Torus62 Limited (202330755)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started in 2008. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. In August 2023 there was a leak from the upstairs bathroom, which resulted in damp and mould growth downstairs. In September 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the leak, subsequent damp and mould and damage to her belongings. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and brought her complaint to us. This Service has received confirmation that all outstanding works have been completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leak in the property.
   2. Reports of damp and mould in the kitchen.
   3. Reports of damage to the resident’s property and decorative surfaces.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
   2. The landlord’s response to reports of the damp and mould in the kitchen is outside of our jurisdiction.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to damage to the resident’s property and decorative surfaces.
   4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the reports of the leak

5. The landlord correctly raised an emergency repair when the resident reported a bathroom leak, but it failed to raise the plumbing job alongside the electrical job, resulting in a missed 4-hour response target. The landlord addressed repair the leak within 10 hours, but this was only after the resident called the landlord a second time. While the landlord later acknowledged this error and offered compensation, it should have reasonably identified and acted on the need for both trades at the outset. As the delay did not worsen the outcome of the leak, the redress offered was proportionate to the failing.

The response to the reports of damp and mould in the kitchen

6. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould is outside of our jurisdiction, as this element has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The response to the reports of damage to the resident’s property and decorative surfaces

7. The landlord did not respond to the reports to damage to the resident’s sofa appropriately. The landlord failed to support the resident to make a claim under its own insurance or consider an award in line with its discretionary compensation policy. These failings resulted in avoidable inconvenience and distress to the resident.

The handling of the complaint

8. The landlord’s responses contain factual inaccuracies, which required the resident to correct, and it’s responses did not fully address all issues raised. It did not resolve conflicting records about responsibility for redecorating, nor did it incorporate advice regarding insurance claims into its formal responses. These shortcomings undermined the reliability of the investigation, prolonged the resident’s frustration, and failed to demonstrate learning from the issues identified.

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.

9. The evidence seen shows that the resident reported a bathroom leak as an emergency on 24 August 2023 at 16:30. The landlord correctly raised an urgent repair to address the leak. However, it did not raise the plumbing and electrician jobs concurrently, so only the electrician attended. Whilst the electrician attended and confirmed all electrics were safe, the plumber did not attend within the first 4-hour target response time. This required the resident to make a further call to the landlord at 20:45. The landlord escalated the job once it was aware of the error. Within 4 hours of correctly raising the job, the plumber attended to resolve the fault. On 8 September 2023 the landlord revisited the property to refix the bath panel.
10. We have investigated case 202220330, involving a leak, which this resident brought to us. The resident has indicated that she believes that the leak in this case 202330755 to be connected to the historic leak which the landlord resolved in May 2022. However, the evidence seen shows distinct locations for the source of each leak and as such, they are unrelated.
11. The landlord’s records show the first fault was a leak “attributed to failed sealant and grouting” and the leak in this case was the result of a burst flexi wastewater hose from underneath the bath. These faults are a result of natural degradation of the products and so the landlord could not have reasonably foreseen the fault with the flexi hose. In addition, the evidence seen does not show any further reported leaks in the property between May 2022 and August 2023.
12. The evidence seen indicates that the water ingress was indeed a flood from the contents of the bath, which then ceased. And whilst there were minor delays in the plumbers attendance, there was no material impact on the resolution of the issue. The landlord acknowledged this finding in its stage 1 response and offered £50 in respect of its failings. Given the limited delay and the absence of evidence that the delay itself worsened the leak, this amount reasonably reflects the impacts of this oversight.

13. We do not typically consider matters that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Part of the resident’s complaint refers to mould growth found behind her washing machine. The resident reported the damp and mould on 19 October 2023, and this element did not form part of the initial complaint. Whilst it has not exhausted it’s internal complaints process, the resident has indicated that this has since been resolved and so we will not comment further on the matter.

