Torus62 Limited (202336743)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from the boiler to the landlord in August 2023 and the resulting damage to his belongings. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response to his request for compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the boiler and the associated repairs.
   2. Damage to personal belongings.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of a leak from the boiler and the associated repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the personal belongings.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not assess the damage caused by the leak, until the complaint was at stage 2 of its complaint process, some 3 months later. However, following the assessment it raised the required repairs promptly and offered compensation which we consider was proportionate to the impact on the resident.
5. The landlord fixed the leak as soon as it was made aware. It offered to clean the carpet but refused to pay compensation for the resident’s belongings because it considered it was not responsible for the leak.
6. The landlord did not address all issues raised in its responses. It did not manage the complaint in accordance with its policy timescale.

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 17 June 2026 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.

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the heating system including gas pipes and for doors but not the decorative finish. It explains that residents are responsible to report repairs and allow access.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours and aim to fix these in 24 hours. Any repairs that do not cause major inconvenience, it aims to complete in 20 calendar days. The policy also says some repairs may need an inspection to which a surveyor will attend.
9. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 14 August 2023 to replace a radiator. During this visit, the landlord drained and refilled the boiler. Later the same day, the resident reported a leak from the boiler. The landlord returned to the property and found that the condense pipe had detached. The landlord noted that the boiler cupboard contained the   residents’ belongings and recorded that the resident said the pipe had been detached for several months. The landlord fixed the pipe and noted there was severe water damage. The landlord attended within 4 hours and fixed the leak, this is within its timescale for an emergency repair.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it was not aware of any leak during the earlier appointments. It confirmed that it had repaired the leak reported on 14 August 2023. As part of its stage 2 resolution, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit the property to assess the damage to the door and carpet. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this, as the issue was outside its control. However, given the resident had raised these issues as part of his complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged this earlier.
11. The surveyor visited on 15 November 2023 and raised repairs to replace the door and clean the carpet. The landlord replaced the door on 8 January 2024.
12. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to reflect the impact of its handling of the repairs. This amount aligns with our compensation guidance, we have therefore found that the landlord offered proportionate redress for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.

13. The tenancy agreement says residents should arrange their own insurance for their household belongings.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord does not insure residents’ belongings. Residents must replace their own items and cover any related losses. The compensation policy says the landlord may offer compensation if it could have avoided the damage and will not offer compensation for things it could not control.
15. The landlord first learned about the damaged clothing on 14 August 2023, when the resident made a complaint after the pipe repair. The landlord spoke to the resident and explained that it did not cause the damage, so it would not pay compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to say this, and it aligns with its policy.
16. Even though the landlord was not responsible for the damage, it agreed to clean the carpet. This was good practice. The resident later told this service that he had replaced the carpet.
17. In January 2024, after the complaint ended, the resident asked again about compensation for their belongings. The landlord explained that the resident should claim through his content’s insurance. It also gave advice on how he could get insurance for the future.
18. The landlord told the resident that it could not offer compensation because it did not cause the leak. It repeated this decision after the complaint closed. Overall, the landlord handled the compensation request fairly, gave clear advice, and followed its policies.

19. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it says it will confirm receipt of a complaint within 2 working days and reply within 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will reply within 20 working days.
20. The landlord did not provide any records to confirm whether it acknowledged the complaint at either stage. The landlord did not date the stage 1 response. It should ensure its records are full and accurate to show it is compliant with its policy.
21. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 29 September 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 10 November 2023. Under its policy, it should have replied by 31 October 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension, so it sent the reply late.
22. Both complaint responses were lacking in detail. They did not explain the outcome or address the resident’s compensation request.
23. After the surveyor’s visit, the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained what it had done and what would happen next. It also offered compensation because it raised the repairs late.
24. We found service failure in how the landlord handled the complaint. The landlord caused minor delays and did not clearly respond to the compensation request. These failures caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation.

Learning

25. The landlord completed the repairs within its target timescales and took clear steps to resolve the issue promptly. This shows it can respond effectively and put things right for residents when repairs arise.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s records were mostly reasonable. However, it is not clear whether it confirmed receipt of the complaint or agreed to extra time to respond. The landlord should keep full and clear complaint records. In some areas, its record keeping was not satisfactory.

Communication

27. In January 2024, the resident sent several emails asking for a phone call. The landlord replied to one email and said it did not call because email was the resident’s preferred contact method. It is unclear whether the landlord fully responded to the request for a call.
28. The landlord explained that it was not responsible for the damaged belongings. However, it did not tell the resident to claim through contents insurance until January 2024. This caused confusion and set unclear expectations. The landlord did give advice about getting contents insurance for the future, which was appropriate.