Torus62 Limited (202105338)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105338

Torus62 Limited

04 January 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate.
2. Landlord’s handling of an infestation of rodents.
3. Level of support that the landlord provided to the resident in bidding for another property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate.

On 5 May 2021 the landlord sent a general letter to residents in the block about careful use of the side gate and locking it appropriately as it banged in the wind.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 3 June 2021, it confirmed the resident wanted improvements to be made to the communal gate to the rear garden to prevent it banging and disturbing residents. The landlord confirmed it was querying what work it could carry out to improve the rear communal garden and had raised a job on 12 May 2021 in relation to the gate and would be completed by 1 July 2021.
On 3 June 2021 the landlord fitted a rubber stop to and greased the gate. It later informed this Service, in October 2021, that the gate was not found to be faulty, but people were not using the gate in a considerate way, by closing it with excessive force or not closing and securing it. Therefore, to dampen the noise and thus reduce the disturbance to residents, arrangements were made to install a buffer.
The matter was not escalated further as a complaint; therefore the landlord did not address the gate in its final response, and no evidence has been provided of the resident raising matters further with the landlord regarding the gate.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.
Because the complaint about the gate does not appear to have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, this Service will be unable to investigate this aspect of the complaint. If the resident still has ongoing concerns regarding the communal gate, he should raise them with the landlord, and, if necessary, raise a new formal complaint, to enable it to fully address the issue.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the landlord’s tenant and lives in a flat (the property) which is part of a block of flats. He was previously in supported housing, however, he became a general needs tenant in 2018. The resident is registered on a rehousing portal.
The resident has advised this Service that he has been having repair issues and problems with mice in his property since he moved in eight years ago. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to September 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in May 2021.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord internally advised that two residents in the block had reported mice in their homes. The resident also reported mice in his property to the landlord on 28 September 2020.
The landlord unsuccessfully attempted to call the resident on 6 October 2020.
On 7 December 2020 the landlord raised a job for pest control to attend the resident’s home.
Between 8 and 9 December 2020:
1. The resident pursued an update from the landlord.
2. The pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 December 2020 and placed bait for mice. It reported to the landlord that it found a lot of mice droppings on top of the kitchen worktop and tried to get the kickboards down to check for access points but was unable to do so. The pest control contractor commented that there were also external air bricks where the mice could be getting in.
3. The landlord raised a repair to take out the kick boards on 24 December 2020.
4. The landlord updated the resident on the works required and advised that other residents in the block had recently reported similar issues. It confirmed that pest control had attended and follow-on repairs to seal access points in the other residents’ flats had ensued and no further reports were made.
In correspondence to the resident, dated 14 December 2020, the landlord reiterated the works raised and explained that on previous inspections the pest control operative found no rodent activity in the basement, but it asked them to survey the area and reassess the matter. The landlord also confirmed that the contractor advised that it may need to block up some airbricks and it was awaiting a formal report before it could approve this work.
In relation to moving property (it is not clear when the resident first raised this matter) the landlord confirmed it asked for an update on the resident’s rehousing status and would contact him once it had this. The landlord acknowledged that the pest control situation was distressing but said because it was dealing with the matter and it was a common circumstance of multi-occupancy living, it would not influence or heighten the resident’s status for a move to alternative suitable accommodation.
On 16 December 2020 pest control attended the resident’s property and reported “no takes on bait – tenant reporting activity”.
The landlord wrote further to the resident on 16 December 2020 and said it tried on several occasions to contact him without success. It explained that it was seeking an update from pest control. The landlord confirmed that the resident was registered on a choice-based lettings system and able to bid for properties. It said that, while it could not offer its usual facility of using terminals in its local offices due to the coronavirus, the resident could contact local libraries or internet cafes to see if they could facilitate his use of their computers. The landlord confirmed the resident could access the lettings system via phone. It noted that the resident’s banding appeared to be incorrect and said the resident’s family member lived with him, and he may need to amend this. The landlord explained how the resident may see if the banding could be influenced on medical grounds, considering that he reported that the pest issue had an impact on his health and wellbeing. It also offered to refer the resident to a support agency.
On 21 December 2020:
1. The landlord’s contractor updated it that the resident said he still had mice, although no bait was taken. It confirmed that it would attend on 23 December 2020 to check the basement and could install mouse-mesh over the air bricks after the new year, however, it did not think that this was where the mice were coming from.
