Torus62 Limited (202325717)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325717

Torus62 Limited

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a rat infestation.
2. complaint .
This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant in a one-bedroom flat, which he has occupied since March 2018. The property is on the second floor of a 3-storey block and has its own private loft space.
On 26 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had rats in his loft. A contractor attended the property on 8 November 2022 and “noted a lot of rat droppings and a really bad smell from the rats” in the loft space. It recommended that, due to the “contamination” and the “smell wafting into the flat” the landlord should carry out a loft clearance. It is unclear whether the landlord took any action immediately following this.
On 16 January 2023, the resident reported ongoing problems with pests in his loft. A specialist pest contractor attended the property on 3 occasions, where on:
1. 15 February 2023 it cleaned and replaced a dislodged manhole cover and laid bait in the resident’s loft.
2. 28 February 2023 it found evidence of rodent activity and another dislodged drain cover, allowing access to rats. It also reiterated the need for a loft clearance.
3. 14 March 2023 it reported that no bait had been taken, suggesting there was no rodent activity at that time.
The landlord cleared the resident’s loft on 11 April 2023 and replaced the insulation. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2023 to report that he could hear rats in his attic. The pest contractor attended on 2 June 2023. On 7 June 2023, the landlord carried out a drain survey. This identified 5 sections that required repairs and a collapsed drain, which could have been “potential ingress points” for rats. On 10 June 2023, the landlord carried out works to the drains and installed “rat flaps”. The pest contractor carried out 4 further visits between 14 June 2023 and 3 August 2023, where it confirmed on the last one that no bait had been taken.
On 7 and 16 August 2023 the resident told the landlord he had seen rats in his loft. On 26 August 2023, he raised a formal complaint. He stated that:
1. he had been reporting issues with rats in his loft since October 2022 but the landlord had “not acted in a timely manner” to resolve this.
2. there were rats “running around the back yard” and “living in the bins”.
3. the landlord had replaced the plastic drain covers with metal ones. These had large gaps that the rats could get through.
4. it had “lied” about carrying out a drain survey in December 2022. He wanted to know why, and why it had taken until July 2023 to carry one out.
5. it had sent out the “wrong” operatives to carry out works or inspect the drains.
6. one of his neighbours kept leaving rubbish on the floor by the bins, which caused “more issues”.
7. he had repeatedly asked his housing officer to contact him but they had not phoned him “once in 10 months”. This was despite its service standard of a call back within 5 working days.
8. his mental health had been affected by the “stress of constantly chasing” the landlord.
The resident raised further concerns that there were rats in his loft. The pest contractor visited the property on 6 September 2023. It found no evidence of rodent activity and reported that “all bait remained untouched”. It set up traps as a precaution and recommended a review of the CCTV drain survey, to check for any issues with the main drains leading to the property.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It provided a summary of the actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. It then stated that:
1. following its visit on 6 September 2023, its contractor had recommended some repairs. It was unable to confirm when it would carry out the work but would contact him on the week beginning 18 September 2023 with an update.
2. with regard to his “allegations” that his neighbour was throwing rubbish in the communal areas, it would arrange to visit them to discuss this further.
3. it acknowledged it had failed to respond to his call back requests and therefore upheld his complaint.
4. it also acknowledged he had been experiencing a rodent problem in and around his property for a long time and apologised for the stress this had caused.
5. it offered him £150 compensation in recognition of its failings.
On 25 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate his complaint because:
1. the landlord said it would call him to discuss his complaint, but this did not happen.
2. the staff member who had investigated his complaint was the subject of one of his concerns. He felt this was “unprofessional”.
3. its stage 1 response did not explain why it had failed to respond to his call back requests.
4. it had not called him during the week beginning 18 September 2023 despite what it said in its stage 1 response.
5. he had asked it several times for a copy of the drainage inspection report from December 2022 but had still not received it
6. he had not received the letters it said it had sent to all residents.
7. his neighbour continued to throw food into the communal garden, which was attracting rodents.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023. It stated that:
1. it acknowledged that, following receipt of his stage 1 complaint, it had not called him until 11 September 2023. It admitted this was not in line with its complaints policy.
2. he should also have received a call back during the week commencing 19 September 2023 with an update on the outstanding works to the communal areas. It had spoken to the staff member concerned and they sincerely apologised for the delays in their communication.
3. although the member of staff was named in his complaint, much of it related to other issues. It had therefore agreed that they were “still an appropriate investigating officer”.
4. it had spoken with his housing officer about the importance of good communication with residents. They acknowledged their failings and sincerely apologised for the impact this had had on him. It had also reiterated its customer service standards to all staff in its neighbourhood team.
5. it was due to hold a meeting on 28 October 2023 to establish any outstanding repairs to the block relating to rodent issues. Once agreed, it would share the schedule of works with him and all other residents.
6. its records showed that its contractor had caried out a drainage survey on 7 December 2022, which found no defects. It had requested a copy of the survey from its contractor.
7. it had raised an order for its pest contractor to assess the suitability of the drain covers.
8. it would send him copies of all the “block letters” its neighbourhood officer had sent to all residents.
9. it had spoken to his neighbour about throwing food in the communal area and would make a further visit given that it was an ongoing issue.
10. it apologised for its poor communication and offered to visit him on 2 November 2023 to provide an update and discuss any further issues he may have had.
11. it sincerely apologised for not meeting its service standards and offered additional compensation of £250 in recognition of its failings.

