Manchester City Council (202307463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307463

Manchester City Council

15 July 2024

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the installation of a heat pump.
2. Reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and the broken entry gates.
3. Reports about the condition of the communal garden.
4. Reports of an electrical fault caused by a leak from the boiler room.
5. Concerns about members of the landlord’s staff.
6. Concerns about the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact.
7. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2015. The property is owned by the local city council. The council used an arms length management organisation (the ALMO) to provide housing management services on its behalf. The ALMO ceased to provide the council’s housing management function in July 2021. At this time, the housing management function reverted to the council. For the purposes of this report, we have referred to the ALMO and the city council as “the landlord”.
The property is a one bedroom, ground-floor flat within a low-rise block containing 3 other one-bedroom flats. The block is one of 6 blocks of flats adjacent to each other, separated by car parks. The landlord has recorded that the resident suffers from several mental health issues including that he has a history of self-harm, behavioural issues, anxiety and depression.
On 15 July 2022 the resident reported ASB outside the block. He said the perpetrators were there for about 20 minutes to pick up drugs and were usually gone by the time the police arrived. The landlord told the resident it was working on this issue.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord reviewed the ASB case noting it could not identify the youths and was therefore relying on the police to do so. It acknowledged that a lack of security was the cause and noted it had had a project ongoing to improve security by installing gates, but this had been pushed back due to design flaws and cost. It noted it was now in a new financial year and would have to re-obtain quotes and apply for funding for the gates.
On 16 August 2022 the resident told the landlord he did not want a heat pump installing. The landlord was at that time installing heat pumps to replace a communal boiler system.
On 7 September 2022 the resident reported that the communal gardens were overgrown. The evidence suggests the landlord explained to him that the gardens were not its responsibility, but the council’s.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was restricting his contact with it. It said he could only log an enquiry by telephone, and it would respond in writing. The landlord explained this was due to 2 recent incidents where he became very irate and abusive during telephone calls to it on 17 August and 6 September 2022.
At the end of September and start of October 2022 the resident reported ASB. On 14 October 2022 the landlord wrote to him on 14 October 2022 setting out the action it was taking in relation to the ASB.
On 24 October 2022 the resident again raised the state of the communal gardens. The landlord responded saying it was liaising with the council about when they would be on site to carry out this maintenance work.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out the dates it considered he had been abusive to its staff and gave details of that. It reminded the resident of the terms of the civil injunction order that it had obtained in July 2022. It explained that, due to his continued abusive behaviour, it had decided it would no longer accept telephone communication from him. It said he must contact it by email (to a specified email address), in writing or by way of a third party such as a support worker, friend or family member.
On 1 December 2022 the resident reported that his boiler was not working. A gas contractor attended the same day and isolated the boiler. A gas contractor noted the boiler was no longer viable as the flue box was corroded amongst other faults. They noted the part was obsolete. On 6 December 2022 the resident told the landlord he did not want a heat pump.
On 17 January 2023 the resident told the landlord the fan heaters were broken. On 20 January 2023 the resident reported a problem with the electrics in the property that had occurred on 22 December 2022.
On 15 March 2023 the resident’s support worker told the landlord the resident had agreed to have the heat pump installed.
On the same day the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about not having heating and hot water since 1 December 2022. He said that the landlord had broken the terms of his tenancy and that his mental health was not good.
The evidence suggests that – some 5 months later – the landlord spoke to the resident on 25 May 2023 and said a surveyor would visit on 30 May 2023 to go through any repairs needed to the property. We understand that the resident did not allow the surveyor access.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint. It said that, historically, the resident had declined to have a heat pump installed in the property but had had a change of mind. It had let the appropriate team know and they would contact him. The landlord explained how the resident could request a review of that response. On 12 June 2023 the landlord wrote to him asking for his availability to install the heat pump.
On 28 June 2023, after contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to respond to several issues he had raised. These included its handling of reports of no heating or hot water since December 2022; electrical issues; broken garden gates and overgrown communal gardens.
The landlord installed the heat pump on 3 July 2023.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident. The response said it would address the communal gardens, ASB and pedestrian gates issues. It did not explain who would address his complaints about the issue with the electrics or heating and hot water. The main points were:
1. Communal gardens: It had asked its in‑house estate services team to do work on the gardens.
2. Pedestrian gates and ASB: It had submitted proposals to secure the area, but these had not progressed due to funding constraints and barriers relating to the design process. It had applied for additional funding and was awaiting a decision on that.
3. It was aware of issues relating to youths congregating in the area (which had been raised by a neighbour whom it was treating as the main complainant). It encouraged the resident to record any issues in an incident diary, but he had not agreed to do so to date. It also encouraged him to report any issues to the police where the incidents involve a criminal element such as drug use.
4. The landlord accepted that the damaged gates were a contributing factor to the ASB, as it meant that individuals were able to easily access the communal grounds. It said that decisions on whether funding was allocated was out of its hands and it could not offer a remedy to the damaged gates unless funding was agreed.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 20 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to do so. The landlord sought more information from the resident and expanded the issues it would respond to.
On 9 August 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response. The main points were:
1. Communal gardens: It apologised that the condition of the gardens had been poor, but its estate team had recently brought the gardens back to a good standard.
2. ASB: It set out the action it had taken. It added it was due to meet with the other complainant in the block, the police and the council’s community safety team, to assess the situation and see what other remedies they, as a partnership, might be able to put in place to stop the youths congregating.
3. It was satisfied that its colleagues had tried to engage with the resident, and it believed had always responded to him kindly and politely. Its staff had taken his mental health into account and for a time had liaised with his support worker in order to try to relieve the stress on him of communicating directly with it.
4. It had put in place conditions to help make sure that staff were safeguarded, whilst also ensuring he received a good service; this had included taking legal action and obtaining a civil injunction.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
In May 2024, the landlord told us that it had submitted a proposal to the council to recommend additional resources for its estate services team. It explained this would allow the team to take ownership of the communal green spaces within its housing stock. It said a task group had been set up to explore this proposal further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report has considered matters from mid-2022 (approximately 12 months before the resident made his formal complaint in May 2023) up to the date of the final complaint response of 9 August 2023. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is in line with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme.
The resident mentions that his mental health has been affected by the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered any inconvenience and distress the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as its response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
The Ombudsman cannot consider the court’s decision to issue a civil injunction order against the resident. This is because under paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

