One Manchester Limited (202524499)

Decision
Case ID	202524499
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Manchester Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 May 2026

Background

In 2022 the resident first reported concerns that the loft insulation in the property was inadequate, that the loft hatch did not fit properly and that there was damp and mould in the property. After initial intervention the resident told the landlord that rather than further repairs being completed, they would prefer to move to a property which was in good condition.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the loft.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. A request to move properties.
We will also consider complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for its handling of repairs to the loft.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to move properties.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The delays in addressing the loft issues largely related to access issues which were beyond the landlord’s control. There was an 88 working day period in which the landlord failed to raise repairs. However, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation provided reasonable redress for this service failure.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its policies. While the damp and mould in the property appears to be reoccurring, the landlord’s ability to treat and prevent mould growth has been limited due to access issues. The landlord has not fully explained to the resident how access issues can impact ongoing repairs, and that the resident has an obligation under the tenancy to allow access to the landlord and its contractors.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request to be rehoused in a reasonable manner as the resident did not qualify for priority rehousing under the landlord’s policies.
When the resident escalated their complaint, they raised 3 additional issues. The landlord only addressed one of the new issues at stage 2 of the complaint.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, if it has not yet done so. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 11 June 2026
2	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the access concerns and the resident’s obligations under the tenancy. During this conversation the landlord should also explore whether it can take any practical steps to support access for future repairs.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Damp and mould inspection The landlord must arrange for a damp and mould inspection to occur in the property. This inspection is to be conducted by a damp and mould specialist. It is to assess damp and mould present in the property and the resident’s reports that the property is excessively cold. The inspection is to highlight any possible internal and external contributing factors to the condition of the property. The specialist is to produce a report outlining their findings, and any recommended repairs. This report is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 25 June 2026
4	Addressing plumbing and pest control concerns raised in the resident’s complaint The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss their concerns about pests in the property and the quality of the pipework. The landlord is to consider the information provided by the resident and explain the steps it will take to address the concerns.	No later than 25 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the compensation previously offered of £200 for the loft issues if it has not yet done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 August 2025	The resident complained to the landlord as they were concerned that damp and mould issues kept on occurring in the property. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal to treat the mould, as previous treatments had been unsuccessful in preventing regrowth.
4 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: The resident’s complaint had been partially upheld as its repairs had not been effective in preventing further mould growth. Prior to the complaint it had conducted a mould wash on 17 March 2025, and mould had since returned. It had arranged an appointment for the mould to be treated, and for a thermal paint to be applied on 18 September 2025. It offered £100 in compensation for its handling of the damp and mould reports. It said it could not assign the resident a higher banding for rehousing priority. It noted the resident was having trouble registering on its online housing portal, so it had asked the Neighbourhood Officer to assist them with this process.
8 September 2025	The resident escalated their complaint. They said: They were not satisfied with the planned mould treatment. They said previous treatments had been unsuccessful, and the chemicals used had caused them to experience headaches and a shortness of breath. They felt the property was not properly insulated. This meant the property was excessively cold and it had high heating costs. The resident also raised concerns about pests accessing the property, and concerns about water pipes and tanks being dirty.
13 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It acknowledged there had been reoccurring issues with damp and mould in the property, and there had been delays in it addressing the loft and insulation issues. The resident first reported issues with the loft, and damp and mould concerns in 2022. It had arranged for the loft hatch repairs to occur in April 2023. This appointment was cancelled and it was not re-booked until March 2025. The loft insulation was renewed on 4 February 2025. The resident refused access for the mould treatment booked for 26 September 2025, due to concerns about the smell of the chemicals that are used to treat mould. It said this work would need to be rebooked, and it offered to arrange an overnight stay in a hotel to address the resident’s concerns. The resident had expressed a strong desire to move properties. It advised the resident to utilise its online portal to bid for alternative properties. Service failures had occurred in the time it had taken to address the loft issues, and as the damp and mould issues were re-occurring. It acknowledged that this would have caused distress, and it offered £400 in compensation to remedy this.
21 October 2025	The resident referred the complaint to us. They said: They were dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses as they did not think mould treatments would be effective in eradicating the mould. They felt the works to the loft had not been effective as the property was still cold. They were not happy with using the landlord’s online portal to bid for new properties. They felt this process could take years, and this was not appropriate given the health and safety risks associated with the property. They also raised concerns about pests and plumbing in the property.

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.