Events following completion of the complaints process

On 29 April 2024 the resident wrote to the Ombudsman and said he was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint because:
1. he had still not received a copy of the drain survey from 7 December 2022 that he had requested.
2. it had told him it would arrange a drain survey by a different contractor but this had still not happened.
3. he had asked for copies of the letters it said it had sent to all residents regarding fly tipping but had only provided him with 2 of them.
4. it said it would arrange for its pest contractor to visit his property again but he had to chase it twice before it happened.
5. It told him it would speak to his neighbour about the fly tipping but had not done so.
On 7 May 2024 a contractor carried out a CCTV inspection of the drains and reported no defects but recommended further investigation. It carried out a further drain survey on 10 October 2024 and recommended excavating and replacing a defective gully. The resident told us on 9 May 2025 that the landlord had still not provided him copies of the drain survey reports from the inspection carried out in December 2022 and June 2023. He added that the landlord had not informed him whether it had completed the outstanding repairs to the drains.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the lack of action by the landlord to resolve the rat infestations has negatively impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, we are 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. They 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.

Reports of a rat infestation

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 drains, gutters and pipes on the outside of the property. Repairs must be lasting and effective.
Landlords have a legal obligation to complete repairs they are 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 parts 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 landlord is obliged to ensure that the property is habitable and free from the risk of disease. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property, says that poor design or maintenance can allow access to pests into a property. This can create a risk of cross-contamination and infection, carry disease and can infect food and surfaces. This may also cause significant distress and nuisance to residents. Therefore, landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the means of access by pests to a ‘minimum.’
The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for arranging for the treatment of any pest infestations, such as rats and mice, within individual dwellings. In certain circumstances, the landlord may arrange and pay for this service.
The landlord’s neighbourhood policy describes how it handles pest control. This states that if a structural defect causes an infestation in a resident’s home, the landlord will repair the defect and arrange for treatment of the infestation. The policy does not set out timeframes within which it expects to carry out repairs relating to pests.
On 26 October 2022 the resident reported that he had rats in his loft. The records suggest other properties in the block were similarly affected and that there was also an issue with rats in the communal areas. The landlord promptly instructed pest control contractors, which was appropriate. Pest contractors attended the property on 8 November 2022 and confirmed that there were rat droppings in the loft area. It recommended clearing the loft due to the contamination and the smell that was transferring into the property.
Despite contractors again recommending a loft clearance following a further visit on 28 February 2023, the landlord did not raise a job for this work until 3 April 2023. Records show the contractor cleared the loft and replaced the insulation on 11 April 2023, over 5 months after it was first recommended.
The delay was excessive, and the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it was unavoidable. Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord communicated with the resident during this time to provide any updates or to explain the reasons for the delay. This caused the resident distress and unnecessarily prolonged the discomfort he experienced in his home.
Our pest guidance for landlords (on our website) recommends that landlords should conduct a risk assessment where infestations are concerned. This includes considering the resident’s circumstances to assess whether a decant would be appropriate while treatments and pest proofing are carried out. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord carried out a risk assessment. This was a shortcoming.
Due to the limited contemporaneous records the landlord has provided, it is unclear what action it took following the pest contractor’s visit on 8 November 2022. However, it is suggested the contractor carried out 3 visits. The landlord has not provided us with the dates of those visits or details of the actions it had taken. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate what action it had taken in response to the resident’s concerns.
However, the resident made a further report of rats in his loft on 16 January 2023. It was not until 15 February 2023, around a month later, that the pest contractor attended the property to carry out further treatments. Given the previous issues with rats in and around the property it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered prioritising further pest control visits. That it could not demonstrate it made any effort to do so was a failing. This left the resident to experience the distress and inconvenience of continued infestations for longer than necessary.
We note that, following 3 attendances, the pest contractor found no evidence of rodent activity following its last visit on 14 March 2023. This suggested the infestation had been successfully treated. However, on 26 May 2023 the resident reported that he could hear rats in his loft, suggesting a reoccurrence of the problem. On this occasion, the landlord acted promptly to arrange further pest control treatments. The contractor reported on 3 August 2023 that there was no further evidence of rodents in the property. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
A further visit, following a fourth report by the resident on 29 August 2023, found no evidence of rodents in the property. However, the contractor laid bait as a precaution. This was appropriate and shows that, from 26 May 2023, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to eradicate the infestation. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome of inspections by suitably qualified professionals.
The reoccurrence of pest infestations can be due to various different factors, which are not always within the landlord’s control. However, we would expect landlords to investigate the causes of repeated infestations, and to assess for any defects within their properties that may be allowing access to pests. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a pest problem is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see that an action plan developed by the landlord, which is overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity and a prompt remedy is then implemented. There is no evidence the landlord did this. The lack of a proper plan would have contributed to delays in resolving the ongoing issue.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had carried out a CCTV survey of the communal block drains on 7 December 2022 to investigate potential defects. It said that the inspection found no issues with the drains. The resident has disputed that this survey took place. He stated that the contractor had informed him it was unable to carry one out until he drains were flushed out.