2. The landlord updated the resident on the information provided by pest control and advised that it planned to take appropriate action on the air bricks, and it awaited the outcome of any findings after the kick boards were removed.
Pest control attended the property on 22 December 2020 and reported “no takes on bait – tenant reporting activity”. The pest control contractor confirmed on 23 December 2020 that it inspected all basement areas and found them to be clear. The landlord’s contractor reported no access for the appointment to remove the kickboards on 24 December 2020.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord noted that it had tried to call the resident three times but was unable to get through. On the same day the pest control contractor informed the landlord that on 7 January 2021 it fitted three vent covers and checked the basement earlier that day and all was okay. It had not re-attended the resident’s property because it needed the kickboards removed to see what holes/gaps existed behind.
The landlord raised a repair on 15 January 2021 for the same day to take out the kick boards; however, the resident cancelled the repair because he wanted them to be taken out at the same time that pest control attended.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord raised a repair to take out the kick boards on 19 February 2021 but was unable to gain access. It rescheduled the repair, on 1 March 2021, to take out the kick boards on 8 March 2021 but was unable to gain access. After another rescheduling, on 15 March 2021, the contractor attended on 29 March 2021 but noted that the resident wanted the landlord to delay removing the kickboards based on when pest control would attend. Pest control attended the property on 6 April 2021 and noted “no access agree to attend with joiner who did not attend”.
Pest control attended the property on 14 April 2021 with the landlord’s contractor, who removed the kickboards in the resident’s kitchen. They noted that “considerable evidence of mice activity has been found although it did appear old”. It confirmed the contractor would return on 20 April 2020 to remove kitchen units to fill all possible rodent access points and complete a thorough clean, before reinstalling the kitchen.
The landlord internally advised on 16 April 2021 that due to the work required, it would temporarily move the resident to another property (the decant property) in the same block. To arrange the resident’s move, it rearranged the works to the property’s kitchen for 29 April 2021.
Pest control informed the landlord on 22 April 2021 that the resident reported that he had found evidence of mice activity in the decant property. The pest control contractor informed the landlord on 27 April 2021 that the droppings and pest control bait box the resident found in the decant property were old; however, repairs were required to the decant property.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord internally advised that it informed the resident that it could not proceed with works to his home until the decant property was ready to let, considering recent findings. It noted that, going forward, it would retrieve the keys to the decant property off the resident; complete survey works to the decant property to enable the resident to be decanted; and complete works to the resident’s property while he was decanted. The landlord confirmed it would issue the works to the decant property later that day.
The landlord internally advised on 6 May 2021 that the resident requested help returning his belongings to his property and would then return keys to the decant property. It later internally confirmed that the resident had refused to accept the temporary decant due to mice issues and it was due to authorise works recommended by pest control to the decant property, but they were awaiting keys from the resident. Work to the resident’s property were on hold.
On 11 May 2021 the landlord internally advised, following a conversation with the resident, that he wanted an investigation into why he was still at the property and why the mice problem had not been resolved. He wanted to be rehomed to a two-bedroom flat via direct match. The landlord noted that the resident did not want the disruption of the landlord working around him living in his property and wanted the landlord to eradicate the wider communal infestation issue before it worked on his home. It said the resident changed his mind several times about allowing access to start on the kitchen and it advised him that it would try to get a scheduler to tell him who would be coming and when and what they planned to do. The landlord also confirmed that it advised the resident that it would pass on his request to commission a full site appraisal to deal with the alleged wider mice infestation issue and let him know what ensued. The landlord confirmed it would raise a complaint on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord extended the timeline for the complaint response from 20 May 2021 until 26 June 2021, and then again until 2 June 2021. It confirmed it updated the resident, who was happy with this.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord asked pest control to access all flats to inspect, bait and offer proofing recommendations. It sent a letter to all tenants regarding access on 4 June 2021, except to the residents who already had works completed, where no access was given, and the resident who wanted no intervention.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 3 June 2021. It confirmed the resident had complained that he wanted to be moved, wanted to know why the mice problem was not resolved, and wanted the landlord to deal with the wider communal mice infestation issue before it carried out any work to his home.
The landlord confirmed that the resident was registered on a choice-based lettings scheme for rehousing and was historically made offers but he either rejected or did not respond to them. It said applicants were required to actively bid on properties that they wished to express an interest in. The landlord confirmed that the resident last bid on a property in May 2019 and said this was due to him previously accessing its offices for support to place bids, but coronavirus restrictions prevented this as the offices had been closed to the public. However, the landlord noted that its offices only closed in March 2020. It explained that the areas the resident selected as his preferred areas were low turnover and high demand areas, and it encouraged the resident to consider widening his areas of choices which may assist in him securing an offer of accommodation sooner.
