Torus62 Limited (202346578)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house with her son. She reported damp and mould in the property on 4 July 2023. She also said that the damp issues were causing an infestation of slugs and woodlice in the property. She said that the damp had been present prior to her taking up her tenancy in 2021.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and an associated pest infestation.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and an associated pest infestation.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated slug and woodlice infestation. The landlord failed to complete repairs in line with its policy. There was some miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor leading to failed and cancelled appointments. The landlord failed to communicate appropriately at times with the resident to her ongoing reports of leaks, damp and mould causing her unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
6. There was delay and confusion in the landlord’s complaints handling which unnecessarily lengthened its internal complaints process. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident in trying to seek a resolution.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident had an earlier complaint concerning damp and mould in the property from 1 November 2021 that the landlord investigated. It issued its final response on 15 November 2021.  We have not investigated the issues that led to the resident’s complaint to the landlord from 2021 as this was not referred to us to investigate within 12 months of the matter arising.

What we did investigate

8. We have considered the period from 4 July 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 16 October 2024.
9. Following the resident’s report that damp and mould had returned in the property on 4 July 2023, the landlord arranged a mould treatment for 10 July 2023. However, the resident told the landlord that she had previously said she would be on holiday and she needed to rearrange this. The landlord’s internal surveyor had been unable to identify the cause of the damp or pest infestation when they inspected the property on 21 August 2023.
10. There was delay in the landlord completing works that it ordered on 21 August 2023 to reseal the front door and living room door on 21 August 2023 to prevent water entering. This was marked as completed on 9 October 2023 which was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 20 calendar days for routine repairs which was inappropriate. The landlord arranged its external contractor to inspect the chimney stack for any defects on 2 September 2023. This was marked as completed on 30 September 2023 with its repairs policy timescale which was reasonable. It also scheduled a mould treatment for 6 September 2023 to which its operative reported no access.
11. The resident said in her complaint of 23 October 2023 that the surveyor had said that the suspended floor could hold water underneath that may cause dampness. She said she was told that to investigate this the landlord would need to take up her new laminate flooring to investigate with cameras which she said would not be acceptable. We have not seen the landlord’s surveyor’s report or whether they used any other equipment to assess dampness on the floor. This could have provided evidence whether there was some dampness rising from the floor that could be fed back to the resident at the time to alleviate her concerns. Alternatively, if dampness was found, then the landlord could have then considered taking further action to remedy this. The landlord missed the opportunity to do this.
12. The landlord raised a works order on 6 October 2023 to clear the gutters that were full of moss and debris. However, the order was cancelled, and the work was not completed until 19 January 2024, 3 months later, which was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescale. This was inappropriate, given that this was another possible cause of damp and mould in the property.
13. The resident advised the landlord on 23 October 2023 in her complaint that water may have been coming from her neighbour’s property. This was also mentioned by the landlord’s surveyor following a further inspection on 10 November 2023. The landlord said it would be contacting the neighbour so it could inspect the next-door property. However, there was delay and access issues that prevented the landlord in accessing the property. The landlord advised in its stage 1 complaint response that it had managed to contact the neighbour with a positive outcome but did not elaborate what the outcome was. Its records do not evidence that it inspected the neighbours property when it was occupied in 2023. It inspected the property after it became empty in February 2024.
14. The resident told the landlord that the damp was intermittent and appeared on the kitchen ceiling during heavy driving rain. However, the landlord’s surveyor did not find any damp on the chimney breast wall in her son’s bedroom or on the kitchen ceiling at the time. The resident also reported that the slugs and woodlice issue had improved since the landlord had renewed some pointing. However, she raised the issue again during the internal complaints process.
15. There was further delay in the landlord completing some point work that was found to be missing after it raised a works order on 21 November 2023. This was not completed until 5 January 2024. This was again outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe which was inappropriate. It also evidenced that there was more than one reason why the resident was reporting leaks, damp and mould in the property and the landlord needed to ensure it completed a full in-depth inspection. We have not seen that the landlord did this until it completed an in-house stock condition survey on 26 July 2024 under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This recorded “slight” damp in the kitchen. As this was a recurring issue, the survey may not have picked up a lot of damp dependent on the weather conditions.
16. The resident chased up the landlord for an update between 28 February 2024 and 13 May 2024 after she received a complaint closure letter. She reported that there was still damp in the property and that she had not been contacted when she should have been. Despite this, the landlord said in its complaint record of 29 May 2024 that it had checked with the resident to ensure that it had completed repairs and that the issue was rectified and on 6 June 2024 it closed the case. This was inappropriate given the resident had only contacted the landlord on 13 May 2024 for an update on the issue evidencing that the issues had not been resolved. The resident reported the dampness along with the slugs and woodlice again on 4 September 2024.
17. The landlord raised a further inspection on the same date which was reasonable, however, this was marked as cancelled so it is unclear whether it took place. The landlord noted in its internal email of 25 September 2024 that it had inspected the neighbouring property but had not found anything to suggest a leak was coming from this. The landlord raised a works order on 25 September 2024 to remove the chimney stack; as it felt this was a possible cause of the leaks, damp and mould, however, its operative cancelled the order on 3 October 2024 due to ‘no access’.
18. The resident had already advised the landlord on 2 October 2024 that she worked shifts as a nurse and gave permission for the landlord to complete external works in her absence. The landlord chased up its contractor on 14 October 2024 asking it to complete the works as the resident had agreed that she did not need to be home and would leave the gate open if scaffolding was required. It arranged for its contractor to visit on 21 October 2024 to assess the property for scaffolding, after which it would organise the work to remove the chimney stack.
19. The landlord did not remove the chimney stack until after the end of its internal complaints process on 20 December 2024. This was 3 months after the landlord raised the works order to do this work which was not in line with its repairs policy timescale. The delay was unreasonable considering the resident had been reporting the leaks, damp and mould issues from 4 July 2023. Whilst the landlord had completed some repairs, these were completed outside of its policy timescales. It had also identified several possible causes of leaks, damp and mould and it needed to ensure a full inspection by a damp specialist. 
20. The landlord’s repair records evidenced its operative had said it was unable to gain access to the neighbouring property to erect scaffolding as scheduled on 7 November 2024. Considering the neighbouring property was empty, it is not clear why the landlord’s operative reported no access. The landlord therefore needed to remind its contractor on 13 November 2024 that the property was empty, and it also appropriately apologised to the resident on the same date due to the poor communication. This would have likely caused further frustration for the resident.  
21. The resident’s further reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated pest infestation led to the landlord’s surveyor inspecting the property on 15 January 2025. The landlord raised further works orders to check for cold bridging, to check the roof for leaks, overhaul a kitchen radiator to check for leaks and to renew seals around the front and back doors. The landlord’s roof contractor reported no further roof leaks on 22 July 2025, and its contractor reported no radiator leak on 29 July 2025. However, the resident has told us that the landlord has failed to remedy the leaks, damp and mould issues along with the pest infestation.
22. Whilst the landlord completed in house inspections and some repairs, eventually removing the shared chimney stack, its actions were delayed and not in accordance with its policy. This caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and an associated pest infestation. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £100 does not fully reflect the failings we have identified.
23. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 (inclusive of the £100 previously offered) in compensation. This comprises £300 in respect of the delayed repairs and poor communication and £200 in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property by an externally appointed independent surveyor. It must send a copy of its inspection report and its action plan to the resident and to us.

