Manchester City Council (202420395)
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal boiler.
We publish decisions as part of our commitment to being open and transparent.
Decision reports do not include residents’ names, but we name landlords. They date from December 2020, and we publish them 3 months after the final decision date.
In some cases, we will not publish a decision if it is not in the resident’s or landlord’s interest. Or if we will compromise the resident’s anonymity. You can read more in our guidance on decisions.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal boiler.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s request to have a driveway installed at his property. The resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of the landlord's staff.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to: The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property. The resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues on 22 August 2024 and it should have treated it as a complaint. It apologised for not doing so, which was reasonable. The landlord’s complaint responses were provided outside of its service level agreements. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in the responses and offer compensation. The landlord offered £50 for the overall delays. It acknowledged that while there were delays at stage 2, it did inform the resident of the need for an extension and provided the new date it would aim to respond by. This was also reasonable. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately outlined how some of the issues raised in the residents complaint fell outside of the scope of its investigation. It said this was because they were addressed as part of a previous stage 1 response in which she accepted £500 compensation. It said she did not escalate that complaint within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy. Overall, the landlord showed how it had aimed to manage the resident’s expectations by reasonably informing her of the stage 2 extension and outlining the scope of its investigation. These actions were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Where it failed to meet its service level agreements, it offered a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the impact caused to the resident. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Request to repair windows which were reported as being stiff to open and close. Request to replace the bathroom at the property. Further repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord's handling of the resident’s reports about other residents placing bins in a position which restricted access to her property. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows. The associated complaints.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new communal front door. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s: Increases in service charges, including for property insurance. Estate management. Complaint handling.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated repairs. The complaint.
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s request for a repair to his taps, and later adaptation request. The resident’s complaint.