Torus62 Limited (202406338)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406338

Torus62 Limited

2 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the level-access bathroom (wet room) in the resident’s property.
2. Decision to decline the resident’s request for alterations to the wet room.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed flat with a wet room. The resident lives in the property with his 3 children. He has confirmed that 2 of his children are disabled.
The resident reported a leak from the wet room on 19 September 2023, and said it was causing the floor to sink. On 26 September 2023, he raised a complaint. He said the landlord told him there would be a 4-5 week wait for a surveyor inspection, and that he was not willing to wait that long. He was also unhappy that a plumber who had previously attended had not resolved the issues.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 10 October 2023 prior to issuing its stage 1 response, the resident added further points to his complaint. He said he did not believe the repair was being treated with the appropriate urgency, and that he was unhappy the landlord would not change the bathroom from a wet room to a standard bathroom. It added these concerns to its complaint investigation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. It said that following an inspection on 19 October 2023 it had booked an appointment for 6 November 2023 to take up the bathroom flooring and ensure the issue was rectified. It also said that no changes to the bathroom were due until 2043, which would be carried out as part of a cyclical works programme.
The resident escalated his complaint on 23 November 2023. The landlord’s call notes say the reason given for the escalation was that the bathing facilities were not suitable for his family, and that he was unhappy that the property had a wet room instead of a bathroom.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. It said it had repaired the bathroom flooring on 6 November 2023, and received no reports since to suggest the issue was ongoing. It said it had no obligations under its policy to replace a functioning bathroom, that the resident had been aware since 2021 that there were no plans to alter the bathroom, and that it would not consider changing the bathroom until 2043, when it was scheduled for replacement.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said:
1. The bathroom was a wet room which was unsuitable for his family’s needs.
2. The bathroom panels came unstuck and allowed water to seep into the flooring, which had become porous and started to cave in. This was allowing water to leak into the kitchen below.
3. He felt his complaint had been mishandled by the landlord. He disputed the landlord’s summary of events in the stage 2 response.
On 16 December 2024, the landlord told the Ombudsman that, while it had no obligation to make changes to the bathroom as the resident requested, it had since chosen to do so because of events after the stage 2 response. It said it had also tried to contact the resident by phone to arrange a stock condition survey of the property but had been unable to speak to him.
On 15 January 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that a surveyor had visited the property just before Christmas, but that he had received no contact from the landlord since then.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 20 January 2025 that it had tried to start works in December 2024, but no access was given. It said it was now trying to book the works in to start on 10 February 2025. The resident told the Ombudsman that he had received no contact from the landlord to book any works in for February 2025, and was unaware of either the intention to carry out works, or the nature or scope of the works.

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, as well as the pipes and sanitary installations. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The same repair obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will aim to complete repairs within the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – made safe within 4 hours, and completed within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – within 20 calendar days.
3. Programmed or planned repairs (those which are complex in nature) – 60 calendar days.

The policy says that some works may take longer than the specified timeframes if specialist engineers or services are required.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also says that a pre-inspection may be required when the scope of the repair is unknown, and that it will diagnose and plan the repair within the relevant timescales following the pre-inspection.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that when an adapted property is let to a new resident, as a rule wet rooms and level access showers will not be removed or replaced with baths.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy, stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request. This matches the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The policy allows the landlord to extend the deadline by a maximum of 10 working days when necessary.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraphs 42(a) and 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme say the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, or which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe (usually 12 months).
The resident raised his complaint on 26 September 2023. That complaint was about the delay for a surveyor to inspect the wet room flooring, and the landlord’s decision not to replace the wet room with a bathroom. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to that complaint on 20 December 2023.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that he is dissatisfied with the repairs that were carried out following his complaint, as they did not resolve the issues in the wet room. He also said that he felt the bathroom floor is now a hazard due to ongoing water penetration, and that it has leaked into the kitchen. However, this was not part of his original complaint, and any events which took place after the stage 2 response have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
As such, while previous reports or subsequent events may be referred to for context, this investigation will only consider events from September 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) up to 20 December 2023 (when the landlord issued its stage 2 response). Any events after 20 December 2023, or not included in the original complaint, would need to go through the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could investigate.