We do not dispute the resident’s account of what the contractor had told him. However, without any corroborating evidence, we are unable to comment further. The landlord has not provided us with any contemporaneous evidence to show a drain inspection was carried out on that date, or a report to show the findings of a CCTV survey. Furthermore, the resident states the landlord had been unable to provide him with the report from the survey, despite numerous requests. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. Without any appropriate evidence, the landlord cannot demonstrate that a survey took place at this time.
Infestations of rodents can pose a significant risk to resident’s health and to the structure of a building. The earliest record of a drain survey is from 7 June 2023, which was nearly 6 months after the resident reported an ongoing rat infestation. The landlord ought to have acted at an earlier opportunity to investigate the possible causes of the issue. That it did not was a failure to progress the drain survey within a reasonable time. This caused the resident frustration and continued uncertainty over whether the landlord was taking effective steps to resolve the problem.
The landlord has not provided an inspection report from this survey. However, the available records indicate that the contractor found a collapsed drain and 5 sections that needed repair. A timelier inspection would have allowed the landlord to take action at an earlier stage and could have helped prevent further infestations. The landlord’s failure caused the resident avoidable time and trouble prompting it to take action.
Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of repair logs, it is unclear what works the landlord had carried out to address the identified defects in the drain. The landlord stated that it had completed the recommended works. However, it did not provide us with an inspection report from the survey on 7 June 2023. We have therefore been unable to establish what recommendations were made. The only repair record available refers to works undertaken on 10 June 2023 to renew a damaged a gully grating, clear a blocked drain and refix manhole covers. The landlord also stated that it had installed “rat flaps”.
We note that the resident continued to report rats in his property following those works. This suggests the repairs the landlord completed had not resolved the issue. Following a visit from the pest contractor on 6 September 2023, it recommended further investigation of the drains as there “may have still been issues originating from the main drains leading to the property”. A subsequent drain survey carried out on 10 October 2024 recommended excavation and replacement of a defective gully. This shows outstanding repairs to the drains had not been addressed and that the landlord had failed to complete a full and lasting repair following the survey on 7 June 2023. This was a failing.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. It has acknowledged that it repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s queries and requests for call backs. For example, it stated in its stage 1 response that it would contact him during the week beginning 18 September 2023 to provide an update on the communal drain works.
It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to meet its commitment to contact the resident. Its lack of communication left the resident in a position where he had to continually chase it for updates or information. This should not have been necessary given its repair obligations, and service standard of responding to queries within 5 working days. This caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide the resident with updates, which would have reassured him it was taking all reasonable steps to resolve the pest issue.
The landlord went some way towards addressing the infestation. It approved pest contractor works following the resident’s reports and took prompt action from May 2023 to arrange pest control visits. However, it failed to:
1. act promptly on the pest contractors recommendations to carry out a loft clearance following its first visit to the resident’s property on 8 November 2022.
2. arrange a pest control visit within a reasonable amount of time following the resident’s second report of rats in his loft on 16 January 2023.
3. demonstrate it had undertaken a prompt inspection of the communal drains when it became aware that pest control had not successfully eradicated the rats.
4. complete full and lasting repairs to the communal drains following an inspection in June 2023, which necessitated further inspections and repairs.
5. follow through with some of the actions it said it would take in its stage 2 response.
6. respond to the resident’s requests for call backs or to provide any updates or responses to his queries.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation where there has been “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the service failure”. The policy does not provide any payment guidance but does note that “compensation calculations will be based upon what is considered fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case”.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord made some efforts to put things right. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged its poor communication and offered sincere apologies for the conduct of staff members and their lack of response. It also set out the learning it had taken from the complaint and actions it proposed to take to address the failings it had identified. Furthermore, it offered £140 compensation at stage 1, and an additional £250 at stage 2 (total £400) in recognition of its poor level of service.
However, the identified failings caused the resident prolonged and considerable distress and inconvenience. He had to take avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord to take appropriate action and respond to his contacts. This contributed to the emotional impact he experienced from the repeated rat infestations. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it failed to follow through on actions it said it would take in its stage 2 response. This was a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. For the above reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
Considering our remedies guidance, the landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient and does not reflect the significant delays experienced, and the distress, inconvenience and discomfort endured by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made a new order of compensation of £600, which replaces the landlord’s original offer. We will also order that, if it has not already done so, the landlord follows through with any outstanding actions it had said it would take in its stage 2 response.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

