Torus62 Limited (202004876)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004876

Torus62 Limited

17 August 2021

Our approach

Under our early resolution process, the Ombudsman works with the resident and landlord to explore the issues in dispute, identify the matters that remain outstanding and assist in reaching an agreed settlement.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to mould growth;
2. Repairs to a leak from the kitchen sink;
3. Works to install a sink in the toilet;
4. A pest infestation in the loft.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

How the complaint was resolved

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs they had reported since their tenancy started in June 2019.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 24 February 2021. It explained that:
1. For the investigation of the complaint, it reviewed the property repair history and found that the property met its lettable standard when the resident’s tenancy started.
2. Damp proof works had started in November 2019, however, were not finished due to the Covid 19 lockdown. The works were also meant to include the installation of a sink to the toilet.
3. In response to the complaint, a survey of the property was completed in October 2020. During the visit, the following was inspected:
  1. Kitchen units and the leak to the sink;
  2. The plastering to the hallway;
  3. Pest activity to loft;
  4. The rear door;
  5. Mould growth;
  6. Bathroom sink.
4. The leak to the kitchen taps that the resident reported, was their own responsibility as they had installed these themselves.
5. The kitchen was not considered to need a replacement.
6. In relation to the reported mould growth, it would arrange for decoration vouchers to be sent to the resident.
7. It discussed condensation management with the resident and arranged for a service to be carried out to the air ventilation system, which is a device used to help manage condensation in the property.
8. After submitting the complaint, the resident raised further repairs and reported poor workmanship from its contractor. Therefore, it arranged another survey and further repair works were arranged.
9. On occasion, its communication with the resident had fallen short of its service standard. It said that it did not consider its response to the matters of the complaint appropriate and upheld the complaint on this basis.
10. It offered the resident £300 compensation for the inconvenience they experienced as a result of the service delivered.
The resident requested an escalation of their complaint on 27 February 2021. They explained they did not consider the landlord’s offer satisfactory and said that the landlord had not resolved:
1. The mould growth;
2. The pest infestation in the loft;
3. The leak from the kitchen sink which was reoccurring;
4. The installation of a sink to the toilet.
On the same date, the resident also sent this Service a list of repairs that were outstanding in the property. This included the abovementioned repairs, as well repairs to the banister, and tiles in the bathroom.
The landlord escalated the complaint and provided its stage two response on 31 March 2021. In the response it said that:
1. It completed a survey of the property on 9 February and the following repairs were raised as a result:
  1. Air brick renewal;
  2. Renewal of loft insulation;
  3. Damp works to the hallway;
  4. Mould treatment to the landing walls and ceilings.
  5. Renewal of the kitchen base unit and sink top.
  6. Installation of a sink to downstairs toilet.
  7. Renewal of tiles to the bathroom.
  8. Installation of an extractor fan to the bathroom.
2. The resident reported on 26 and 30 March 2021, that rats were in the attic and on both occasions, its pest control contractor attended promptly. It arranged for its drainage contractor to attend on 1 April to inspect the drainage.
3. It partially upheld the complaint and in recognition of the impact the matters had on the resident, increased its compensation offer to £500.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service as they remained unhappy with the outcome. They explained that this was because:
1. The landlord had not installed the sink in the toilet.
2. The landlord had not addressed the mould growth behind the radiator in the toilet.
3. They believed the landlord had unnecessarily delayed addressing the pest issue and wanted the compensation offer to be increased in recognition of this.

In addition, the resident said that the landlord had not repaired the banister, which they reported had water leaking through it. This Service is of the understanding that this repair was not a part of the formal complaint to the landlord.

This Service contacted the landlord and explained the outstanding issues the resident reported. We asked if it wanted to try and resolve the complaint through our mediation process and set out the outcomes sought by the resident.
The landlord confirmed that it wished to take part in our mediation process and offered to do the following in order to resolve the complaint:
1. Increase the compensation offer to include the equivalent of 4 weeks rent payment. It noted that this could be in the form of a rent adjustment or, be paid directly to the resident.
2. Regarding the repairs, it offered its assurance that it would look into this and said it would confirm its position in due course.

It noted that while the pest infestation was not noted as an outstanding issue, it was continuing to work closely with the resident to address this matter.

We called the resident on 15 July and discussed the landlord’s offer. The resident confirmed that they accepted the increased compensation offered and wanted this paid directly to them. They explained that if the landlord could provide clarification on how and when it intended to address the outstanding repairs, they would consider this a satisfactory resolution.
This Service contacted the landlord on 16 July 2021 and asked it to provide clarification on its position regarding the outstanding repairs. The landlord said:
1. To complete installation of the sink to the toilet, a plumber had been scheduled to attend the property on 10 August, followed by a joiner on 12 August. Due to space restrictions, a bi-fold door was being fitted to accommodate the sink. The landlord said it aimed to complete the work by 13 August 2021.
2. Once these works were completed, the mould treatment to the mould behind the radiator in the toilet would be carried out.
3. It believed that the reported leak from the banister was damp plaster, as opposed to a leak. Nevertheless, it confirmed that the contractors attending to the works in the toilet, would check this and report back. It stated that if repairs were identified, they would be raised accordingly.
Paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. “At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘resolved with intervention’.”
The resident wrote to this Service on 12 August and confirmed that they received the compensation payment. In addition to this, they also confirmed that the landlord had completed:
1. The installation of the sink in the toilet;
2. The mould treatment in the toilet;
3. The repair to the reported leak from the banister.
I am therefore satisfied, following the intervention of this Service, that the landlord has now taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the complaint satisfactorily.