The resident’s concerns about the installation of the heat pump

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order, among other things, the installations for supplying water, gas, electricity and sanitation and the installations for supplying heat and hot water. This reflects the obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s booklet “What you can expect from us – Our Service Standards” (the landlord’s service standards booklet) explains the different timescales for responding to reports of repairs. It says it will offer an appointment within various timescales including within one working day to repair things like a front door damaged in a break-in or a power fault.
The landlord’s service standards booklet explains an emergency repair includes where there is no heating or hot water between 1 October and 1 March, depending on the temperature outside. It adds it does not consider it an emergency if the resident has a separate gas/electric fire or they can boil water. The booklet does not give any timescales for planned works.
It is evident that the landlord acted appropriately by informing residents of the change to the method of heating the properties in May 2020. When the resident initially refused the heat pump in August 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform him that it would not provide another gas boiler and that he may be left without heating and hot water if his boiler broke down.
The landlord acted appropriately at the start of December 2022 by investigating the cause of the boiler breakdown and it was reasonable for it to rely on the expert opinion of the gas contractor that the boiler was beyond repair given that the part it required was obsolete.
The resident again refused a heat pump in December 2022. The landlord acted reasonably in providing fan heaters and offering more when they broke later that month.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for initially refusing the installation of the heat pump. While this ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues, it was not reasonable for the landlord to leave the resident without heating and hot water for several months including over winter. The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort at the property. It also has a responsibility to keep the property free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the Housing Health and Safety Rating System sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been in regular contact with the resident, given his vulnerabilities, to re-offer an alternative heat source as well as re-offering the installation of the heat pump. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether legal action was appropriate to gain access to carry out this work given the impact on the resident by the lack of heating and hot water and, potentially, to the property itself. There is no evidence the landlord considered such action. Had the landlord done so, it is likely that the heat pump would have been installed much more quickly.
The resident agreed to a heat pump at the end of March 2023; the landlord acted promptly by arranging installation for 28 April 2023. The support worker warned the landlord that this date might not go ahead due to the resident’s depression. When access was not possible that day, the landlord should have booked another date without delay. Instead, it put the responsibility on the resident to contact the installation team. That was not reasonable.
When the resident chased up the heat pump at the start of May 2023, the landlord told him to contact the team responsible for its installation. It was not good customer service to expect the resident to chase this up himself. At the end of May 2023, the landlord said it would contact him with a new installation date. It sent a letter on 12 June 2023 asking him to contact it after the resident had chased it again. There was a lack of urgency by the landlord to restore heat and hot water to the property. Furthermore, its warnings that it might charge him £400 for a missed appointment if he had to cancel again was not reasonable.
The Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. We also consider any extent to which the resident’s actions might have contributed to the situation in which they found themselves, in other words whether they exacerbated or failed to minimise the impact.
It is reasonable to presume that a heat pump could have been installed within about 2 months had the landlord acted proactively. It is evident that the lack of heating and hot water over a significant period caused great distress and inconvenience to the resident. Financial compensation of £600 is appropriate for that impact. The sums awarded in this report are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been significant delays in carrying out repairs or planned works which had a severe impact on the resident. The sums ordered also reflect the facts that the resident’s vulnerabilities are an aggravating factor and that his initial refusal of the heat pump delayed matters.