The landlord confirmed it provided the resident a device and offered digital training to assist him with bidding. It confirmed he had been offered a direct match property, but he declined this because it was not in the area he wanted to live, and his preference was for a two-bedroom flat, as he wished move to a property with a family member. The landlord explained that offers made via direct match were like-for-like so the resident would only be offered a one-bedroom flat via this route. It said that if the resident preferred a two-bedroom property, he needed to actively bid on the choice-based lettings system. If the resident did feel able to do this independently, its offices would be reopening in line with government’s guidelines, and he would be able to request assistance if required.
The landlord confirmed what actions it took in relation to the pest problem to date. It confirmed it agreed to address the issues in the decant property and replace the resident’s furniture once his property had repairs and a clean via pest control. However, due to the issues with the decant property, the resident chose to return home and to not temporarily move. The resident since advised that he did not wish to move temporarily whilst the issues were addressed, or have the work carried out while he was in the property, and his preference was to be permanently rehoused elsewhere due to the impact the matter had on him. The landlord confirmed it was looking into rehousing the resident but, to his areas of choice, this may take some time. It also said that, because the resident wanted a two-bedroom property, instead of one bedroom, he needed to actively bid on properties and provide up to date documents for his brother.
The landlord confirmed that it attended the decant property when it was empty and there were no signs of rodent infestation reported. Pest control attended and believed the droppings found behind pipe ducting was historical. The landlord confirmed it did carry out relevant checks for points of entry for pests; however, they were not always obvious without taking out kitchens or baths.
The landlord apologised for the distress caused to the resident by the pest issues, delays, and lack of communication. It said that once it had established what work was required, it would confirm whether the resident was eligible for compensation. The landlord said it was attempting to provide a longer-term solution for the issues within the whole block and was inspecting each flat and pest control would survey the building. It confirmed it would address any work identified as its responsibility.
The landlord wrote to all residents on 3 June 2021 to advise that its pest control contractor would visit each flat to see what interventions were required to eradicate the mice problem. It confirmed it would arrange times and dates with each tenant and its contractor would also be investigating the communal grounds to try to identify the source of the problem.
Between 3 and 4 June 2021 the landlord internally advised that pest control attempted to attend the resident’s property but were unable to gain access, as he said he did not want any work done and wished to be moved permanently.
The landlord internally advised, on 8 June 2021, that the resident called and asked to escalate his complaint. It noted that the resident wanted to be moved and it arranged for him to have a tablet and digital support, but he did not bid on properties and did not wish to widen his choice of properties. The landlord noted that the resident was not happy that he was living in a mice infested flat/block, however he declined any work being carried out to his flat.
On 9 June 2021 the resident asked the landlord to attend to put down bait again but refused works to be carried out to his property. The landlord completed a door knock to all flats on 11 June 2021 and wrote to the resident to advise it was attempting to gain access to all the flats in the block and asked if the resident could allow access on 17 June 2021.
Pest control noted on 17 June 2021 that it attended the resident’s property and the resident “would only allow bait in living room but now claims bait doesn’t work”.
Pest control attempted to visit all the blocks in the flat on 24 June 2021. It noted that most flats did not report mice activity, but it left bait as a precaution. Pest control confirmed some flats did have mice activity and it identified holes in some flats and a flat which it felt could be the source of the issues within the block. It noted that repairs were still required to the resident’s property, and it appeared to be all clear, but he refused any further pest control treatments as he did not believe that bait worked.
In its final complaint response, dated 8 July 2021, the landlord reiterated much of its findings from its stage one response. It reiterated that the resident was on a list for a direct match for a one- bedroom flat; however, the areas of the resident’s choice were in high demand locations with very low turnover of tenancies. Therefore, it encouraged the resident to broaden his areas of choice. The landlord confirmed that a surveyor attended the building with pest control that day but could not access all the flats during their visit. It was awaiting the outcome of the visit and would share any actions identified with the resident. Once it confirmed what work was required, it would confirm whether the resident was eligible for any compensation. The landlord assured that it would continue to investigate the cause of the mice gaining access into the flats.
According to the landlord’s records, on 15 July 2021 the resident reported that mice were coming out of his radiator, ate all the bait left, and were leaving droppings all over his clothes. The landlord was subsequently informed by pest control that it attended an appointment arranged with the resident for 8 July 2021 but were unable to gain access.
On 30 September 2021 the landlord carried out a visit to all the flats in the building but was unable to gain access to the resident’s.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

