Torus62 Limited (202412076)

Decision
Case ID	202412076
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

1. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported that the rear garden was uneven and contained debris. Which she said made it unsafe to use particularly for her daughter who is visually impaired. The landlord carried out inspections and works.

What the complaint is about

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

1. Reports of repairs to the rear garden of the property.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:

1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the rear garden.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to ensure the rear garden met its lettable standard at the start of the tenancy and did not resolve the reported hazards within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord carried out inspections, arranged works, acknowledged shortcomings in its stage 2 and November 2024 responses and offered compensation totalling £650. In the circumstances, this amount is proportionate to the distress, inconvenience and the loss of use experienced by the household. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the rear garden.
5. The landlord delayed issuing its stage 2 complaint response and did not clearly communicate an extension to the resident. This likely caused inconvenience to the resident and amounts to a service failure.

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 19 March 2026
2	Compensation order Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must: Pay the resident £50 in recognition of the likely inconvenience caused by its delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.	No later than 19 March 2026

  

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the total compensation of £650 offered at stage 2 and following its further review, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 March 2024	The resident made a formal complaint about the condition of the rear garden. She said the ground was uneven and contained debris which made it unsafe to use.
10 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated it had completed works to meet its void standard and referred to garden maintenance being the tenant’s responsibility. It said it would liaise with its repairs team regarding the concerns raised.
16 April 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 saying she remained dissatisfied with its response and the condition of the garden.
4 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged uneven ground and hazardous materials in the garden. It set out the further works it would arrange and it offered the resident £400 compensation.
26 November 2024	Following a further inspection and ongoing concerns raised by the resident, the landlord awarded her an additional £250 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the garden repairs and the compensation offered.

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	Response to garden repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. This investigation considers the landlord’s handling of the resident’s handling of the resident’s reports up to and including its final complaint response in November 2024. We have not assessed events after that date, as they fall outside the landlord’s internal complaints process and we do not have sufficient evidence before us to make firm findings on those matters. If the resident remains dissatisfied with events occurring after November 2024, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord.
7. The evidence suggests that the resident reported concerns about the rear garden by 8 February 2024. Internal correspondence recorded uneven ground, protruding metal and instability of patio flags. The landlord’s repairs policy requires routine repairs to be completed within 20 calendar days.
8. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on the 29 February 2024. This was an appropriate initial response within the timescales of the repair policy. The contractor removed exposed metal and undertook rotavating works. The landlord acted promptly at the outset.
9. However, after this initial attendance, there is no evidence of a substantive reassessment until the surveyor inspection on 5 June 2024, approximately four months after the February report. This exceeded the 20-day routine repairs timeframe. While the landlord had engaged at the outset, progress between February and early June 2024 was limited.
10. On 6 June 2024 the landlord confirmed the agreed scope of works in writing, including levelling and related remedial works. This was appropriate communication following the inspection and demonstrated clearer direction at that stage.
11. On 2 July 2024 issues arose regarding the scope of works and contractor approach. The landlord reviewed the position and continued to engage with its contractors. Further approvals were recorded on 2 September 2024, and on 13 September 2024 the agreed works were varied to include more extensive levelling and turfing. The landlord acted reasonably in escalating the matter internally and reassessing the works required.
12. The evidence shows ongoing contractor involvement through September and October 2024. The works were marked complete in November 2024.
13. From the initial report on 8 February 2024 to completion in November 2024, approximately nine months elapsed. This exceeded the landlord’s 20-day routine repair target and reflects shortcomings in the coordination and oversight of the works. The period between February and June 2024 represents a delay before substantive reassessment took place.
14. However, the landlord acted in this period – it engaged a contractor, commissioned an inspection, revised the scope of works, approved variations and completed substantial remedial works. The total compensation it offered of £650 sits at the upper end of our remedies band for distress and inconvenience which did not have a permanent impact. In the circumstances, the redress offered is proportionate to the service failure identified.
15. For these reasons, we find that the landlord made reasonable redress in response to the resident’s reports of garden repairs.

Complaint	Response to the complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where additional time is required, the landlord must inform the resident of the extension and explain the reason. These standards reflect the requirements of the complaint handling code.
17. The resident made a formal complaint on 20 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 April 2024, approximately 13 working days later. This exceeded the landlord’s published timescales by around three working days. While this delay was relatively short, it represents a failure to comply with its own policy.
18. More significantly, the stage 1 response did not directly address the specific hazards recorded in the landlord’s own internal correspondence of 8 February 224, including protruding metal and uneven ground. The resident had raised safety concerns and was entitled to expect a clear investigation and response. By not fully addressing those concerns at stage 1, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify and resolve issues at an earlier stage.
19. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 16 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 June 2024, approximately 33 working days later. This exceeded the landlord’s 20-working-day target by around 13 working days. Although the landlord applied an internal extension, it did not clearly communicate a revised response date to the resident. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
20. Following further inspections and reassessment of the works, the landlord issues an additional stage 2 correspondence in November 2024, awarding a further £250 compensation. This response was issued after conducting additional inspections and in attempt to bring resolution to the complaint.
21. The impact of stage 1 failure to address the specific hazards raised, stage 2 delay and the failure to clearly communicate a need for extension, amounts to service failure in complaint handling.
22. In line with our remedies guidance, an award of £50 is proportionate to recognise the inconvenience caused by the complaint handling shortcomings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s records showed it was aware of the garden hazards in February 2024, but this was not effectively tracked to completion. Clearer recording of actions, inspections and contractor instructions would reduce the risk of prolonged delays.

Communication

24. The landlord did not inform the resident when complaint response deadlines would be missed. Proactive communication would help manage expectations and improve trust.