24. The resident raised a complaint on 25 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 October 2023. It requested an extension on 7 November 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 November 2023. This was 18 working days after its acknowledgement which was within the landlord’s extended timescale which was appropriate. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescale to respond.
25. The Code requires a complaint to be acknowledged at both stages within 5 working days. It requires a response to be sent at stage 1 within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. It can extend a stage 1 response by no longer than 10 working days. The code requires a response to be sent at stage 2 within 20 working days from its acknowledgement. A landlord can extend a stage 2 complaint response by no longer than further 20 working days.
26. The resident contacted the landlord after she received a closure letter on 13 May 2024, and she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of response and that it was closing the case. The landlord should have then considered escalating her complaint at this point. However, it did not do this and instead it closed the case inappropriately on 6 June 2024. 
27. The resident phoned the landlord on 26 July 2024 and 21 August 2024 requesting that her complaint be left open. The landlord then escalated her complaint to stage 2 issuing an acknowledgement on 22 August 2024. However, it said it had a conversation with the resident on 3 September 2024 where she reportedly said that did not want her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident disputed this conversation, and she was not happy that the landlord was going back to stage 1 of its complaints process. We have not seen evidence that confirms either version of events, so we are unable to confirm what happened.
28. The resident specifically requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 13 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024, after it agreed a 2-day extension with the resident. This was 23 working days after the resident’s specific stage 2 complaint escalation request. This was slightly outside of the 20 working day timescale for the resident’s specific complaint escalation request. However, as it needed to consider escalating the complaint at a much earlier point, the landlord unreasonably delayed the complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
29. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation. This recognises the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Learning

30. The landlord did not acknowledge any learning in its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable to identify learning particularly at stage 2 when the landlord identified failings. This was especially important given that there were some complexities in identifying why the leaks, damp and mould, along with the associated slugs and woodlice were impacting the property. The landlord completed a self-assessment based upon our Spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) and follow up report (February 2023). This will help the landlord to consider improvements that it can make to its handling of damp and mould cases.  

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

31. The landlord’s records were generally reasonable, however, there was some miscommunication concerning the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. There was also some miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor regarding the scaffolding required and repairs to remove the disused chimney stack. The landlord could consider learning as above from this experience.
32. The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally more reactive than proactive. There were times when the resident was chasing the landlord, such as between 28 February 2024 to 13 May 2024 and between 13 September 2024 to 2 October 2024 where there the landlord did not respond appropriately.