Torus62 Limited (202327117)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to issues with antisocial behaviour and pests in her neighbourhood. She said her long term PTSD and general mental health had been severely impacted by its lack of action.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. the resident’s reports of pests in the property
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. maladministration in its handling of reports of pests in the property
   3. service failure in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

4. The landlord took steps to try and support the resident with the antisocial behaviour she faced but its actions were not effective. It failed to set up her property application account correctly meaning she could not apply for homes. It did not consider making adjustments to the support it offered her when it knew about her health conditions.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property

5. The landlord unnecessarily delayed in taking action to resolve the issue due to record keeping and communication failings. When it identified its errors it took action to conduct inspections into the matter. It failed to take an empathetic approach to the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord missed its acknowledgment and response deadlines. Its responses were clear and set out its position and intended actions well.

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.

What we are not looking at

7. The resident said she had been reporting issues with antisocial behaviour for over 7 years. We noted these reports for context, but our investigation focuses on June 2023 onwards, when she raised her formal complaint. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of historical events due to the lapse of time.
8. The resident told us that the landlord’s slow response to her reports has affected her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The landlord addressed additional concerns about damp and mould in its stage 2 response that had been raised by the resident after the stage 1 response. These issues were not mentioned in the original complaint. The resident has since told us that they consider the damp and mould issue to be resolved. This investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the remaining issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

10. Before the complaint was made, the landlord had taken steps to address issues with antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhood following the resident’s reports. Letters sent on 25 May 2023 show it had reached out to residents of the local area to inform them it had received reports of loud music, fighting and suspected drug dealing. It also encouraged her to keep a diary and use its noise app to record disturbances. The landlord appointed a single point of contact for her harassment case who liaised with police when required. It was appropriate that it was proactive in response to the concerns the resident had raised. It made repeated efforts to try and resolve the antisocial behaviour issues she reported but the steps it took were not effective as the issues continued.
11. The landlord decided on 26 May 2023 that it would prioritise the resident’s request to be rehoused following its most recent report of ongoing antisocial behaviour. It confirmed it had sent an internal application for senior management to consider on 8 June 2023. It showed it was taking practical steps within its power in response to her reports.
12. When the resident made her formal complaint on 9 June 2023, she drew attention to the long time the landlord had been aware of her antisocial behaviour concerns. Internal emails show that the landlord was also aware of supporting evidence her support worker had provided on the same date. The email highlighted the severe impact that the length of time these issues had persisted for was having on her wellbeing. Her support worker also noted that her account to allow her to apply for a new property was never set up or banded, meaning she could not make any applications. The landlord subsequently spoke to the resident on 29 June 2023 to confirm she had been approved for rehousing and to explain the process of direct match and bidding, which was appropriate.
13. In its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023, the landlord said the resident’s harassment case was still live and she had been approved for rehousing at a priority banding as a result. It also said it had requested a direct match for her, which it previously acknowledged would not be a quick process. The response showed it was taking its investigation into her concerns seriously and had identified ways it could resolve her situation.
14. The landlord took action to correct its mistake and approved the resident’s banding and bidding account as soon as it was aware. This was appropriate. However, it did not acknowledge the failure in its stage 1 response. It should have acknowledged that it failed to correctly set up the property bidding account which meant she was unable to take the actions it was suggesting. It missed an opportunity to show it was taking learning from the complaint. It should have been able to identify an issue with her account without having to be prompted by a third party.
15. The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour Policy says it will communicate with residents on a regular basis throughout its investigations and during any subsequent actions it takes. It noted in its stage 2 response on 3 October 2023 that it had tried contacting the resident but her responses had been inconsistent. It provided logs of its monthly review emails to demonstrate this. It encouraged her to continue engaging with the process so it could deal with any further instances of antisocial behaviour that she experienced moving forward. It also organised ongoing regular review calls to see how she was progressing with finding a property, which it logged on at least a monthly basis. It was appropriate that it established an ongoing commitment to helping with her concerns and wanted to keep communication going as its policy says it will.
16. The resident made numerous references to the ongoing impact that the antisocial behaviour was having on her health. In its Antisocial Behaviour Policy, it says the landlord will pay particular attention to protect those most vulnerable from the effects of antisocial behaviour. It says it may conduct risk assessments.
17. The landlord had known about the resident’s health conditions for a long time, certainly in advance of her initial reports of antisocial behaviour in July 2022. However, there is no evidence that it considered any reasonable adjustments for her once it knew that her health was being impacted by the issue. It could have conducted a risk assessment which may have identified ways it could support her when she reported antisocial behaviour that could affect her PTSD. It should have been able to show it was satisfied that it had exhausted all of the support options available that could improve her situation. She faced ongoing distress as it failed to show it was considering other ways it could support her.
18. The landlord responded efficiently to the resident’s reports of ongoing antisocial behaviour but its actions were not as effective as they could have been because it failed to consider her vulnerabilities. We have made an order for it to conduct a needs assessment of the resident and her household so it can consider all options for support that may be appropriate.
19. We understand the resident remains in the property as she has been unable to find a suitable alternative so far. She has also told us antisocial behaviour continues to be a problem that impacts her life. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to continue with its regular check in calls and to offer her support while she is still at risk of being impacted by antisocial behaviour.