Compensation calculations

In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not explain how the £400 compensation would be allocated across the two areas of the complaint in which it identified service failures. For the purpose of this investigation, we consider it fair to divide this amount evenly between the two complaint areas where the landlord found failings. Our consideration of the landlord’s offer of compensation is therefore based on it offering £200 in relation to its handling of damp and mould and £200 in relation to its handling of issues with the loft.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the loft
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out how it will respond to repairs it is responsible for. Routine repairs should be completed within 45 working days. More complex, planned repairs should be completed within 90 working days.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and interior of the property. The resident is responsible for allowing the landlord and its contractors access to carry out inspections and repairs. If the resident refuses access, the landlord can charge them for any costs or losses incurred.
The resident first reported concerns about the loft in September 2022. The landlord attempted to arrange an inspection, but the resident said they did not want the works arranged as they wished to move properties. As a result, no works took place following this report.
 In April 2023 the resident told the landlord they were struggling to keep the house warm, and the landlord raised works to inspect the loft insulation. An inspection attempt in April 2023 was unsuccessful because no one was home. A second attempt in June 2023 was initially successful, but when the operative left to obtain further materials, access was not granted on their return.
The resident raised concerns about the loft insulation again on 17 September 2024. The landlord arranged an inspection for the following day, which was appropriate. The surveyor noted that the insulation was inadequate and could be contributing to damp and mould in the property. Although repairs were raised to address the damp and mould, the landlord did not raise repairs for the loft itself. This was a failing.
The landlord raised a repair to inspect the loft on 21 January 2025, 88 working days after the September 2024 inspection. While this was within the policy timescale for planned repairs, this issue should have been treated as a routine repair given the earlier findings. The works to the loft insulation and the loft hatch were completed by March 2025.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the loft repairs and offered compensation.
After reviewing the landlord’s records, it appears that the access issues significantly contributed to delays. Therefore, the landlord is not solely responsible for the lengthy delays experienced. The landlord’s response could have improved if it had a frank discussion with the resident about their responsibilities under the tenancy agreement. However, given the issues were not priority repairs or matters which had a significant impact on the condition of the property, we consider this to be a learning point.
We have identified a missed opportunity as the landlord did not inspect the loft insulation after the September 2024 inspection identified it as a contributing factor to damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s apology and compensation offer were reasonable in the circumstances, and we consider the landlord provided the resident reasonable redress.
The resident has said that despite the new insulation being installed, the property remains excessively cold. We have therefore recommended that the landlord arrange a heat loss inspection to determine whether there are additional factors affecting the heating in the property.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says that when it receives a report of damp and mould it will inspect the property and attempt to identify the underlying cause. The inspection should take place within 5 working days, and any required repairs should be progressed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs within 10 working days.
3. Routine repairs within 45 working days.
4. Planned repairs within 90 working days.
A damp and mould inspection first took place in November 2022. The resident received advice on how to help prevent damp and mould. Repairs were raised for the windows to be resealed, for the external gutters to be cleared, and for a mould treatment to be carried out. The inspection records noted no evidence of water ingress.
On 9 August 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord tried to inspect the property on 16 August 2024, in line with its policy. Access was refused, and the resident said they wished to speak with a senior member of staff.
An inspection went ahead on 31 August 2024, relating to both damp and mould and the general condition of the property. The surveyor identified several repairs and noted that the resident was hesitant for works to proceed because they wished to move to another property. The resident then did not engage when the landlord attempted to schedule appointments. However, the landlord was able to access the property in September 2024 to upgrade extractor fans.
A stock condition survey took place on 12 December 2024. The surveyor noted significant damp and mould in the property and recorded that the resident did not want specialist damp and mould contractors to attend. Despite this, the landlord arranged an inspection for 19 December 2024. This was appropriate given its repair responsibilities. The inspection did not take place because access was not provided. On 18 January 2025 the landlord raised a priority repair to address the damp and mould, and a mould wash was completed on 6 February 2025. This was appropriate.
In August 2025 the resident reported that mould was growing on their bedroom ceiling and walls. The landlord attempted to book repairs, but the resident refused to engage with booking appointments because they wanted to move to another property. This led the resident to file a complaint, as they felt further mould treatments would not resolve the underlying problems.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised that the damp and mould had returned after the latest treatment. It offered compensation and encouraged the resident to engage with the recommended treatment. It also made arrangements to fund an overnight hotel stay because the resident said they were negatively affected by the chemicals used during mould treatments. This indicated the landlord paid consideration to the resident’s concerns, and wanted to work with them to improve the condition of the property.
We asked the landlord for an update on the condition of the property and for details of any planned repairs. It said it had attempted to inspect the property in December 2025, and the resident did not grant access to the property citing our investigation. It said it had tried to contact the resident in April 2026 and did not receive a response. If a resident brings a complaint to us and repairs are outstanding or ongoing, it is always our position that repairs should go ahead to help improve the condition of the property. Ongoing works do not negatively impact our findings.