14. When a resident reports damage to personal belongings, it is not the role of this Service to determine liability. It is more appropriate for this to be considered through the courts or an insurance claim. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded reasonably to the report and to any associated request for compensation. Where a landlord considers it appropriate to signpost a resident to make an insurance claim, it should do so clearly and consistently as part of its formal response.
15. On 27 August 2023, the resident reported mould and staining to the ceiling and living room walls. This moisture also entered the resident’s sofa and resulted in mould growth on its fabric surface and wooden frame. The photographs the resident provided to the landlord show evidence of the affected areas.
16. Following her report, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection on 17 October 2023. By the time of the inspection, the resident had cleaned the mould off the furniture, and the surveyor indicated that “no lasting damage” was visible on the sofa and the walls were “dry”. The landlord’s focus was upon the damp and not on the consequential impact on the décor or the resident’s personal belongings.
17. Given the passage of time between the mould developing and the inspection, it is unclear what evidence the landlord relied upon to reach its position, particularly where this was based solely on a visual inspection by a building surveyor. Thus, the landlord’s reliance on this narrow assessment meant it did not acknowledge the inconvenience, distress, or temporary impact by the mould. It would have been reasonable, as per its published compensation policy, to have considered making a discretionary payment as recognition of the impact on her belongings.
18. Therefore, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of these reports, and we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced for the damage to her property.

19. We can see the landlord managed response timescales well in this case. Although it took 32 days to provide a stage 2 response, the reason for providing a response outside of it’s published timescales is the request for an extension of 10 working days. The landlord took steps to ensure the resident understood why it was making this request and when she could expect a response. It also maintained consistent contact with the resident to maintain oversight of the complaints process. These are effective ways to mitigate further frustration to the resident.
20. Complaint responses are required to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, and the landlord must demonstrate that it had fully considered all the evidence available. Additionally, it is good practice for the landlord to provide complaint acknowledgement and complaint escalation responses, to ensure the resident is kept informed throughout the complaints process. From evidence seen, the landlord did not meet this standard.
21. The complaint responses contained several factual inaccuracies, including incorrect statements about works completed at the property and the circumstances surrounding the resident’s reports of mould. This could not but have undermined the reliability of the landlord’s investigation and contributed to the resident’s frustration.
22. Discrepancies arose regarding the responsibility of redecorating the affected areas. Internal emails indicate the surveyor understood that the resident wished for her husband to undertake the work if the landlord provided materials, yet the resident’s own correspondence contradicts this, stating she did not want the responsibility or the associated costs. Whilst the offer of vouchers or compensation for redecoration costs, is in line with its published policy, the landlord should have clarified this information within its complaints procedure. This would have resulted in clearer understanding of the resident’s position. And would have also provided the landlord with an opportunity to appropriately review its offer of compensatory redress within its formal responses.
23. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to make a claim through her personal contents insurance, we can see that it gave this advice outside of its formal complaint procedure. As this advice was not included or explained within its formal responses, it did not form part of the landlord’s reasoned decision making and therefore represents an avoidable failing. It would be beneficial for complaints of this nature to include information on how to submit an insurance claim and where to direct the claim to within the formal responses to prevent any confusion or dissatisfaction.
24. The landlord also failed to address all elements of the complaint. The resident raised concerns about damp, mould, delays to repairs and the impact on her belongings. The complaint responses did not fully engage will all issues or explain how the landlord had considered the evidence she provided including photographs and earlier correspondence. This resulted in a response that did not meaningfully reflect the resident’s lived experience of the issues or the impact to her.
25. Finally, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken learning from the complaint or reflected on the failings identified. The responses focused primarily on justifying its position rather than acknowledging shortcomings or providing clear explanations of how it would prevent similar issues in the future.
26. Cumulatively, the landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to service failure, and we order the landlord to pay £150 directly to the resident to reflect the impact of these failings.

Learning

27. Organisational learning from complaints provides opportunity to avoid reoccurrence of similar issues for others and should be captured and used to enhance and improve services accordingly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. This case highlighted inconsistencies of factual information within complaint responses.

Communication

29. This investigation surfaced incomplete capture and response to all elements mentioned in the residents initial complaint.