20. In the resident’s complaint, she reported long-standing issues with pests coming from the neighbouring property. She said the landlord had attempted to access the neighbouring property to inspect and put down pest traps but had been denied access to identify the root cause of the pest issue. While it was reasonable that the landlord had regularly tried to progress the matter, steps it had taken were not effective as the pests returned.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that errors in its record keeping and communication between its staff had meant it failed to take appropriate actions following some of the resident’s reports since 2021. It apologised for this and said it would order pest inspections for both her and the neighbouring properties. It also said it would enforce access to the neighbouring property if this was refused. This a reasonable approach and showed that it was trying to learn from the failings it had identified.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had met with the resident on 31 July 2023 as it had committed to. However, it said that the subsequent orders for pest inspections had not been raised correctly and as a result the inspections never took place. While it apologised for this failing, this was repeat of earlier failings. It did not demonstrate it had learned from the complaint. This likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. Its poor record keeping meant the resident faced further distress while she waited for the issue to be addressed.
23. The landlord conducted pest inspections at the property on 5 October 2023 and 24 November 2023. This was appropriate and showed it knew it had to take action following the unnecessary delay caused by its previous errors. It logged the infestation as resolved by 7 November 2023.
24. The resident told the landlord that the ongoing issue with pests resulted in her son moving out of the house. She was distressed that the unresolved problem had meant her family life had been impacted. The landlord did not respond to this concern at any point in its responses, which was not appropriate. It failed to show her it was being empathetic towards the individual circumstances of the complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to consider whether the impact of the pest issue warranted a different approach, such as increased priority. There is no evidence it used pest inspection reports to consider the level of impact the infestation had on the family.
25. The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation for the impact of the errors it had identified in its investigation. It was appropriate that it offered this and acknowledged the issue had a significant impact on the resident’s wellbeing. However, its offer did not consider the impact on her family life. We have ordered further compensation to reflect the level of distress she faced as a result.

26. The landlord’s complaints procedure is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
27. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord gave its stage 1 response within 35 working days (9 June 2023 to 28 July 2023) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord gave its stage 2 response within 25 working days (29 August 2023 to 3 October 2023) which was not in line with the 20 days the Code allows
28. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints as the Code suggests. It failed to keep to the response timelines set out in its policy and the Code. Given her complaint was centred around significant delays in receiving support from the landlord, it was not appropriate that it failed to apologise for its poor complaint handling. It missed an opportunity to improve the landlord tenant relationship.
29. The responses were comprehensive and set out clear timelines of events that the landlord had considered. This was appropriate and showed that it had investigated matters thoroughly. It identified failings and set out what it planned to do in response.

Learning

30. The landlord conducted a clear investigation of the complaint but did not show that it was learning from the failings it identified. It could reflect on whether it fully explored all the options available to support a vulnerable resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. There were a number of record keeping issues identified by the landlord that caused delays in its response to the pest issue. It could review its internal processes to identify opportunities to improve how it records resident reports.

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent. It could reflect on whether agreeing a schedule of regular communication would have improved the resident’s experience of reporting issues and using the complaints process.