Torus62 Limited (202425765)

Decision
Case ID	202425765
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 January 2026

Background

The property is a bungalow with paving on the front driveway, an elevated pathway around the property with front and back ramps, and a back patio. The resident requested repairs to the paving in multiple areas. The landlord was aware that the resident’s wife had mobility difficulties.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Requests to repair paving around the outside of the property.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to repair paving around the outside of the property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Requests to repair paving around the outside of the property

The landlord significantly delayed in completing repairs, despite the resident reporting health and safety concerns. Its delays and lack of clarity in assessing and setting out which repairs it was responsible for likely contributed to these delays.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was generally in line with the Code and its complaints policy.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 February 2026
2	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its learning.	No later than 13 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s requests to repair paving around the outside of the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct the £100 it offered at stage 2 from the total figure if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 13 February 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must set out its position to the resident in writing on: the works it identified it was responsible for during its inspection on 20 November 2024 the works it completed on 30 January 2025 whether it completed all the paving works it was responsible for on 30 January 2025. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the letter by the due date.	No later than 13 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2023	The resident requested repairs to re-lay paving stones around the property to ensure they were level and reported this had caused his partner to have falls.
5 July 2024	The landlord inspected the property. It found the paving stones had lifted and there were large gaps around the perimeter of the property. It said the front ramp edging stones needed renewing. It noted that a job was previously raised for repairs to the back garden, that the resident’s wife was unsteady on her feet and that any slight lip was a potential trip hazard that required completing as a recall repair. The landlord told the resident it would raise works to make–safe areas with health and safety issues. It raised repair works to lift and re–lay the paving stones to the perimeter of the property and renew the ramp edging to eliminate health and safety risks.
16 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy it had delayed in contacting him to arrange works. He asked for details of the works planned for 21 August 2024 including a schedule of works. He set out the works he said the landlord had agreed including paving on the driveway, ramp, and pathway around the property to eliminate trip hazards. He said he was concerned that it planned to complete works in 1 day and he thought it would take longer.
2 September 2024	The landlord spoke to the resident. He told it: it had agreed to repair uneven paving including the back patio it had communicated poorly about, and did not complete works in August 2024 he was concerned about his wife as she had had multiple falls.
17 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said: contractors would replace the paving stones to the front, side and back of the property and would let it know if any other works were required a schedule of works was not required the patio was not its responsibility there were no health and safety concerns on the front driveway it found no service failures and did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord had identified issues with the paving in 2023. He said it previously completed work to a poor standard and there were multiple failures in its response to the repairs. He said this had impacted his time away on holiday.
2-10 October 2024	The landlord completed works to lift and re–lay the paving stones.
14 October 2024	The landlord said it spoke to the resident about his complaint. It said he was unhappy that it had not re-laid all the paving stones, and some including on the driveway and by the front ramp were a trip hazard.
13 November 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said: it had re-laid paving stones to the front, side and back of the property, where there were health and safety risks it visited and found no further repairs were required it had arranged an inspection for 20 November 2024 to ensure it had completed all repairs it would raise and schedule any required works after the inspection it partially upheld the complaint due to its lack of action between November 2023 and July 2024 and offered £100 compensation.
20-22 November 2024	The landlord inspected the outside area and found not all the perimeter paving stones had been re-laid. It raised works to re-lay 2 rows of paving stones from the bottom of the ramp at the back of the property.
30 January 2025	The landlord re-laid paving by the ramp at the back of the property.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said there were still potential trip hazards after the landlord completed works. Since the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident obtained an Occupational Therapist (OT) report in relation to the paving stones. The landlord completed further repairs to the paving stones around the property. The resident wanted the landlord to apologise for any failings, complete effective repairs to the areas it was responsible for and pay increased compensation.

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.