The resident’s reports about ASB and the broken entry gates

It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s service standards booklet explains that it will not tolerate ASB committed by residents or their visitors on or around its estates. It is evident that the ASB has been ongoing at the blocks for a long time and, while the resident has made reports, the landlord has been mainly dealing with reports from another resident in the block. In its complaint responses and correspondence with the resident, the landlord acknowledged that the ASB was happening as a result of broken entry gates which meant youths could enter the grounds.
From our consideration of the evidence, the landlord has acted reasonably by working closely with the police and a local school to try to identify the perpetrators so that action can be taken against them. It has undertaken a variety of steps to try to stop this ASB by writing to parents of suspected perpetrators; logging incidents with the police; asking the police to carry out regular patrols of the area; making contact with a local school to see if they can identify any perpetrators; and meeting perpetrators and their parents.
The landlord also acted reasonably by working closely with the council’s ASB team to get advice and providing information so that they could send joint warning letters with the police to suspected perpetrators. While it is clear that the ongoing situation is causing frustration to the resident, the action taken by the landlord to try to prevent the ASB and take action against the perpetrators has been reasonable.
The evidence also demonstrates that the landlord has been trying to replace the gates since at least 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out in its correspondence with the resident that this matter was not straightforward as there were various stages to the design and procurement process. In its final complaint response, the landlord gave the resident an update explaining that there was an ongoing bid for approval for new entry gates.
It is reasonable to presume that the landlord has competing priorities for its budget and that is why the replacement of the gates has taken a long time. We acknowledge how frustrating this situation is for the resident; however, we are satisfied that the landlord is taking reasonable action to address the ASB in the grounds. A recommendation has been made that the landlord provides the affected residents with an update on the progress of the recent bid for the gates.

The resident’s reports about the condition of the communal garden

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s service standards booklet do not give details about who is responsible for the upkeep of the communal gardens. The resident disputes the council is responsible; however, we have seen communication between the landlord and the council that confirms the council is responsible for the maintenance of these gardens. Any concerns about the council’s actions in respect of the garden would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO), rather than us. This is because we can only look at local council’s actions in their capacity as social landlords. Any other activities of local authorities fall under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.
When the resident contacted the landlord about the poor state of the communal gardens, it tried to obtain details of when the council would undertake maintenance and then, when it was unable to get adequate guarantees from the council as to when they would complete the work, agreed to undertake the work itself. Those were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to improve the state of the communal gardens.
Recently, the landlord told us it recognised there were difficulties in not holding responsibility for the ground maintenance for the block. It said it had recently submitted a proposal to the council to get additional resource for its estate services team. It added that this additional resource would allow it to take ownership of the communal green spaces within its housing stock. That was a pro-active approach by the landlord to try to stop the matter complained about arising again in the future.

The resident’s reports of an electrical fault caused by a leak from the boiler room

There is no evidence that the resident reported a leak from outside the boiler room that affected the electrics in the property; however, there is evidence that he reported a problem with the electrics on 20 January 2023. He said the power had blown in December 2022 when he had been using the fan heaters. He said he was still using the sockets for the TV and kettle. While he said that that was the fourth time he had reported this issue, there is no evidence of any earlier reports. The landlord said it would pass this on to the housing team. However, there is no evidence that it did so until after the resident made a formal complaint on 23 May 2023 when it arranged for a surveyor to attend later that month. The evidence suggests that the resident told the surveyor at that time that his main concern was having no boiler, and he would not allow access.
The delay by the landlord in investigating the resident’s reports of electrical issues was not appropriate as its service standards say that it will offer an appointment within one day for a power fault. It is clear when the resident spoke to the landlord, he had genuine concerns about the safety of the property, and it should have taken steps promptly to investigate this issue.
Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for the evident distress caused to the resident by the delay in investigating the electrical issues reported in January 2023. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. An order has also been made for the landlord to arrange a convenient date for an electrical check of the property (in the event that one has not been carried out since December 2022).