Repairs to the bathroom

Under its repairs policy, the landlord is required to complete routine repairs within 20 days. It is important to note, however, that completing a repair outside of that timescale does not automatically mean that the landlord acted unreasonably. This is because there are a number of factors which may delay a repair, including the complexity of the repair. As such, the Ombudsman needs to consider the reasons for any delays when assessing whether or not the landlord acted reasonably.
The resident reported issues with the wet room on 31 March 2023. He said that panels were coming off the walls. The repair in the wet room was completed on 14 April 2023. The job report shows that the contractor repaired a gap between the tile wall and the wet room floor. The job report notes ‘wet room floor peeling off walls had to restock and seal all up’. This repair was completed within the landlord’s 20-day routine repair timescale. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show the resident reported any concerns about that repair.
On 19 September 2023 the resident reported that the wet room floor was sinking due to a leak. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the following day. This was reasonable, and in line with its repairs policy and good industry practice.
The operative identified multiple potential sources of the leak, and reported that the wet room floor had failed in multiple places. As such, they referred the leak to the landlord’s assets team. The landlord told the resident that it would be 4-5 weeks before a surveyor could attend for further inspections, and booked an appointment for 27 October 2023. The resident made a complaint about the wait for a surveyor on 26 September 2023.
When the resident said he was not happy with the wait for a surveyor, the landlord advised it would try to book an earlier appointment. It then arranged an appointment for 18 October 2023. After inspecting the bathroom, the surveyor reported that the issue was the result of the wet room flooring becoming detached. They said that to resolve the issue it would be necessary to take up and renew the flooring. The surveyor did not indicate that any other repairs were necessary, or that the bathroom was not functional. The landlord booked in the recommended works, which its records show it completed on 6 November 2023.
While the Ombudsman notes that the repair carried out did not resolve the issues with the wet room, an unsuccessful repair does not mean that the landlord acted unreasonably at the time. A landlord is entitled to rely on the advice of its appropriately qualified experts when determining which repairs are needed to resolve a repair issue in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and the benefit of hindsight would not render its previous actions unreasonable. In this case, the evidence shows it followed the advice of its surveyor, which was reasonable.
As noted above, any further reports by the resident from 6 November 2023 did not form part of his complaint. This means that the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 6 November 2023 does not fall within the scope of this investigation. As such, the Ombudsman will only assess delays up to 6 November 2023.
The resident said he was unhappy that the original plumber who attended could not resolve the issues, and he did not feel his reports were being taken seriously. The landlord sent out an operative to inspect the bathroom the day after the resident’s report, and when it became apparent that the flooring had failed, it appropriately arranged for a surveyor inspection. As the initial inspection was the day after the report, it did not delay a surveyor attending.
However, the landlord booked the follow-up survey outside of the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This meant delays in the survey would have made it impossible for it to complete the repairs within the relevant timeframe. While it took steps to put things right by arranging an earlier appointment, the new appointment was still outside of the relevant timescales. It has provided no explanation for this delay, so the Ombudsman can only conclude that there was no good reason for the delay.
Following the inspection on 18 October 2023, the landlord promptly raised works orders. However, it took until 6 November 2023 – 19 days later – to carry out the recommended repairs. The evidence provided does not shed any light on why it took 19 days to carry out the repairs when it had already exceeded the repairs timescales in its policy.
The total time between the resident’s report and the repairs taking place was 48 days. This was 28 days outside of the landlord’s repair timescales, and the evidence shows this delay was caused by avoidable failings on the landlord’s part rather than unavoidable delays.
While the landlord took steps to arrange an earlier appointment and then carried out the recommended repairs as promised in its stage 1 response, it has yet to recognise any failings in its handling of repairs up to that point. It has not apologised for the delays or demonstrated any learning from the complaint, as it has not shown it explored the reasons for the delays. As such, it has not done enough to put things right. The Ombudsman finds there has been a service failure. It has therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that while there was an ongoing leak, the bathroom remained functional during that time. As such, while the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident was concerned about the bathroom, there is no evidence to show he and his family were left without a functioning bathroom.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that, in addition to apologising to the resident, the landlord should pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in booking a survey and arranging the initial repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings of a short duration (in this case 28 days) which have not significantly affected the overall outcome. The landlord must also write to the resident to set out its action plan for any remaining bathroom works.

