Torus62 Limited (202201049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201049

Torus62 Limited

31 July 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 handling of:
1. The residents’ reports of repairs to the property and garden including:
  1. Rubbish removal
  2. Treatment of pests
  3. House alarm
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace house.
The resident had a previous complaint with the landlord. This was about a collapsed drain, repairs, rat infestation and a temporary decant. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 January 2021. In it offered to replace the resident’s fridge freezer.
On 23 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about their house alarm, as rodents had damaged this. In February 2022, the resident raised concerns about rubbish, including an old fridge freezer, in the back garden. She said this was attracting rodents.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. The landlord said that:
1. It was not responsible for repairing the house alarm and the resident had not reported this issue previously.
2. It had booked appointments to clear the rubbish from the back garden but had not been able to gain access to the property.
3. It had booked a new appointment to clear the rubbish and bait for rodents.
4. It also apologised for not always responding to the residents contact within its usual timescales.
5. It offered compensation of £100.
The resident escalated their complaint on 12 October 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that rodents were still present.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 November 2023. The landlord said that:
1. The resident had raised issues about a previous complaint from the end of 2020. It would not address these due to the length of time that had passed.
2. It apologised for the delays and communication issues.
3. There had been a lack of access for repairs visits.
4. It would arrange repairs at the property, supply a new alarm and arrange a pest control survey.
5. It offered compensation of £350.
On 28 September 2024, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord had not completed the repairs. She disagreed with the amount of compensation offered. On 14 May 2025, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £850.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports relating to the condition of the property and garden