The resident’s concerns about members of the landlord’s staff

In its complaint handling, the landlord said that it was satisfied that it had tried to engage with the resident, and it believed it had always responded to him kindly and politely. In the absence of specific incidents referred to by the resident, we have examined the notes of the landlord’s contact with him and in particular 7 transcripts of calls from its customer services team from September and October 2022, January 2023 and one that was undated.
This evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s engagement by its front-line staff was reasonable – staff listened to his concerns, were polite and tried to provide helpful information. Based on this, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s contact with the resident.

The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact

The landlord’s third-party abuse and harassment policy guidance says, after the first incident of abuse or harassment by a resident, a warming letter can be issued warning them about their behaviour and the consequences. It says the circumstances of the perpetrator should be considered, for example, if they have a significant mental health issue or condition. It also says that, if the abuse or harassment continues after the first warning letter, further options may be explored which may include a civil injunction order. It adds that, where there are threats to violence, immediate protection may need to be sought through a court order.
In September 2022 the landlord decided to restrict the resident’s contact with it after 2 calls in which the resident threatened to damage his own, and other, property. That was reasonable; the landlord acknowledged that these calls were having a detrimental effect on the resident which did not help him. It acted appropriately by writing to him with the details of what had led to the restriction and that he could report issues by phone but that it would respond in writing. In taking this step the landlord recognised the impact of such calls on both staff members and the resident which was appropriate given his health issues.
In November 2022 the landlord restricted the resident’s contact further by limiting it to only written communication or via a third party following a series of calls which it considered to be abusive, insulting and aggressive. That again was reasonable and was based on 5 calls from the resident from the end of August to the end of October 2022. The landlord again wrote to him giving details of the calls that had led to this decision and explained it considered he had breached the civil injunction order and warned it might take further legal action.
While the resident’s contact with the landlord was limited to written communication, the landlord acted appropriately by accepting reports of emergency repairs by telephone in relation to the boiler. This was reasonable as there was potentially a risk to his safety or that of the property.
We consider the decision to restrict the resident’s contact to be reasonable; however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered him a right of appeal of its decision. It should also have given a date when its decision on restricted contact would be reviewed as any restrictions imposed should not be set indefinitely.
These failings evidently caused frustration to the resident as it meant he lost an opportunity to appeal and would not have known how long these restrictions would remain in force. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for that frustration, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
While the landlord provided some policy information, a recommendation has been made for it consider implementing an unacceptable behaviour policy/procedure to give further guidance in this area, which we understand can be challenging to both residents and landlords.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says it has a two-stage process. It will respond at stage one within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. When the resident first raised his complaint, it concerned the fact he had been without heating and hot water for a number of months; however, the landlord did not address this issue in its first stage one complaint response.
After our contact in June 2023 which included the resident’s concerns that he had been without heating and hot water for a number of months, the landlord decided to respond again at stage one. This was appropriate as we had raised issues that had not been included as part of the resident’s original complaint.
In its second stage one response, the landlord again did not address all the issues raised. It did not consider the length of time he had been without heating and hot water or the new issue about electrical issues which the resident had said had been caused by a leak from the boiler room.
When the resident escalated the complaint, he raised several new issues. The landlord should have raised a new stage one complaint response at this point in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Dealing with a complaint issue solely at stage 2 does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident.
The landlord failed to address all the issues raised by the resident, despite our involvement and the fact it had 2 opportunities to do so at stage one. Financial compensation of £250 is appropriate in this case for the evident frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the time and trouble he spent pursuing these matters.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the installation of the heat pump.
2. Reports of an electrical fault caused by a leak from the boiler room.
3. Concerns about the landlord’s decision to restrict his contact.
4. Associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
1. Reports about ASB and the broken entry gates.
2. Reports about the condition of the communal garden.
3. Concerns about members of the landlord’s staff.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the days of this report:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,150 made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings in relation to the installation of the heat pump.
  2. £200 for the distress caused by the delay in investigating the electrical issues reported in January 2023.
  3. £100 for the frustration caused by the failings in the landlord’s decision to restrict the resident’s contact with it.
  4. £250 for the impact of the identified complaint handling failures.
Arrange a convenient date for an electrical check of the property (if one has not been carried out since December 2022).
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Provides the resident and other affected residents with an update on the progress on the procurement of the new entry gates.
2. Consider implementing an unacceptable behaviour policy/procedure.