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.
Following receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 26 August 2023, the landlord contacted him on 11 September 2023. This was 10 working days later, rather than within the 2 working days as set out in its complaints policy. Furthermore, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within 13 working days, without letting the resident know there would be a delay or explaining the reason for it. Although these delays were not excessive and would not have caused the resident significant detriment, they were a departure from the landlord’s policy, and the Code.
One of the issues the resident raised in his escalation request was that the staff member who investigated and responded to his stage 1 complaint was the subject of one of the concerns he had raised. Specifically, that they had repeatedly failed to respond to his call back requests. However, the complaint was still investigated by the individual named in his complaint. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that, because “much of the complaint” related to other housing management issues, it felt that the neighbourhood team leader was the appropriate investigating officer.
We accept that this member of staff may have been best placed to provide knowledge and insight into the concerns that had been raised. However, a significant part of the complaint was about the landlord’s poor communication, particularly in regard to specific members of staff.
The Code does not prohibit an officer from the service area subject to the complaint from carrying out the investigation. It does, however, state that they must have “no conflicts of interest” and be “able to act sensitively and fairly”. We consider it would have been fair and reasonable on this occasion, based on the resident’s concerns, to have assigned the complaint to an officer not named in the complaint. This would not have prevented the investigating officer from gaining insight into the complaint issues and liaising with relevant officers. It would also have demonstrated both sensitivity to the resident’s concerns and consideration for the Code. Further, it would have allayed the resident’s concerns around fairness and a potential conflict of interest.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. That the landlord decided to assign the complaint to this member of staff meant it was unable to demonstrate it had provided a fair and balanced response to the concern the resident had raised about them. Furthermore, the stage 1 response failed to address this aspect of the complaint, which meant the resident had to take time and trouble further pursuing it at stage 2. This was a failure to answer all elements of the complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process.
The landlord acted appropriately by considering this part of the complaint independently at stage 2 and interviewing the named officer as part of its investigation. It was also appropriate that the response extended the staff member’s apologies for their communication failings. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it would recommend that its complaints team review and discuss its decision as part of its learning from the complaint. In view of the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, we have made a finding of service failure. We will order that the landlord provides the resident with an apology from a senior member of staff for the failings we have identified in its complaint handling.

Record keeping

In response to our request for evidence, the landlord has provided limited records. It did not provide contemporaneous communication records between the resident and landlord. Furthermore, it has not provided inspection records for the period covered by this complaint, or repair logs. We have largely had to rely on internal communication and the information the landlord provided in its complaint responses. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if it failed to keep appropriate records. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to address the resident’s reports.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
We found similar poor record keeping in a previous determination (202405354) and made the following order:
1. 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.
For this reason, we will not make any further orders in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. However, we encourage the landlord to take any learning from this case into account when carrying out its review. This will help ensure continued improvement of its information management going forward.

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 a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
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 our guidance on making apologies for its poor complaint handling. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in responding to his reports of a rat infestation. This replaces the combined offer of £400 compensation it made in its stage 1 and 2 responses. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should offset this against the total compensation awarded by this Service. This does not include any other offers of compensation the landlord may have made following conclusion of its complaints process.
3. contact the resident to discuss any outstanding actions from its stage 2 response and when it proposes to complete them. If there are still outstanding actions, it should clearly explain to the resident why this is the case. For example, it should explain why it is unable to provide specific documentation the resident had requested. It should report back to this Service with a summary of the discussion and actions it has taken.
4. tell the resident whether it has completed the outstanding repairs to the communal drains. If not, it must explain why and give him a clear timetable of when it plans to complete those works.
5. provide evidence of compliance for the above orders.