Torus62 Limited (202405354)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405354

Torus62 Limited

11 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
2. complaint.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat, which he has occupied since December 2013. He is an assured tenant of the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2023 to ask it to inspect his property for damp and condensation. The landlord has not provided an inspection report. However, the records show that, following a survey on 14 March 2023, it raised works to:
1. apply damp proofing plaster on the bedroom and corridor walls.
2. skim plaster the bathroom ceiling.
3. apply mould wash and paint all areas affected by mould.

The landlord completed these repairs on 12 August 2023.

On 18 January 2024 the resident reported that he had damp and mould in his kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. The landlord arranged to carry out an inspection on 29 March 2024 and the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 January 2024. He stated that he was disappointed that the repairs the landlord had completed over the previous 3 years had not resolved the damp and mould in his property. He said he had a sore shoulder and that the “cold and wet walls” were not helping. He asked for it to replace all his belongings that had been damaged by the damp and mould.
On 22 February 2024 the landlord inspected the property for damp. The landlord has not provided us with an inspection report. It sent the resident its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024 and stated that:
1. during its damp inspection it found that:
  1. the walls in the bedroom were “slightly moist”.
  2. wet external brickwork was wet due to blocked guttering.
  3. missing mortar to the brickwork was allowing water ingress.
  4. there was mould in the bedroom.
  5. the kitchen extractor fan was “clogged”.
2. following the inspection it raised the following works:
  1. remove the skirting in the bedroom to check for “bridging between the plastering and floor.
  2. renew the trickle vent in the kitchen.
  3. apply stain block to the bedroom walls and repoint areas where the mortar was missing.
  4. overhaul the kitchen extractor fan.
  5. clear the guttering to the block.
3. It aimed to complete those repairs by 10 April 2024 and would contact him with an appointment date.
4. It acknowledged it had failed to complete the repairs it had raised on 14 March 2023 within 60 days.
5. It “partially upheld” his complaint, which would remain open until it had resolved the damp and mould issue.
6. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of the delays and the impact these had on him.
7. It advised him to approach his home contents insurance provider to claim for damaged belongings.
The resident responded on 18 March 2024 and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He stated that:
1. he wanted it to replace his damaged items “immediately”.
2. The landlord had carried out 3 repairs, but none had worked.
3. Its response time for dealing with the damp issues was poor.
4. He had had to take time off work and clean up after repairs were completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 March 2024. It wrote to him again on 18 April 2024 to extend the response deadline to 2 May 2024. It said that the reason for this was that it was waiting for additional information from its contractors to enable it to provide a thorough response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024 and stated that:
1. After the resident raised a repair on 18 January 2024, it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 29 March 2024. However, as he had raised a complaint on 29 January 2024. It cancelled this and arranged for a “complaint surveyor” to attend instead, on 22 February 2024.
2. It had completed a mould wash to the property on 30 January 2024.
3. An operative attended on 12th March 2024 and advised that a damp proof course was required outside property as water was bridging and transferring inside the property.
4. On 24 April 2024 it had carried out cavity clean to prevent damp to the front of the property.
5. It was due to complete work to apply stain block and repoint his bedroom wall on 13 May 2024. It acknowledged that this exceeded its repair timescale.
6. It had completed work on 8 April 2024 to overhaul the kitchen extractor fan.
7. It had cancelled work to clear the blocked gutters because it had raised this as a responsive repair in error. This should have been part of its cyclical repair programme, which was due in 2025. It apologised “for the miscommunication and conflicting information”.
8. It did not offer compensation for damaged belongings. The resident would need to claim for this through his contents insurance.
9. It would “always attempt” to cause as little disruption as possible. However, in order to complete repairs, it was necessary for residents to allow access. For this reason, it did not compensate for time taken off work to facilitate appointments.
10. It wished to increase its offer of compensation to £100, broken down as:
  1. £50 it had offered at stage 1.
  2. £50 in recognition of the incorrect information it had provided with regard to the gutter clearance.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 May 2024. He said he was unhappy with the ongoing damp and mould issues in his property and wanted repairs to be completed to resolve the problem “completely”. He also wanted compensation for “destroyed” belongings and impact on his health. On 13 May 2024 he wrote to us again and said that a bricklayer had attended the property that day and advised the issue could be due to rising damp. He added that the landlord had still not removed the skirting boards in his bedroom to check for possible bridging or replaced the trickle vent in his kitchen.
The resident told us on 3 March 2025 that he still had significant damp and mould in his bathroom. He said that the landlord would not take any further action to address this. He added that there was also mould behind his washing machine in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that his belongings were damaged and that his health was negatively affected by the landlord’s failure to address the damp and mould in his property. He has asked that he be compensated for this.
We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for damage to possessions or impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health and belongings, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident
The resident has stated that he has been reporting damp and mould in his property for 3 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from January 2023 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint.