In line with the landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy, repairs are prioritised as either emergency, by arrangement or programmed repair. Emergency repairs are those that affect the safety or basic security of the property or potentially affecting the health of the household or visitors. The landlord will make safe any emergency repairs within four hours and will aim to complete follow-on works within 24 hours. By arrangement repairs are those that can wait without causing major inconvenience to the resident. These works can be carried out at a scheduled appointment to suit the resident’s availability and normally require the organisation of materials to facilitate the repair. The landlord will aim to complete these repairs within 20 calendar days. Programmed repairs are non-urgent but can also be complex in nature and may require a higher degree of customer consultation or planning. The landlord will aim to complete all works classed and processed as programmed repairs within 60 days of reporting. Alternatively, these works may be added to planned or cyclical improvement programmes.
The responsive repairs and maintenance policy says there may be works where certain parts or specialist engineers/services are required and these repairs may take longer than usual as a result. Residents will be kept informed of any potential delays with a repair and, where appropriate, temporary measures will be put in place to mitigate the situation.
In line with the responsive repairs policy, the landlord will expect all residents to abide by the terms of their tenancy agreement regarding repairs and maintenance by allowing its contractors, staff members or appointed specialists to inspect, repair and improve the property or any surrounding property.
The landlord is responsible for all communal areas. Communal areas will be monitored by housing officers and via estate inspections and repairs to communal services can be reported in the normal way.
Finally, in line with the responsive repairs policy, from time-to-time residents may have to move out of their home on either a temporary or permanent basis to enable work to be undertaken. The landlord will arrange the relocation and keep residents informed on the progress of the works. If a property is considered ‘unsustainable’ the landlord will work with residents to arrange permanent relocation from the property to a new home.
The landlord’s tenancy policy advises that its tenants can apply for another property by:
1. Joining the local authority’ waiting list. This is a direct lettings system which means that properties are not advertised, applicants are directly matched to properties based on the criteria within the local authority’s allocations policy.
2. Applying through one of the local authority’s allocations schemes and advertised on the choice-based lettings system together with properties from other registered housing providers.
3. By submitting an expression of interest and application form via its ‘virtual property shop’.
If the landlord’s tenant does not meet the criteria to allow an internal transfer to proceed, they may still be able to join the local authority’s schemes to apply or bid for other registered providers’ properties subject to meeting the criteria the individual scheme.
The landlord’s website says that residents are welcome to visit its reception areas to access the PCs to submit the online applications. It says that if residents require IT support, they can find out more about the free IT sessions delivered by the landlord’s charitable arm.

