One Manchester Limited (202441963)

Background

1. The resident holds an assured tenancy and has lived in his home since 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 3rd floor. The resident lives in his home with his family including 2 young children. The resident complained to the landlord about delays in repairs both in his home and in the communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of repairs to windows and the trickle vents
   2. the resident’s reports of damage to mesh on a communal window
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to windows and trickle vents.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to mesh on a communal window.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to windows and trickle vents

6. The landlord did take some action relating to the resident’s windows but it did not resolve the problem completely. It was delayed in completing the window repairs over a prolonged period of time. The resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence to demonstrate due regard to the window repairs and any health and safety hazards.

Damage to mesh on communal window

7. The landlord told the resident conflicting information about the damaged mesh. It told the resident timescales for the repair but was delayed in resolving the issue. This was a failure in the service to the resident.

The associated complaint

8. The landlord was delayed in its stage 1 complaint response. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It also did not follow its own policies and procedures relating to paying the compensation it offered to the resident, and this was a failure in service.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. On 27 April 2022, before the resident started the landlord’s complaint process, the landlord’s records show the resident contacted the landlord for an update about his windows. He said a glass company had been out “about a month ago” and he had not heard anything since.
10. The landlord’s records show there was further contact from the resident requesting updates about his windows between this date and when he raised his stage 1 complaint.
11. On 22 July 2024, the resident made his stage 1 complaint to the landlord.  He told the landlord there were repairs outstanding to windows in his flat.
12. On 12 August 2024, the landlord’s repairs history shows an order was raised for a survey to be carried out on the windows. On 15 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed it had requested a surveyor to inspect the resident’s windows.
13. On 5 September 2024, after contact from the resident, the landlord said it did not want to carry out another survey as it should have everything captured from the previous surveys. It said it would contact the resident as soon as possible.
14. On 17 September 2024, the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint given the time taken to resolve the issues.
15. On 3 October 2024, the landlord’s repairs history shows a work order was created for defective window openers on 5 windows. It noted the tilt and turn function had failed resulting in window drop. The work order stated “restrict to tilt function only” and install a trickle vent to bedroom window.
16. On 31 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It recognised the resident had previously raised a complaint about his windows both with the tilt and turn mechanisms and the trickle vents.
17. The landlord said, over the past 7 years, it had made fixes to the windows which had not repaired the issues. It apologised for not resolving the issue and for the length of time it had been ongoing.
18. It said there was an issue with the style of windows in the resident’s home, and it needed to source a specialist contractor. It said there had been a recent meeting, and it would be onboarding and training the specialist contractor. It expected to carry out the work to the resident’s home in early December to resolve the issues.
19. The landlord offered the resident £700 due to the duration and severe disruption to the resident in line with its compensation policy. It also recognised the resident had had to raise numerous complaints to escalate the issues with his windows and offered £100 for poor communication.
20. On 22 November 2024, the landlord’s repair records record the works order, for the window openers and to restrict to tilt function, was marked as complete.
21. On 10 December 2024, the landlord’s records show an internal request to contact the resident, it was about his windows and 5 window handles required replacing and the bedroom window also needed a trickle vent.
22. On 6 June 2025, the landlord’s records show the trickle vent was fitted to the resident’s bedroom window.
23. On 1 July 2025, after contact from the resident about his stage 2 complaint, the landlord offered a further £300 for the further 6-month delay to getting the bedroom window fixed and apologised for the length of time to resolve.
24. In January 2026, the resident told this Service that the landlord has completed repairs, but issues return and his home is cold and draughty. The issues have been an emotional toll on him, and he has had to do a lot of chasing up. He said the situation is tiring.
25. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs was unreasonable in the circumstances. This is because, whilst the landlord made fixes to the windows, it did not fully resolve the problem.
26. It is recognised that window related repairs can be complex and may require more time and planning, but it is essential to have meaningful communication with residents in order to fully understand the issues and impact on a resident and to manage expectations.
27. It is of concern that the landlord’s records do not show if the landlord considered the window repairs as potential health and safety hazard or if there was a risk assessment for the issues with the windows with consideration to health and safety. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord took into account the resident lived on the 3rd floor and there were vulnerabilities with young children in the home.
28. While the landlord’s total offer of compensation was in line with its guidance for major severity and significant impact, it was not proportionate to the prolonged period of time that the resident’s repairs remained outstanding.
29. The landlord’s complaint process failed to provide an effective resolution to the resident’s complaint within a meaningful timeframe.
30. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint history and said there were lessons which the landlord could learn from. It said it would use the resident’s complaints as part of a customer journey exercise which could be shared with different teams and inform changes. But after its response, the landlord accepted there was a further delay in finishing the window repairs e.g. the trickle vent. The landlord did not demonstrate it had learnt from this case.
31. There would have been a finding of severe maladministration but there was no permanent detriment to the resident.  The award of an additional compensation of £300 recognises the duration of the window repairs, the resident repeatedly chasing the landlord and the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise.

32. On 22 July 2024 the resident complained about damaged mesh to a stairwell window.
33. On 15 August 2024 the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that there was a current request to replace the damaged mesh on levels 2,3 and 5. It had asked the Repairs team for an update on a completion date. It said when the date was confirmed it would inform the resident.
34. The landlord said it envisaged this would be completed within 4 weeks but asked for time for the mesh to be manufactured.
35. On 31 October 2024, after the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord, it said in its stage 2 response that an inspection took place on 30 October 2024 and the damaged mesh was removed as it was not required.
36. This was 55 working days from the landlord informing the resident the work would take about 4 weeks. This is unreasonable in the circumstances because:
    1. the landlord gave a contradictory message that new mesh was required and then it was not
    2. it was not in line with what the landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response.
    3. the landlord did not manage the expectations of the resident and may have damaged the landlord / tenant relationship
37. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for this finding.

38. On 22 July 2024 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s records do not show if this was acknowledged to the resident. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and was not in line with its own policies and procedures or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
39. On 15 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 19 working days after the complaint was raised and this was not in line with its own policies and procedures or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
40. On 17 September 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint.
41. On 24 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged this request. This was 6 working days from the resident’s request to escalate his complaint.
42. On 31 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 28 working days from its acknowledgement to the resident. While this was outside of the timeframes for complaint responses at stage 2, the landlord had advised the resident of the delay, and this was reasonable in the circumstances.
43. On 13 December 2024 the landlord’s records show the resident sent a text message to the landlord and said “not yet received payment offered in your letter or acknowledgement of the acceptance form. Any ideas when I can expect the payment.”
44. From the stage 2 complaint response to the resident asking when he could expect payment is 32 working days and this was not reasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with its own policies and procedures.
45. The landlord did not follow its own policies and procedures relating to the resident’s complaint and this was unreasonable in the circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation.

Learning

46. The landlord’s records did not provide evidence it had considered the resident and his family circumstances, with young children. Following the Ombudsman’s open letter about window-related complaints in July 2024, the Ombudsman encourage all social housing providers to review window-related complaints and to implement core lessons including
    1. conducting thorough risk assessments based on individual household circumstances
    2. ensuring appropriate actions are recognised, responded to and documented

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. As referenced in this report, there was no evidence of risk assessments having been undertaken at the resident’s home. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

48. As noted in this report, the landlord communicated timescales that were not met. The landlord should ensure that any timescales provided to residents are realistic, clearly linked to the relevant Repairs Policy timescale, and adhered to. This will help manage residents’ expectations and support a positive landlord‑tenant relationship.

As noted in the report, the landlord acknowledged the poor communication with the resident. The landlord should ensure its staff understand the importance of timely communication with residents to maintain confidence in the landlord.