Legal and policy framework

In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the tenancy agreement places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is responsible for repairs to rainwater goods, external and internal walls, floors, ceilings, and skirting boards. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, informed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord needs to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” In line with section 10 of the same act, this also includes ventilation.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will:
1. Contact the resident within 2 working days of registering a complaint.
2. aim to respond or provide agreed actions and timescales for resolving more complex complaints within 10 working days. If this is not possible it will explain to the resident why and agree an extension with the resident of not more than 10 additional working days.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the date of escalation. If this is not possible, it will respond within an additional 10 working days with the resident’s agreement.
4. Keep the resident updated throughout the course of its stage 2 investigation.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy stated that it may consider compensation:
1. Where there has been “avoidable inconvenience, distress, harm, or other unfair impact” due to its failings.
2. For quantifiable financial loss such as the cost of replacing damaged property.

The policy does not provide details of specific compensation amounts.

The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy outlines the following 4 categories of responsive repair. These are:
1. Emergency repairs – attend within 4 hours to “make safe” and complete the job within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – complete within 20 calendar days.
3. Cyclical repairs – undertaken on a 12, 24, or 60 month cycle depending on the type of work.
4. Programmed/planned repairs – non-urgent but complex in nature and are completed within 60 days of being reported.

The landlord carries out cyclical repairs on a 12, 24 or 60 month cycle depending on the type of work required.

Reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs

We wish to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident has spent over a long period while reporting damp and mould in his property. It is not our role to reach a decision about the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Damp and Mould’ (October 2021), we expect landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and ensure their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation. The landlord should communicate effectively, share the outcome of surveys and act on recommendations by surveyors in a timely manner.
The same spotlight report recommends that landlords should implement a risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord had carried out any kind of risk assessment to establish the extensiveness and seriousness of the damp and mould in a timely manner. The landlord should be able demonstrate that it has reasonably considered the risks of damp and mould to residents and properties at an early stage. This would help it promptly determine the urgency of any necessary repairs.
The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The evidence shows that it took the landlord nearly 2 months to carry out a damp inspection following the resident’s report on 18 January 2023. When the resident made a further report of damp and mould a year later, on 18 January 2024, the landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out by 29 March 2024, which was within 10 weeks. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord brought this forward to 22 February 2024. However, this was still over a month after the resident had reported the matter.
It is unclear why the landlord could not have carried out the 2 surveys in a timelier manner. Given there was prior history of recurring damp in the property, it would have been reasonable for it to have treated the matter with greater urgency. The landlord’s policy does not set out timescales for completing damp inspections. As such, we have considered the reasonableness of its actions and whether the inspections were timely. The property was prone to damp and mould. Given this and the associated risks to both the resident and property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged earlier inspections. From the evidence that is available, it is unclear why it did not.
It is noted that the landlord did bring forward the inspection. This was reasonable. However, the evidence suggests that this was prompted as a result of the resident’s formal complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining for the landlord to deal with the matter promptly. This will have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience having to pursue the matter through the complaints process. The landlord arranged for a “complaint surveyor” to attend on an earlier date. We have found no mention of this part of its process or of a “complaint surveyor” in the landlord’s complaints or repairs and maintenance policies. It is therefore unclear how this differs from the landlord’s usual process of responding to repairs and/or damp and mould. In order to avoid any possible confusion, the landlord should consider formalising this part of its process and including it as part of any forthcoming reviews of its policies.
As previously mentioned, the landlord has not provided us with copies of any inspection reports. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see evidence that the landlord completed a damp assessment using professional tools such as a moisture meter. This is in order to establish the underlying cause of the problems experienced within a property and the exact location of any defects, which may contribute to the spread of damp.
We acknowledge that it can take more than one attempt to resolve damp and mould as it may be difficult to identify the cause of the problem at the outset. However, a landlord should assess all possible causes of damp as quickly as possible, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation, to gain a clear understanding of the problem and offer an effective remedy.
However, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it did this in its initial inspection on 14 March 2023. The evidence shows that the actions taken after the 14 March 2023 failed to resolved the problem. As a result, the resident was further inconvenienced by multiple visits to the property over a long period of time, and the resulting disruption.
The evidence shows that the room worst affected by damp and mould was the resident’s bedroom. However, records show most of the property was affected to some degree. The landlord carried out several different repairs between August 2023 and May 2024. We note that it had raised these as planned works, which were subject to a 60-day timescale. The landlord took 5 months to complete the repairs it had raised following its March 2023 inspection. These were:
1. applying damp resistant plaster to the bedroom and corridor,
2. skim plastering the bathroom ceiling, and treating and painting all areas affected by mould.