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of an infestation of rodents.

In line with Shelter’s guidance and good practice, landlords are responsible for dealing with pest problems if it needs to complete repairs to stop pests getting in (such as things like holes in external walls, broken vents or air bricks, damaged doors or windows and other cracks and gaps that pests can get in through in) or an infestation makes their resident’s home unsafe to live in. If landlords own the whole building, they are responsible for any pest problems in communal areas.
Because the pest problem affected multiple flats, it was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of pests in his home, complete any repairs, and complete any treatments recommended by pest control to resolve the issues in the building and resident’s flat.
When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s pest control contractor recommended several repairs which the landlord sought to carry out to the block and resident’s flat. Although there is no evidence to suggest the resident’s flat was deemed inhabitable and the resident required moving, the landlord used its initiative to decide to move the resident while it completed repairs to the resident’s flat. While the decant flat also reportedly needed repairs, the resident declined the landlord’s offer to be temporarily decanted once it completed the works in the decant property, or to complete works in his property around him.
Ultimately, the landlord has relied on the recommendation of its qualified staff and contractors, which was reasonable in the circumstances, and took steps to address the repairs required. While the mice problem has understandably caused the resident distress, because the resident declined works to be completed in his home or to be decanted, there are limited actions that the landlord could take in his property. Nonetheless, it completed the repairs recommended for the communal spaces, including installing mice mesh to vents, and continues to investigate the other properties, which for the above reasons was reasonable.

The complaint about the level of support that the landlord provided to the resident in bidding for another property.

The landlord has acknowledged that the resident has declined direct offers to move properties historically due to their location and him wanting an extra bedroom to enable him to live with a family member. The landlord encouraged the resident to bid on properties advertised online through a choice-based lettings system because the resident is likely to only be offered a like-for-like property via direct match and due to there being a limited number of properties available in the resident’s chosen area.
To resolve his complaint, the resident would like to move property. As previously explained to the resident, this Service cannot order the landlord to offer him a property without needing to bid on it. However, we can look at whether the landlord could be doing anything to help the resident with bidding.
Taking into consideration the relevant local authority’s letting scheme, the landlord has provided the resident appropriate advice in relation to: the necessity of bidding on properties; how to resident may see if his banding could be influenced on medical grounds; how the resident widening his area of choice could assist him in securing an offer of accommodation sooner; and that the resident contact local libraries or internet cafés, to see if he could use their computers to bid, while the landlord’s offices were closed to the public due to the coronavirus pandemic.
In an attempt to support the resident in bidding for properties, the landlord has also provided the resident with support such as: the provision of a device to access the internet; the offer of digital training, in line with the information on its website; and the offer of referring the resident to an agency for further support.
Overall, the evidence available demonstrates that the landlord has offered the resident the appropriate advice on how he may bid on properties and has provided means of support to assist the resident with bidding. Given the specific circumstances of the complaint, including that the landlord was unable to open its offices to the public due to the coronavirus pandemic, the advice and support offered by the landlord was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the communal gate is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider as stated in paragraphs 2 to 8 of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of an infestation of rodents.
2. Level of support that the landlord provided to the resident in bidding for another property.

Reasons

The landlord has handled the reports of an infestation of rodents in both the resident’s flat and the building in line with its policies and good practice. It has sought to complete repairs and work with pest control in line with its obligations. The landlord has also provided the resident with appropriate advice and a reasonable level of support in line with its allocations policy to assist him with bidding for another property.