Torus62 Limited (202103586)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103586

Torus62 Limited

24 August 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Enquiries about his service charge account.
    2. Concerns about the quality of maintenance work the landlord had completed to his building.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a communal building. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. In January 2019 the resident’s landlord merged with another company and its name changed from its original name to its current name.
  2. In April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about arrears that were on his service charges account and also said he would like to come to the office to discuss “shabby refurbishment work” the landlord had done that included painting his storage door and not painting all fences serving the building. The landlord responded to say it had discussed most of the issues with the resident by telephone but would refer his enquiry about fence painting to the relevant team and contact him once it had a response. In May 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the arrears and the fact that its offices were not open for him to visit.
  3. In its stage one complaint response the landlord explained that its offices were closed in line with Covid 19 recommendations. It explained arrears had built up on the resisdent’s account as there was no active direct debit and it had received no payment since November 2020. The resident made a payment to clear the arrears and requested a direct debit form be sent to him.
  4. On receipt of the direct debit form the resident queried why it had the landlord’s original name on it rather than its current name, as his bank had refused to make a payment to the original name previously. The landlord confirmed that the form was correct as the original name was still in use as a trading name. The resident said he would take it to his bank.
  5. The resident contacted this Service and on 4 June 2021 the Ombudsman advised him how to escalate his complaint through the landlord’s complaints process if he was not happy with the landlord’s initial response. However, the evidence suggests the resident did not escalate the complaint at that time.
  6. On 6 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to request a direct debit form in the landlord’s current name, asked if its offices were closed and also said there was substandard work at his building that was awaiting repair. The landlord emailed a direct debit form with its original name on, and confirmed the office was closed but did not ask about the resident’s concerns of substandard work. The resident asked for the direct debit form to be re–sent in the landlord’s current name. The landlord did so but reiterated that either name could be used for the direct debit and to return the completed form to its office to set up the direct debit. The resident said he would take the form to his bank as he did not want to send it to an office that was closed. He later confirmed that his bank had set up a standing order on 16 August 2021.
  7. On 3 November 2021 the resident had a meeting with the landlord, at its office. They discussed arrears on his account. The resident said that he had made the payment and the landlord agreed to try to track down the missing payment. It offered to set up a direct debit so that the resident did not need to go to this bank but he declined the offer. He also advised the landlord that he was not happy with the quality of a window replacement that had happened previously and the landlord arranged for this to be inspected and sent out the original section 20 consultation document that had been sent to residents when works that had included the windows, had been proposed.
  8. On 5 November 2021 the resident raised a complaint as he said the landlord had not sent any correspondence to say he was in arrears, that it gave him incorrect bank details, changed his service account reference number and that he felt the landlord was using Covid 19 an excuse not to address issues. He also asked for a copy of a statement he had signed in the past during a home visit regarding work on his windows and front door. On 10 November 2021 the resident confirmed to the landlord he had made payment for the arrears via his bank but questioned the accuracy of the bank information it had given him. The landlord apologised and said the bank information it had provided had included a typo.
  9. In its stage one complaint response on 17 November 2021, the landlord said it had advised the resident of the arrears on his account and arranged the meeting on 3 November 2021 to discuss it. It confirmed it had now found the missing payment, his account was up to date and it had sent him a statement to confirm this. It said it had supplied the correct bank details to enable him to set up a standing order, as he had declined their offer to set up a direct debit at the meeting in November 2021. It advised that the change of reference number was due to a new computer system but that the old number could still be used. It said it had raised a repair for his windows for 24 November 2021. It said although its public counters remained closed, it could still deal with enquiries and make appointments to attend the office.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 November 2021. However due to an internal error this was not actioned. Instead the escalation was raised in response to a letter the resident sent to the landlord’s CEO on 3 December 2021, which said he had received no response to two recorded letters he had sent to the landlord. That there had been problems setting up payments and that he had been given the wrong information by the landlord and payments had then gone missing. He said the work during his window installation had been shoddy and he was awaiting repair, and that he had asked for a copy of the statement he had originally signed during a home visit, but that the landlord did not know who had conducted the visit and he instead been sent a different document. He also felt that the landlord’s leaseholder team were ignoring his emails.
  11. In its stage two complaint response on 21 December 2021 the landlord apologised that his escalation request on 18 November 2021 had not been actioned and awarded £30 compensation for this service failure. It said that its stage one response had confirmed that the missing payment had been found and the account was up to date. It also confirmed it had completed the repairs to the resident’s window. It said although it did not have a copy of any documents that he had signed during a previous home visit in October 2020, an internal email confirmed that what had been addressed at the visit was that the resident had been refunded the cost of a security light repair as it had not proceeded, his storage door had been painted with brown barn paint rather than just the undercoat he thought had been used, and that its cyclic repairs had only included painting of metal fences not wooden ones. It confirmed that the resident had only been charged through the service charge for work that the landlord had completed. It also explained that emails addressed to its leasehold team had been responded to, but via employee’s individual email accounts rather than the leasehold team email address.
  12. The resident contacted this Service as he was not satisfied with how the landlord had dealt with his enquiries about service charges and the standard of the repairs it had completed. He also questioned the amount of service charges he had to pay into the sinking fund for his building.   