The landlord’s repairs policies from April 2020 and October 2023 say that it is a resident’s responsibility to maintain their own appliances, keep gardens tidy, free from overgrown trees and rubbish. The policies say that the landlord may complete these works at its discretion.
The repairs policy from October 2023 says that it is a tenant’s responsibility to arrange for pest control treatment. It says that the landlord may arrange and pay for these services in certain circumstances.
The repairs policies say that the landlord will keep the resident informed of any delays. They also say that it will send the tenant an acknowledgement when they report a repair.
The landlord’s contact history show that it has raised orders to repair and replace the house alarm. It has also raised orders to clear rubbish from the back garden and arrange for pest control visits. The landlord committed to completing these actions.
It is reasonable for the landlord to provide a timescale for this work. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. The landlord did not provide specific timescales, so it is reasonable to use the timescale of 20 calendar days.
The repair history shows the landlord booked two repairs for the alarm in January 2022. These failed as there was no access. The landlord’s repair policy at the time did not include any requirement for it to contact the resident after no access. However, we would consider it reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident after no access, or to leave a card asking the resident to contact it. There is no evidence to show that the landlord did this.
The landlord says the resident contacted their Neighbourhood Officer in February 2022 about the alarm, rodents, and removal of rubbish from the back garden. It admits that it logged and closed repairs incorrectly. This is a failure. The landlord should have booked the repairs and communicated this to the resident, as per its repairs policy. Its failure to do so meant that the landlord did not complete the work within 20 calendar days.
The call notes show the resident contacted the landlord about the issues 5 times between October 2022 and April 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any action. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged repairs, communicated with the resident. It should have completed any work within 20 calendar days. This is a failure. This resulted in further delays and meant that the resident had to continue to contact the landlord.
The landlord logged a repair for the house alarm on 3 February 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will appoint a suitable contractor with appropriately trained staff to complete any required work. The repair notes show the team assigned to the repair did not have the required training to complete the work. This is a failure. It meant that there were more delays in the landlord resolving the issue.
On 28 June 2023, the resident called the landlord about the rubbish and rodents in the back garden. It raised a repair order on 12 July 2023. It booked an appointment for 14 August 2023.
This is over the 20-day timescale in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has not explained any reasons for this delay. While the delay was not excessive, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the reasons for this to the resident, in line with its repairs policy.
The repair notes show that the resident cancelled the appointment of 14 August 2023, on the day. The landlord states that the contractor sent text messages to the resident to rearrange the appointment but received no response. While the landlord has not given us copies of the text messages, the emails between the landlord and contractor support this. The failed appointment was out of the landlord’s control. The contractor attempted to rearrange the appointment with the resident, which was reasonable.
The resident called the landlord 5 times between 14 September 2023 and 28 September 2023 about the issues. On 22 September 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. Again, there no is evidence to show that the landlord took any action before the resident raised the complaint. This is a failure, as it should have logged the issues in line with its repairs policy.
In the complaint, the resident told the landlord that the issues were having an impact on their mental health. The landlord referred the resident to the mental health team of its charitable foundation and Citizen’s Advice for support. The landlord also referred the resident to its employment and skills team, due to the resident’s employment status.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that its immediate concern should be for the wellbeing of the resident. When a resident raises concerns about their wellbeing, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to address this. The landlord signposted the resident to teams and organisations that could provide support. This was a reasonable response.
In its stage 1 response of 6 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for repairing the house alarm. It said that the resident had not reported this previously. The landlord had previously committed to repairing the house alarm. It was unreasonable for the landlord to go back on this commitment.
The landlord incorrectly stated that the resident had not raised the alarm issue previously, despite it raising repair requests for this. This is a failing as it suggests that the complaint handler did not fully review the evidence. This could lead the resident to question the accuracy of the landlord’s investigation.
The stage 1 response also addressed the issues regarding rubbish and rodents. The landlord confirmed that it had booked another appointment for 12 October 2023. It is reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings and took steps to try to resolve these.
The notes from the landlord show a visit went ahead on 12 October 2023. The landlord has provided photographs from the back garden, from before and after the work. These show the contractor removed the rubbish as requested. The landlord took reasonable action, which resolved this part of the resident’s complaint.
The resident escalated their complaint on 12 October 2023. The landlord visited the property on 15 November 2023. It raised orders to provide a new house alarm and to arrange a pest control survey. The visit by the landlord was a positive step to try to resolve the complaint. It allowed the resident to discuss their complaint issues with the landlord face-to-face. The landlord agreed to more repairs in this meeting.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it aimed to install a new alarm system within 4 weeks and complete the pest control survey within 2 weeks. These actions are reasonable, as they show that the landlord was taking steps to try to resolve the complaint issues. The timescales given comply with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £100 and £600 when we find maladministration. The landlord offered compensation of £350 in its stage 2 response.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord has tried to resolve the resident’s complaints by arranging for a new house alarm to be installed, rather than repairing the old one. It also looked to arrange a pest control visit, due to the reports of rodents. The landlord’s compensation offer is reasonable for the issues the resident encountered up to this point, as it is in line with our remedies guidance.
In summary:
1. The landlord sometimes failed to take appropriate action when the resident contacted it about the house alarm, rubbish, and rat issues.
2. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident in relation to their reports and repair requests.
3. The landlord sometimes failed to follow up on with the resident when she did not provide access.
4. There have been delays caused by a lack of access provided by the resident.
5. The landlord took reasonable steps in its stage 2 response to try to resolve the complaint.
The landlord did take reasonable steps to try to resolve the issues in its stage 2 response. However, it did not arrange to install the alarm within 4 weeks as stated. The landlord did arrange an appointment until around 4 months after the stage 2 response. As the landlord did not meet the commitment in its stage 2 response, we find that there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the property and garden.
After issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord arranged several appointments to install a new house alarm. It was not able to gain access to the resident’s property, so the alarm has not yet been installed. We note that there is no evidence to show that the landlord followed up with the resident after these failed appointments.
The landlord also arranged a survey of the resident’s property. This found no issues with the condition of the property. This is a positive step by the landlord to try and provide some reassurance to the resident about their property.
After issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord identified failures in its service after its internal complaints procedure. The landlord increased the compensation offer to £850.
We have not ordered the landlord to increase the compensation amount. However, it must provide evidence to show that it has made payment of £850 to the resident within the next 4 weeks, if it has not done so already.
We have ordered the landlord to complete a pest control survey and make repairs to the house alarm. The landlord must provide the resident with a copy of the survey report and any action plan.
We have also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with an apology which addresses the failures highlighted in this report and the learning taken to prevent recurrence.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will contact a resident within 2 working days of them making a complaint. It says it will provide a response within 10 working days. If a resident escalates a complaint to stage 2, the policy says that the landlord will respond within 20 working days. It says the landlord can agree to an extension with the resident at each stage, but this must not be more than 10 working days.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 22 September 2023. The landlord says it called her on 3 October 2023. However, it has not provided evidence of this to us. There is no evidence to show the landlord contacted the complaint within 2 working days, as per its complaints policy. This is a failure.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. This was reasonable, as it was within the 10-working day timescale.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 12 October 2023. The landlord says it contacted the resident to agree to an extension to allow for a visit to the property. It has not provided any evidence of this. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 26 November 2023. This is around 7 working days after the visit went ahead, and 31 working days after the escalation request.
This is unreasonable, as the landlord did not send the stage 2 response within its required timescales. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it agreed to an extension with the resident. Even if it had, the extension exceeded the 10 working days allowed under its policy. However, the impact of this delay was minimal. The landlord only exceeded the timescale by 11 working days and the meeting at with the resident looks to have been useful.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will clearly address all complaint points in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to complete repairs in the resident’s property, which were not part of the original complaint.
While the landlord was taking positive steps to try to resolve issues in the resident’s property, it should have raised these repair issues as a new stage 1 complaint. If these repairs were a service request rather than complaint issues, then it should have made this clear. The landlord did not do this, which could cause confusion about the complaint issues included.
The landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and responding to the stage 2 complaint. However, the delays were not significant. The landlord’s visit to the property was useful, as it allowed the resident to discuss their complaint issues face-to-face. The landlord also agreed to further repairs in the meeting.
Considering this, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to include this service failure as part of its apology.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the property and garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report, including the complaint handling delays, and the learning taken to prevent recurrence.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850, if it has not done so already.
3. Complete a pest survey at the property and then write to the resident with a copy of the survey and an action plan, including target dates for any work required.
4. Arrange a visit to the property to install a new house alarm.
5. The landlord should make 3 separate attempts to gain access. If there is no access after this, we will consider orders c. and d. to be complete.
6. Provide evidence that is has complied with these orders within 4 weeks.