Torus62 Limited (202324614)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns to the landlord in 2022 about a major leak that caused flooding in December 2022. The resident has been decanted for 250 days for the repairs to be completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. Reports of a leak.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. Service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged it took too long to resolve the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated reinstatement works. It provided compensation that was proportionate to the impact and sufficient to put right these failings.
5. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint and did not always provide timely updates. It offered compensation that was not proportionate to address the impact of the service failures in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident first reported water leaks from the pipework in July 2022. The landlord raised several repair orders between July and August 2022 and attended repeatedly. Although operatives adjusted and replaced pipework, the leak continued. The landlord did not escalate the issue for specialist investigation despite multiple unsuccessful repairs. This was a missed opportunity to identify the underlying fault.
7. The leak developed into a significant flooding incident on 23 December 2022. The surveyor confirmed that a burst pipe or coupling in the loft caused extensive damage throughout the property. The landlord acted appropriately at this stage. It isolated the supply, made the electrics safe, arranged drying equipment, instructed a full strip-out and temporarily moved the resident the same day because the home was uninhabitable.
8. The reinstatement phase involved necessary drying and asbestos checks, but the evidence shows several periods of avoidable delay. There were gaps in arranging the asbestos survey (13-23 January 2023), a further hold before the first removal (1-23 March 2023), and a second period of delay when additional asbestos was discovered in early April. Alongside this, there were periods when no works were recorded despite the property being ready for the next stage. We estimate around five to six weeks of avoidable delay within the overall timeline.
9. The resident remained displaced for approximately 250 days. Most of the time was the result of legitimate remedial processes, including drying, asbestos removal, and structural reinstatement. However, the avoidable delays and gaps in scheduling extended the uncertainty she experienced. During this period, she contacted the landlord many times with reasonable questions about the works timetable, returning home and payment arrangements.
10. The correspondence shows that the landlord did respond to some of the resident’s concerns, particularly where she raised her daughter’s accommodation needs. Staff escalated this issue to management, booked a hotel room for one night when her temporary host was away, and considered her request for further support. The landlord also maintained the agreed payment of £50 per day and later reimbursed additional utility costs linked to the reinstatement works.
11. The resident told the landlord in her correspondence of 7 May, 9 May, 3 June and 13 August 2023 that the flood had destroyed her personal belongings. The landlord’s complaints policy says that any issue or alleged incident that might give rise to a claim against its public liability insurance must be referred to its insurers. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with information about how to make a liability insurance claim when she raised concerns about property damage. As we have not seen evidence that the landlord provided this information, we have ordered the landlord to provide this information.
12. We note that the liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord, and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident. The insurer can decide whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of such claims, and it was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process.
13. The resident told us that the events complained about had a serious and lasting impact on her mental wellbeing. We cannot decide liability for damage to belongings or determine whether the landlord was responsible for any impact on the resident’s health. Those matters require evidence and assessments outside our remit and are more appropriately considered by the landlord’s liability insurer or the courts.
14. When the resident raised concerns about the pace of works, the landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that the reinstatement had taken too long and that its communication during the process had fallen short. It apologised and offered £1,100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delays that were within its control and for its poor communication.
15. Given the limited avoidable delays, we consider that sum proportionate to the likely frustration, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. The sum lso aligns with the upper range of the landlord’s policy for distress and inconvenience and sits within the range recommended by our remedies guidance for cases involving maladministration where there was a significant impact on the resident.
16. The landlord agreed with the resident to pay her a discretionary sum of £50 a day while she was temporarily moved from the property. It also paid a further discretionary sum of £1,000 for utility bills. These were reasonable payments to ensure the resident was not out of pocket as a result of the temporary move.
17. For these reasons, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the leak and reinstatement works.

18. The resident asked the landlord to log a formal complaint on 8 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 June 2023, which was within the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
19. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 14 July 2023. Under the landlord’s complaints procedure and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have responded within 20 working days. Instead, it issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2023, over 3 weeks late. The evidence shows no explanation for this delay and no acknowledgement of the breach of its complaint handling obligations.
20. The three-week delay in issuing the stage 2 response caused avoidable inconvenience at a time when the resident was already seeking clarity about unresolved issues. This fell short of the standards set out in the Code and amounted to a service failure. Because the landlord did not recognise this failure or offer redress for it, further action is appropriate.
21. In view of the missed timescale, the lack of acknowledgement of the delay, and the absence of specific redress for the complaint handling failure, we find that the landlord’s handling of the complaint amounted to service failure. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the frustration caused by this failure.

Learning

22. The evidence shows several areas where the landlord can strengthen its service delivery and ensure that similar issues do not arise again. Although the landlord acknowledged some failings, its complaint responses did not set out the specific learning or actions it would take to improve future practice. We expect landlords to demonstrate clear learning and service improvement as part of any upheld complaint.
23. The evidence shows long periods when the resident received no updates despite repeated attempts to contact staff. Communication fell below the expected standard. The landlord should ensure when it temporarily moves residents that they have a single named contact, regular updates, and timely responses to questions about progress, payments and return dates.
24. The landlord exceeded the stage 2 timescale by several weeks but did not acknowledge this or set out what steps it would take to improve. The landlord should review how complaint escalations are tracked to prevent breaches, ensure accountability at each stage and include explicit learning in future complaint responses.