Assessment and findings

The resident’s enquiries about his service charge account.

  1. The resident’s complaint concerns the way the landlord responded to queries he raised about his service charge account. He has also mentioned to this Service that he was questioning the amount he has to pay into the sinking fund. It is important to be aware that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the increase of service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated. This is in line with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent.
  2. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) on how to proceed with a claim to the Tribunal.
  3. When the resident first raised concerns with the landlord in April 2021, about there being arrears on his service charge account, the landlord responded appropriately by discussing it via telephone and then by providing a written explanation of how the arrears had accrued, in its stage one complaint response, once the resident raised the issue as a complaint in May 2021. Although the resident has expressed frustration that he was not able to go into the landlord’s office to discuss this and other issues, until November 2021, this Service considers the landlord’s refusal to arrange a meeting at its office to be reasonable as it was acting on government guidelines during the Covid 19 pandemic, and arranged a meeting at its office as soon as it was able to. The resident was able to contact the landlord during this period and receive responses to his queries, although he could not attend a face to face meeting.
  4. Once the arrears had been paid in May 2021, it was reasonable that the landlord suggested that the resident set up a direct debit, as this would ensure that the monthly payments were taken automatically and no arrears would build up on the account. However, there appears to have been some confusion about whether the customer wanted to pay via direct debit (which is set up by the company or organisation that the customer is paying and does not require the customer to go to their bank) or via standing order (which the customer’s bank sets up to pay the company or organisation). Although it Is not clear why, the changes in the landlord’s name and reference numbers posed no problem when the landlord set up a direct debit but were creating problems when the resident tried to use the same details to set up a standing order with the bank, and the resident tried to explain this to the landlord on more than one occasion.
  5. The emails the landlord has provided to this Service show that it asked the customer to return the direct debit form to its office but also confirmed that its office was closed and did not correct the customer when he said he would go to his bank rather than return the form to an office that was closed. It is noted that the landlord acted appropriately by offering to set up a direct debit during the meeting at its office in November 2021, so that the customer did not have to go to the bank, and that the customer declined that offer. However, following that meeting the landlord provided bank details to the customer that contained a typo. As the landlord failed to clarify whether the resident could still return the direct debit form if its offices were closed, and failed to give the resident the correct bank details on at least one occasion, this Service believes that there were failures in communication by the landlord which contributed to the resident’s difficulty in setting up payments. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries about his service charges account. 
  6. It is noted that the landlord awarded £30 compensation for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s original escalation request which the Ombudsman considers to be appropriate. The landlord addressed the majority of the points the resident raised in its complaint responses. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have addressed the point he raised about it not responding to two r letters he had sent it about service charges.
  7. This Service believes that additional compensation of £70 should be awarded in recognition of the landlord’s communication failings and for its failure to address the resident’s point that his recorded letters had been ignored. This amount  is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards of £50 –£250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, which may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. This amount should be paid in addition to the £30 already offered by the landlord.

The resident’s reports about concerns about the quality of work the landlord had completed.

  1. When the resident informed the landlord in April 2021 that he wanted to come into the office to discuss the quality of refurbishment work it had completed at his property previously, as England was in a lockdown due to Covid 19 and the office was closed, it was reasonable that the officer he spoke to referred his enquiry to the relevant team and agreed to contact him with its response. However, there is no record of the landlord contacting the resident with a response or of the officer asking the relevant department for an update. When the resident emailed the landlord about a direct debit form on 8 August 2021 he also reported that there was substandard work at his building that was awaiting repair. However, the landlord failed to respond to that part of his email.
  2. During a meeting at its office in November 2021, when the resident explained that he was unhappy with the quality of the window replacement, the landlord responded appropriately by arranging for the windows to be inspected. It also sent the resident a copy of the section 20 consultation document that it had issued when the window replacement work and other work was being proposed. However, when he raised his formal complaint on 5 November 2021 the resident requested a copy of a document he had signed during a home visit, and it seems likely that there was some miscommunication and that this was the document he had originally wanted rather than the section 20 consultation document. Once he had specified in his complaint, which document he wanted, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this request in its stage one complaint response. The landlord failed to do so there and the resident had to make another request for the document which caused him inconvenience.
  3. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had acted appropriately by completing the window repairs though it would also have been helpful had it apologised that the initial work had needed subsequent repairs.  It also took appropriate steps to explain that, although it had not been able to find a copy of any document signed during the home visit the resident had referred to, it had found a record of what had been discussed at the visit. Although the landlord did eventually appropriately address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work it had completed, by confirming what had been recorded about the work following the home visit, and by carrying out repairs to the windows, the service failures previously mentioned led to a delay in this being addressed. Therefore, this Service considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to award compensation of £100 in recognition of its failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries about his service charge account.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of concerns with the quality of work it had completed.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £170 compensation. Comprised of:
    1. £70 in recognition of its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s queries about his service charge account.
    2. £100 in recognition of its service failure in in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of concerns with the quality of work it had completed.
  2. This compensation is in addition to the £30 offered by the landlord through its complaints process which should also be paid, unless it has been paid already.