The decision not to make alterations to the wet room

The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord declined his request to alter the wet room. He says it is adapted for the previous residents and it is not appropriate for his family. He therefore believes the landlord should replace the wet room with a bathroom containing a bath or an enclosed shower cubicle. It declined this request. It said no changes to the bathroom were due until 2043, and it was not required to replace the bathroom before then.
At the time the resident accepted the property, there was a wet room in place. By signing the tenancy and moving into the property, he accepted the property as it was (save for repair issues). The first evidence the Ombudsman has seen of the resident raising concerns about there being a wet room was in August 2021, after he moved into the property. The landlord told the resident on 23 August 2021 that it would not replace the wet room with a bathroom, but would carry out repairs in the event of a leak.
There is no evidence that the resident ever indicated a medical need for a different type of bathroom. Rather, he told the landlord that he was unhappy the style of bathroom meant water went over the wet room floor when the shower was used. He confirmed at the time that there was no leak, and it was the result of the adaptation to a wet room. This was therefore a request based on preference rather than a medical need for an adaptation.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may have reasons for wanting a bathroom instead of a wet room. However, the landlord is not obliged to make such an alteration to the property in the absence of evidence of a medical need. It is entitled to seek to repair rather than replace the bathroom when issues are reported, unless a surveyor recommends replacement of the bathroom with alterations. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that either situation applied at the time the landlord made its decision.
As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in choosing to repair rather than replace the bathroom. It consistently explained to the resident that it would not replace the bathroom, and reasonably sought to manage his expectations by confirming when the bathroom would be considered for renewal. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has indicated an intention to replace the bathroom since the complaint, this was based on events after the stage 2 response, and does not demonstrate that it acted unreasonably during the timeframe considered as part of this complaint.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its decision to decline alterations to the wet room.
As the landlord has indicated intentions to replace the bathroom as a result of events after the complaint, a recommendation regarding an action plan has been made below.

Complaint handling

The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling as he did not receive a stage 2 response, and he believed the complaint had not been investigated properly. After he received a copy of the landlord’s stage 2 response, he said the contents were inaccurate. He said he had reported issues with the 6 November 2023 repair when escalating the complaint, and said that the landlord had promised a home visit.
Under its complaints policy, the landlord is required to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request. It is allowed under its policy to extend those timeframes by 10 working days.
The evidence provided shows that both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were issued in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident agreed to an extension for the stage 1 response, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response dated 19 December 2023 on 20 December 2023.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that he did not initially receive the stage 2 response. However, the landlord has provided evidence from its systems to show that the letter was generated and sent on the morning of 20 December 2023. As such, if the resident did not receive it, there is no evidence that this was the result of any failings on the landlord’s part.
With regard to factual inaccuracies, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that the resident reported issues with the 6 November 2023 repair during his escalation request. The landlord’s notes from the time indicate that the only matter raised was dissatisfaction that it would not make alterations to the wet room as requested, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided.
The landlord based its investigation on its records, and as such the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord did not appropriately investigate based on the available evidence. It should also be noted that if the resident did raise concerns about the 6 November 2023 repairs, that would be classified as either a service request or a new complaint rather than a continuation of the existing complaint, as it would relate to events after the stage 1 response.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds there has been no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident made further expressions of dissatisfaction on 28 May and 2 October 2024. It is unclear whether the landlord logged and responded to those complaints. Those complaints were made after the complaint considered as part of this investigation, so the Ombudsman has made no findings with regard to how the landlord handled those further complaints. However, a recommendation has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been:
1. A service failure with regard to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room.
2. No maladministration with regard to the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for alterations to the wet room.
3. No maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its delays in handling the wet room repairs up to 6 November 2023.
3. Write to the resident to confirm its action plan for repairs to the wet room, including the nature and scope of any works, when it intends to start those works, and how long it anticipates any works will take.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident within 2 weeks of the date of this report to confirm the following:
1. That its recorded contact details for the resident are up to date.
2. Its current position on the resident’s request for alterations to the bathroom.
It is recommended that the landlord log the resident’s complaints about its handling of the wet room repairs from December 2023 onwards and issue a stage 1 response within 2 weeks of the date of this determination, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should contact the Ombudsman to confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations within 2 weeks of the date of this determination.