The time taken to complete these works was a significant departure from its repairs and maintenance policy. This would have caused unnecessary additional impact on the resident from the damp and mould in his property.

The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that this was because of the number of repairs that were required. It is accepted that contractors might not be able to complete works as quickly as they would like. This can be due to several factors, including capacity issues or periods where they are busy, and their services are therefore stretched. The landlord has not provided us with any correspondence it had with its contractors about the repairs, or evidence it made any efforts to ensure delays were kept to a minimum.
Landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs in line with their policies. Furthermore, given most of the rooms in the house were affected by damp and mould, the landlord should have either made efforts to prioritise the works or explained to the resident why it could not provide him with an earlier date. That the landlord could not demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to ensure the works were completed within its timescale, or that it had communicated effectively with the resident was a failing. This meant the landlord’s enjoyment of his property was affected by damp and mould for longer than necessary.
Following its damp inspection on 22 February 2024, the landlord raised a number of repairs that it said it would complete by 10 April 2024. It completed 2 of the recommended repairs within its timescale. These were a cavity clean to prevent damp to the front of the property and an overhaul of the kitchen extractor fan. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, it took around 3 months to complete work to repoint the external brickwork and apply stain block to the bedroom walls. This was excessive. There is no indication it had renewed the trickle vent in the kitchen window or followed up on recommendations made by an operative on 12 March 2024 to apply a damp proof course. The landlord failed to demonstrate or explain why it had not completed all the repairs was a failing.
Furthermore, due to an error in raising a repair to clear the guttering, it failed to complete this by 10 April 2024 as it had advised in its stage 2 response. It said this was because it had mistakenly raised the gutter clearance as a responsive rather than cyclical repair, and cancelled it when it became aware of the error. However, there is no indication it had made any attempt to let the resident know it had cancelled this work at the time. The landlord’s failure to manage his expectations would have caused unnecessary confusion.
It is also noted that the February 2024 damp inspection identified the blocked gutters as one of the causes for the damp and mould. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not address this matter with greater urgency. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered undertaking the work as a planned repair, meaning it would have been done sooner. The failure to do so meant there was an ongoing damp issue in the property despite the other works being completed.
We note that the resident asked the landlord to reimburse him for damage to his belongings as a result of its delay in addressing the damp and mould. In response, the landlord told him to make a claim on his own content’s insurance. The advice given was correct. However, the resident was complaining that his possessions were damaged as a result of the landlord’s failure to complete repairs in a timely manners. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident how he could make a claim through its insurance. A liability decision could then have been made.
The resident has reported that he continues to live with the impact of damp and mould in his bedroom. We will therefore order that the landlord carries out a further damp inspection to identify any remaining work that is required to resolve the issue, and to complete those works in line with its repair obligations. It must also provide the resident the resident with details on how he can claim on its insurance for any damages caused by its delay in resolving the damp and mould in the property.
We note that the landlord did appropriately explain in its stage 2 response the reason why it had not cleared the gutters. Furthermore, it offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of any impact caused by its error and advised him that the work was scheduled as part of its 2025 cyclical works programme.
It was reasonable for the landlord to complete works to treat mould in the property in January 2024. This was a reactive measure to remove mould spores in view of the potential hazard. The evidence shows that the landlord raised the repair on 18 January 2024 and completed it on 30 January 2024. Although this was initially booked for 22 January 2024, the resident had cancelled this and 2 other subsequent appointments. Any delays in completing the mould wash were therefore outside the landlord’s control.
However, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp and condensation while waiting for the repairs to be completed between March and August 2023. The importance of this is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. There are no records showing the landlord gave any advice or support to the resident on how to minimise the impact of the damp. It could have considered providing him with dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp while waiting for the repairs to be done. The landlord failed to demonstrate it made adequate attempts to mitigate the impact of the property conditions on the resident.
It could also have explored whether there were any works it could complete in the interim to make the property more comfortable. The lack of guidance it provided to the resident was a failing in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it has measures in place to provide residents with timely information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when it receives such reports.
Where repairs are complex and likely to take time, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident adequately updated. In this case, we have been provided with limited records of communication between the landlord and resident. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated it communicated effectively about its approach to the repairs. There is no evidence that, following the inspections in March 2023 and February 2024, the landlord made reasonable efforts to keep the resident updated or explain reasons for the delays in completing the repairs. Its lack of communication was a failing. It would likely have added to the distress and inconvenience to the resident while he was waiting for works to address the damp and mould in his home.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the repairs it raised in March 2023 and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged the error it had made when it raised works to clear the gutters as a responsive repair and offered and an additional £50 in recognition of this. Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress did not recognise the impact on the resident. The landlord did not provide any explanation for works that remained outstanding, offer any apology for its failings, or provide details of learning it has identified.
In summary, the landlord approached the problems that the resident had reported in a piecemeal manner. As a result, remedial works were required over a period of around 18 months. This, and the associated distress and inconvenience, could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had adopted a more proactive approach to investigating and resolving the damp and mould at the property.
Furthermore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it provided any updates or explanations for the delays in carrying out repairs, or that it made attempts to chase its contractors to ensure the works were completed within its timescales. Its failings left the resident to live in a property that suffered from the effects of damp and mould for longer than was necessary. Due to the cumulative impact this had on him the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. We will therefore order that it pays further redress of £400 in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to put things right.

