, and no recommendations for proofing works. The impact has therefore been assessed to be more in relation to possible inconvenience and frustration, rather than any substantial detriment.
As the landlord has not provided any records of the inspection findings and what work carried out, it is not possible to conclude it did all of the necessary repairs as a result of these. The landlord’s record keeping has been assessed separately below.
Of the repairs that the landlord did do, it filled the gaps behind the kitchen unit and did work to the communal storeroom doors within a reasonable time, on 29 July 2024. This was 30 working days after the 17 June 2024 inspection.
However, the work to seal around the soil stack was delayed, not being done until 27 February 2024. This was 184 working days after the landlord raised the works order on 18 May 2023. Although the landlord recorded a cancelled/no access appointment on 28 June 2023, which may have been beyond its control, it did not re-schedule the appointment until the resident re-reported the repair, on 6 February 2024. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not meet its repairs policy timescale, and the resident reported the smell of cigarette smoke from the flat below caused him distress throughout this period.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers any failings identified as part of our investigation, the extent to which the landlord has acknowledged these, and the appropriateness of any steps it has taken to offer redress through its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
As identified above, there were some delays in the landlord’s response. However, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its failings through its 3 March 2025 stage 2 response. It said it would arrange an inspection by a private pest control firm and check again for possible mouse entry points. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s continuing concerns about mice. It also offered £350 compensation, which was proportionate in relation to the impact of its failings and delays on the resident. It also agreed to put the resident forward for a move to a new property through a direct let, which was a pragmatic step in relation to the resident having expressed dissatisfaction with the property and the landlord for a number of years.
The Ombudsman has, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint as the landlord has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, which is available on our website, highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. A minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. Ensuring that databases can be easily interrogated and that data can be extracted when needed.
When we investigate a complaint, we ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Having considered the records provided by the landlord we have found that key items of evidence are missing or incomplete, for example:
1. Records of the findings of the landlord’s inspections on 15 May 2023, 30 August 2023, and 17 June 2024.
2. Records of what work/repairs were done during appointments, rather than just marking the work order complete, e.g. on 29 July 2024.
3. The resident’s 1 May 2024 and 31 July 2024 complaints.
The landlord has either kept no records of the above items or was unable to retrieve them. This indicates poor knowledge and information management by the landlord. Although we were still able to determine this case using the evidence that was available, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to record keeping. The poor record keeping impacted the ability of the Ombudsman to assess the case. It would also have impacted the ability of the landlord to best manage the resident’s requests for repairs to seal gaps in the property, and the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise and investigate and report back on its record keeping.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. It will provide a full response within 10 working days of an acknowledgement. If it needs extra time to respond it will write to the resident to explain why and give an extended timescale for response, which will be a maximum of 10 extra working days.
The policy also says the landlord will log and acknowledge requests to escalate to stage 2 within 5 working days. It will provide a full response within 20 working days of an acknowledgement. If it needs extra time to respond it will write to the resident to explain why and give an extended timescale for response, which will be a maximum of 20 extra working days.
The resident complained on 1 May 2024, but the landlord did not acknowledge this. Its stage 1 response on 31 May 2024 was late, being 20 working days after the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay or give an extended timeframe for its response.
The landlord also did not acknowledge the resident’s 6 June 2024 request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The resident complained again on or around 31 July 2024, but the landlord did not acknowledge this. Its stage 1 response on 31 May 2024 was late, being around 20 working days after the resident’s complaint. Once again, the landlord did not contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and give an extended time for its response.
The landlord took 9 working days to acknowledge the resident’s 19 December 2024 request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The stage 2 response was provided 40 working days after acknowledgement; however, the landlord did write to the resident on 3 February 2025 to give an extended time for its response.
Overall, the landlord’s complaints handling failures can be summarised as delays in acknowledgement and response. This would have caused frustration to the resident but did not significantly impact the outcome of the complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure in relation to complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s management of bins being kept in the communal area is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he felt harassed by the landlord over the bins issue is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to gaps in the structure of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a management officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must investigate and provide a report to this Service and the resident regarding its record keeping in this case, and how it will implement learning from the case.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord should directly pay the resident the £350 compensation offered in its 3 March 2025 stage 2 response.