Complaint	Requests to repair paving around the outside of the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said he was unhappy with the quality of the works the landlord agreed to schedule in its stage 2 response and completed on 30 January 2025. He also said he was unhappy with its response to his reports of additional repairs after its stage 2 response and obtaining an OT report. We have not investigated these issues as they have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint about any new issues after the stage 2 response if he remains dissatisfied.
The resident’s tenancy agreement said the landlord would repair the pathways and steps which were the main means of access to the property. It said that garden paving may be considered an improvement. Landlords do not have a responsibility to complete repairs to patios or driveways under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) unless they affect the structure or access to a property. When the landlord was notified of the potential repairs, it would have been reasonable for it to assess these, clearly set out which repairs, if any, it was responsible for and assess their priority in line with its repairs policy.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool introduced by the Housing Act 2004. HHSRS identifies multiple potential health hazards including falls. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018) imposes an implied term on landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. When notified of trip hazards, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the risk, determined its responsibility, and addressed the issue to maintain habitability if required.
The landlord did not initiallyassess the paving repairs reportedin November 2023. Both parties agreed to postpone any works until Spring 2024. The reason for further delays until July 2024 is unclear.The resident said he asked the landlord to complete the repairs in March or April 2024. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay in completing repairs since November 2023.
When the landlord inspected and raised repairs on 5 July 2024, it is unclear which and how many of the paving stones it raised works to re-lay.It set a target date of 17 October 2024 (104 days). It did not assess whether any potential health and safety risks impacted the priority of the repairs.
The landlord categorised emergency repairs as those potentially affecting the health of the household to be made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours. It categorised routine repairs as those that could wait without causing major inconvenience to be completed within 20 days and cyclical and programmed/ planned repairs as non-urgent potentially complex repairs with varied completion timescales. Given that the resident reported trip hazards, it would have been reasonable for it to assess whether any risks impacted the priority of the repairs, or to categorise them as emergency or routine.
Contractors arranged, but did not complete, repair works on 21 August 2024. They said the works they were instructed to complete did not match those the resident said the landlord had agreed. It is unclear why they did not complete the works the landlord had agreed. That the landlord did not clearly set out the works it was responsible for and had agreed to when the resident requested this, may have contributed to delays in the works being completed.
On 21 August 2024 the contractors reported that there were no health and safety concerns at the front or side of the property, and no repairs to complete. This contradicted the landlord’s inspection of 5 July 2024.Following these reports, the evidence suggests the landlord was unclear about which repairs, if any, it was responsible for. This may have caused delays in the works being completed.
If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to assess responsibility for, and complete repairs, remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. On 10 September 2024 the landlord offered another surveyor’s visit which was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm which repairs it would and would not complete. It set out its position about repairs to the back patio and driveway. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident if the issues were not impacting the structure or access to the property. However, it failed to address the resident’s reports that repairs had previously been raised to the back garden or whether there were any health and safety concerns in this area. It also failed to respond to the resident’s request to define the back patio and his reports that it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the area he referred to as the back patio.
The landlord has not provided detailed records of its communication with its contractors or the works completed around 10 October 2024. This has impacted our ability to assess its actions. The evidence suggests contractors completed works to the paving around some of the property including the front ramp. This was 97 days after the repairs were raised which was outside its 20-day repairs policy timescale for routine repairs. It did not assess whether it was appropriate to put any temporary measures in place in the meantime.
After the resident said he thought some trip hazards remained and the landlord had not completed all the works it had agreed to, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to complete a further inspection at stage 2. However, its assessment of events in its stage 2 response was likely confusing as it suggested an inspection had taken place after the works had been carried out.
The result of the post works inspection of 20 November 2024 suggested the landlord had not completed paving repairs around the back ramp that it had identified were required on 5 July 2024. It did not schedule these works until 30 January 2025, 71 days after the inspection, despite the resident contacting it multiple times. This was outside its timescales for routine repairs, and it did not assess whether any potential risks impacted the priority of the repairs. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay.
The resident said the delayed works caused him distress and he worried about his wife tripping. He said he spent a significant amount of time trying to resolve the issue which impacted his holiday.The landlord acknowledged some of its failures but did not fully acknowledge the impact of the length of the delay.
We have made orders for it to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident where it made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. As the resident has raised concerns about the extent and quality of works the landlord completed, we have ordered it to set out its position on the works it identified it was responsible for on 20 November 2024 and the works it completed on 30 January 2025.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy did not include acknowledgement timescales but the acknowledgement and response timescales in its updated policy are in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code). The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days, in line with the Code. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation after 7 working days, 2 working days outside the Code.
The landlord extended its response timescales at stage 1 on 3 and 10 September 2024 and at stage 2 on 24 October and 7 November 2024, in line with its complaints policy and the Code. It issued stage 1 and 2 responses within its extended timescales.
Although the landlord’s delayed acknowledgement at stage 2 was a shortcoming, the delay was short and would have had minimal impact. The landlord’s overall response at stage 2 was within the timescales it had given to the resident.

Learning

The landlord did not set out any learning in its complaint responses. Its delay in completing the actions agreed in its stage 2 response suggest a lack of learning. We have ordered the landlord to set out any learning from the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide detailed records of its communication with its contractors or of the repairs it completed which, at times, impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

After inspecting, it would have been helpful for the landlord to clearly outline to the resident which repairs it was responsible for, and when it would complete them.