Complaint

The landlord took 31 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “any extension to the 10 working day timescale must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident”. There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident to let him know its response would be late, or to explain the reasons for the delay. Furthermore, it exceeded the permitted timescale of 20 working days for issuing stage 1 responses. This was a departure both from the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy. This amounts to a service failure. We will order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for this failing. This is line with our guidance, and recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident were also very limited. The landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management.It would also explain its failure in responding to the residents reports in a timely manner and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with the our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £400 in recognition of the impact on the enjoyment of his property due to delay in carrying out inspections and works to address the damp and mould.
  2. £50 it had offered in its stage 2 response for the error in advising him it had raised the gutter clearance as a responsive repair.
  3. £50 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
3. This replaces the offer of £100 compensation it made in its stage 2 response. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should offset this against the total compensation awarded by this Service.
4. Provide the resident with details of how he can claim on its insurance for any damage to personal property caused by its delay in addressing the damp and mould.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a full inspection of the property. It should ensure the survey is carried out by persons suitably qualified to assess:
1. Any outstanding works required to prevent penetrating damp. This includes the recommendation made by an operative in March 2024 to install a damp proof course.
2. Any outstanding works required to improve ventilation within the property.
Once it has completed the repairs survey, and within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident. This must include:
1. summarising the findings of the inspection.
2. explaining what remedial action it has taken.
3. providing timescales within which it will complete any remaining repairs.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs within 56 days of the date of the survey. Following this, the landlord must offer reasonable compensation to the resident for any further delays in completing the repairs from the point it issued its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the findings of its review, details of any learning it has identified and any actions it proposes to take as a result. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its complaint training to ensure that complaint handling staff contact residents whenever it expects there to be delays in issuing responses, and to agree revised timescales wherever appropriate.
The landlord should consider including details of its inspection process following a complaint, and the use of “complaint surveyors” as part of any forthcoming reviews of its policies and procedures. This would specifically apply to its repairs and complaints policies.