Manchester City Council (202330593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330593

Manchester City Council

23 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for it to complete repairs in the garden.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has held a secure tenancy with the landlord since 2009. He lives in a house with a garden.
3. In 2018, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about a washing line pole in the garden that he wanted removed. He also reported large holes in the garden that needed filling, and a loose washing line wire hanging from a rear external wall. The landlord agreed to remove the washing line pole but said garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility. It advised the resident to fill the holes with soil and confirmed it would not carry out the other works requested.
4. Between July and November 2022, the resident submitted 3 complaints to the landlord. He said the holes in the garden and the loose washing line wire remained unresolved because the landlord had not carried out works it had agreed to do. In response, the landlord said it would not investigate the resident’s complaints, as it believed it had already addressed the issues relating to his garden and had set out its position.
5. The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 22 December 2022. He repeated his earlier concerns about the garden and said it had been in poor condition since he moved in. He described the holes as knee-height deep, with bits of concrete and wood inside. He acknowledged that the landlord had removed the washing line pole as requested, but said this had created another hole, which made the garden worse than before.
6. On 5 April 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s garden.
7. On 23 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that its position had not changed, and it would not be filling any of the holes in the garden.
8. On 26 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, as he remained dissatisfied with its response.
9. On 18 September 2023, the landlord carried out another inspection of the resident’s garden.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 September 2023. It acknowledged that its inspection had identified knee-height deep holes and confirmed that it would fill them with topsoil and grass seed. It said it had agreed to do the work as a goodwill gesture and did not consider its earlier responses to be inaccurate, but had now taken a different view of the situation. It also noted that the resident was due to take time off work to accommodate unrelated internal repairs and said it would try to schedule the garden works at the same time.
11. On 30 November 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to our service. He said the garden works were still outstanding and that he wanted compensation due to how long the issue had been ongoing.
12. In June 2024, the landlord completed works to fill the holes in the garden. It also cut back bushes and dug out an old post.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident said that his garden had been in poor condition since he moved into the property in 2009. The landlord responded to his concerns through its complaint process in 2018, which shows this has been a long-standing concern. Under paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we do not usually consider complaints brought to us more than 12 months after the landlord’s final response. The resident had the opportunity to escalate his concerns to our service after the landlord’s final complaint response in 2018. Given the time that has passed, some evidence may no longer be available, making it harder to carry out a thorough investigation and reach reliable conclusions.
14. Taking this into account, and based on the available records, this investigation focuses on events from July 2022 onwards, as this is where records indicate the beginning of events leading to the resident’s recent formal complaint to the landlord in 2023. The 2018 complaint is noted for context only and does not form part of our assessment of the landlord’s actions.

Legal policy and framework

15. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The agreement does not require the landlord to maintain or repair garden areas. These are the responsibility of the tenant.
16. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident must keep the garden tidy, including cutting lawns and trimming hedges.
17. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it needs more time at either stage, it must agree this with the resident, and the extension should not exceed a further 10 working days.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if it decides not to accept a complaint, it must explain why the matter will not be considered as part of the complaints process. It must also inform the resident of their right to escalate that decision to this service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to complete repairs in the garden

19. The resident submitted 3 complaints between July and November 2022 asking the landlord to fill holes in the garden and remove a washing line wire. The landlord’s decision not to open a new complaint was reasonable given it had already responded to the same issue in 2018. Its position that the works fell outside its obligations was also appropriate, as the resident’s tenancy agreement placed responsibility for garden maintenance with the resident.
20. It is possible the condition of the garden at the start of the tenancy could have fallen under lettable standard responsibilities. However, the resident had lived in the property for several years before raising this as a formal concern, and in the absence of any records from the time of letting, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the matter as one for the resident to manage. Social housing providers are expected to ensure properties are safe and serviceable, but not necessarily free from signs of wear or environmental deterioration in outside spaces.
21. Following its inspection of the resident’s garden in September 2023, the landlord changed its position and agreed to fill the holes in the garden. Its records show that it acknowledged the presence of several knee-height deep holes and decided to carry out the works as a goodwill gesture. This demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to resolve the issue pragmatically, even though the works remained outside its formal obligations. The landlord noted the importance the resident placed on being able to use his garden and made efforts to assist him. The landlord’s revised approach demonstrated a constructive attitude.
22. The landlord completed the garden works in June 2024, around 9 months after agreeing to carry them out. Its records show that the staff member overseeing the case went on long-term leave, and other staff believed the works would be addressed through a separate disrepair claim the resident had submitted. While that may explain the delay, it does not excuse the lack of communication.
23. The evidence shows that the resident followed up in November 2023 but received no reply – first from the staff member on leave, and then from the colleague their email auto-response directed him to. This demonstrated poor internal coordination and a failure to maintain continuity in case management. The lack of response is likely to have caused further frustration and uncertainty for the resident and undermined the goodwill established by the landlord’s earlier decision.
24. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in declining the resident’s initial request and took a constructive approach by later agreeing to complete the garden works. However, the delay and lack of communication that followed has led us to determine service failure in its handling of the matter. The landlord may have considered the garden works themselves to be a sufficient goodwill gesture, and therefore did not see the need to offer compensation for the later delay. However, once it committed to carrying out the works, it was responsible for managing that process in a timely and transparent way.
25. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined service failure due to a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. The landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication and the delay in completing the garden works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

26. The resident raised 2 complaints with the landlord between July and September 2022. On both occasions, the evidence shows that the landlord responded within a few days to explain why it would not be considering his concerns further. Its decision not to investigate his complaint was supported by its complaints policy. The evidence shows the landlord also referred the resident to this service, which was also in line with its obligations under the complaints procedure.
27. The resident raised a further complaint in November 2022, but there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged or responded to it the time. He submitted another complaint on 22 December 2022, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2023 – 168 working days later, significantly exceeding the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
28. The evidence shows that in May 2023, the landlord told the resident his complaint was overlooked due to a technical issue with its website and apologised. However, there are no records to explain why it took a further 3 months to issue a formal response. This delay was unacceptable and likely caused confusion, undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaint’s process, and prolonged the time taken to resolve the complaint.
29. Additionally, the landlord did not offer the resident any redress for the delay in responding to his complaint. This indicates it did not fully acknowledge the impact of the service failure. We expect landlords to take responsibility for service shortcomings and provide appropriate remedies to address any resulting inconvenience caused to residents. This would have shown that the landlord accepted responsibility and was committed to putting things right.
30. The resident escalated his complaint on 26 August 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 24 working days later. While this was slightly outside of the landlord’s published timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints, the delay did not have a substantial effect on the landlord’s handling of the complaint or the outcome for the resident at this stage.
31. Given the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, we have determined service failure in its complaint handling.
32. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as referenced above, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and frustration caused by the delays in the handling his complaint.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for it to complete repairs in the garden.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
       1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication and the delay in completing the garden works
       2. £100 for the time, trouble, and frustration caused by the delays in the handling of his complaint
36. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.