Based on our review of the records, the landlord’s ability to investigate the damp and mould and assess contributing factors has been significantly limited by access issues. We recognise that living with damp and mould can be distressing, and the resident may have felt the mould treatments were not sufficient. However, in some cases it can take time and several interventions to resolve damp and mould issues in a property. As access was repeatedly refused, the landlord was not given sufficient time to investigate and address the underlying causes of damp and mould.
However, we do consider a service failure occurred as the landlord did not fully explain to the resident how the access issues were affecting its ability to address the damp and mould. Records indicate the landlord did not explain this clearly prior to the complaint, or in its complaint responses. While such conversations may be challenging, the resident should have been informed about access and their obligations under the tenancy agreement. This would have given the resident the opportunity to understand the landlord’s concerns, consider any changes needed and make an informed decision. It was particularly important as the resident may not have been aware that refusing access was a breach of their tenancy and could result in the landlord issuing legal proceedings.
To address this, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the access issues, so the resident better understands their impact. The landlord should also explore whether it can take any practical steps to support access for future repairs. We have also ordered that the landlord carry out an inspection to assess the reported damp and mould and cold conditions in the property considering the time elapsed since the resident’s complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request to be rehoused
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s allocations policy says residents who wish to move should use an online housing portal to bid for properties. The portal is linked to the resident’s geographic area and is used by multiple landlords. Applications are considered based on the priority banding assigned by the local authority.
The landlord may also arrange an internal move. It will do so at its discretion, and if the resident has no rent arrears, and the property is in good condition. In most cases, internal moves are prioritised in line with the resident’s local authority banding. In exceptional circumstances, a senior member of staff may agree to prioritise an internal move. Examples include cases involving significant overcrowding, a serious personal event, or where an adapted property is required.
The landlord’s temporary and urgent moves policy sets out when rehousing may be considered because of repairs or property condition. Temporary accommodation may be provided if planned works are extensive and significantly disruptive. Permanent rehousing will generally only be considered where damage to a property is extensive, such as following major fires or flooding or when a property is due to be demolished.
As the resident’s rehousing priority band is determined by the local authority, we cannot consider any concerns they may have about their banding. Matters relating to banding fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s actions and the advice it gave the resident about rehousing was reasonable and in line with its policies.
In August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to move them to another property due to dissatisfaction with the condition of the home and concerns about pests. In August 2024 the landlord inspected the property, during which the resident said they were reluctant to agree to repairs because they wished to be rehoused. This later became a recurring issue, with the resident declining repairs as they wanted to move to another property.
In its complaint responses, the landlord advised the resident to use the online rehousing portal and explained that it could not assign a higher priority band. It also offered support with registering on the platform. This was reasonable, as the resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria for rehousing under either the allocations policy or the temporary and urgent moves policy. We have therefore found no maladministration occurred, as the landlord acted in line with its policies and offered appropriate advice and support.
The resident told us they wanted to be rehoused. They felt bidding through the online system could take several years and that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to assist due to the condition of the home. We acknowledge that living in a property with ongoing repair issues can be distressing. However, evidence shows the resident has declined repairs intended to address their repair concerns. Considering this, we encourage the resident to work with the landlord to improve the condition of the property while continuing to use the online rehousing platform if they wish to move.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The resident complained on 14 August 2025, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 working days later. It issued its stage 1 response 11 working days after the acknowledgement. This was outside the timescales set out in its policy. However, the delay was limited to one working day and was unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident.
The resident escalated their complaint on 8 September 2025, and the landlord acknowledged the escalation 5 working days later. It issued its stage 2 response on 13 October 2025, which was 20 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 was in line with its policy.
When escalating the complaint, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the loft, about pests entering the property through holes in the walls and the condition of the plumbing systems. In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the loft‑related concerns but did not respond to the other issues raised. It was unreasonable for the landlord to address only one of the additional matters raised rather than all of them. If the landlord did not have the required information to produce a complaint response on the additional topics, then this should have been explained. On this basis, we have found a service failure occurred, as the resident was left uncertain as to what its position on these issues was.
To remedy this, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss their concerns about pests in the property and the quality of the pipework.

Learning

Aside from the findings made and the suggested learning point outlined in paragraph 20, we have not identified any additional learning points for the landlord around its communication or record keeping.