Torus62 Limited (202308724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308724

Torus62 Limited

4 June 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a sewage leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.
3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette which the resident lived in with her daughter since 2016. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mobility issues. At times both the resident and her daughter have corresponded with the landlord and the Ombudsman. For the purpose of this report, both will be referred to as “the resident”.
On the morning of 20 April 2023 the resident reported a sewage leak . The landlord raised an emergency repair and sent several operatives to attend to investigate. Although the repairs were completed later that evening, the resident had to be decanted to a hotel due to contamination affecting her kitchen. The resident spent 12 nights in 4 different hotels over the coming days, before later being placed in serviced accommodation. A surveyor attended the property to produce a schedule of works on 27 April 2023.
In between the surveyor’s visit and the commencement of the works, further drainage problems arose which resulted in the kitchen ceiling collapsing. On 15 May 2023 the resident made a complaint. She said she was unhappy being moved between hotels and said she felt the landlord had treated her with “no respect”. She asked that the landlord apologise and communicate a clear plan of action. She said wanted compensation for damage to her belongings and for the emotional impact the situation had caused her.
The resident was decanted out of the serviced apartment into another property belonging to the landlord on 29 June 2023. The following day, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response. It said that it would collate a timeline of events, meanwhile the complaint was “concluded”. On 17 July 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a further stage 1 response. It apologised for her experience and said it would provide her with compensation, but in order to do so it would need to engage a loss adjuster. It explained that once it knew the outcome of their assessment, further repairs could commence and she would be provided with a plan of action. The resident was unhappy with the response and asked for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord provided a final response. It apologised for the distress that had been caused to her, but said it could not provide a clearer timeframe for the completion of the repairs until the loss adjuster had made an assessment. It asked her not to throw any items away until the property had been inspected and all items had been accounted for. It said it would keep her updated of the progress of her claim.
After the conclusion of the complaint, in December 2023 the resident was offered a permanent move and £5,000 as an “initial offer” of compensation from the landlord whilst it awaited the outcome from its insurers and a work specification. It noted that this was for “inconvenience and losses”. The landlord explained to the resident that until the loss adjuster had concluded their investigations, it had no definitive date available for the completion of the works. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident advised she was offered a further £10,000 by the landlord but with no accompanying breakdown or details of the offer. The landlord has been unable to clarify this, but has said it “reasonably assumes” it has not been awarded as part of its complaint process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a sewage leak.

When the resident first reported the sewage leak on 20 April 2023, the landlord attended the property the same day, which was appropriate and in accordance with its repairs policy. The leak was resolved and the resident was decanted the same day, which allowed the landlord to commence intrusive works without the resident in situ. However a surveyor visit did not follow for a further week. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feelings of uncertainty about when she could return to the property.
Following the surveyor visit on 27 April 2023, the landlord communicated an initial schedule of works to the resident within a reasonable timeframe. However on 6 May 2023, the day after it had spoken to the resident, a further drainage leak occurred from the property above. This resulted in the resident’s ceiling falling down, causing considerable internal damage and further contamination of the property. Records show that the landlord instructed a drainage contractor who isolated the leak in a timely manner.
A further surveyor visit took place on 11 May 2023 and established that more extensive works were required, which included replacing the kitchen worktops and reboarding the ceiling. A CCTV survey of the internal soil pipe was arranged and further environmental cleans were raised. Internal correspondence shows there was regular communication between its assets, hub and repairs team, which was appropriate, but it is unclear what progress was shared with the resident or the housing officer.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that the housing officer was in regular contact with the resident to conduct a number of “welfare calls”. However, there is no evidence that an updated plan of action with regards to the repairs was communicated as part of these calls. Discussions focussed on the requirement to extend her decant stay rather than to communicate exactly what works were due to take place. As a result, in making her complaint on 15 May 2023 she reported feeling distressed that she had “no idea” what the coming weeks held.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have involved the housing officer in its communication about the repairs so the resident could be updated of the plan of action at the earliest opportunity. It was not until after she made her complaint, that she was given another point of contact and on 1 June 2023 she was provided with an update of the progress of the works. The delay in explaining what works were taking place when caused the resident evident worry and frustration.
There is no evidence that the landlord obtained a report from its drainage specialists to establish the root cause of the leak following the two incidents which happened in relatively quick succession on 20 April and 6 May 2023. As result, a further blocked drain was reported on 25 May 2023. Records show that despite requesting a CCTV survey on 11 May 2023, one was not completed until 8 June 2023. Landlord’s should have appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that outcomes of surveys are acknowledged and recorded on its systems. In this case, the outcome of the CCTV survey was unclear. Furthermore the delay in completing it was unreasonable and impacted the landlord’s progression of the repairs in a timely manner.
Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This includes threats of infection associated with sanitation and drainage. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. In this case, the landlord was delayed in arranging for environmental cleans on several occasions. For example, a full environmental clean was not arranged until 25 April 2023, 5 days after the initial leak. Further cleans were delayed and not completed until 23 June 2023. The delay was inappropriate and placed those accessing the property at potential risk.
Records show that there was confusion as to who could access the property for crucial repair appointments, which included the surveyor visit on 5 June 2023. Contrary to the landlord’s policy, it had failed to arrange for a key safe to be fitted at the point the resident was decanted. As a result, spare keys were left with a neighbour which was inappropriate and hindered the landlord’s ability to allow contractors into the property in a timely manner, causing additional delays.
When the resident made her complaint, she said wanted compensation for damaged belongings, which she estimated to the in the region of £20,000. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman does not review claims for compensation in the way that an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items covered by insurance. Our role is to look at whether the landlord signposted the resident and took steps to liaise with its insurers as appropriate. The Ombudsman has issued “Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues”. This explains that an insurance claim should not restrict a resident’s ability to access the landlord’s formal complaint procedure, and a landlord should still consider whether there has been any service failure or compensation due in accordance with its procedure.
In this case, the landlord failed to set out clearly what aspect of her complaint it was considering as a complaint, and what elements would be progressed through its insurers. As a result, its complaint responses largely focussed on what the resident might be entitled to following an assessment from the loss adjuster, rather than investigating how it had handled the repair. This was inappropriate, as it missed an opportunity to effectively investigate her concerns. The landlord was unable to demonstrate how it had identified what had gone wrong in the handling of the repair, or what it had learnt to ensure that the situation did not happen again.
By referring the matter solely to its insurers to resolve, the landlord failed to put matters right for the resident. There is no evidence that it apologised for any specific failures and did not consider its compensation policy, making no offer to reflect the avoidable inconvenience and distress the resident had experienced. To date, the final outcome from the loss adjuster’s assessment remains inconclusive and repairs are outstanding, which have ultimately prevented the resident’s return to the property.
This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident significant distress as she has been unable to return to her property. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact on the health of her and her daughter. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident and her daughter’s wellbeing were affected throughout the handling of this case. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
Since the conclusion of the complaint, it is noted that the landlord offered the resident £5,000 in December 2023 as an “interim” payment for inconvenience whilst is awaits the outcome of the loss adjusters. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has made an attempt to put matters right for the resident, this action cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because it took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the £5,000 it offered for the inconvenience the resident experienced was reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a sewage leak. Although the landlord was quick to attend the property after the initial report, there were considerable delays in completing environmental cleans and communicating a schedule of works to the resident. To date, the landlord has failed to confirm the outcome of the loss adjuster assessment. In doing so, it has failed to arrange completion of all outstanding repairs at the property, and it remains unhabitable a year after the initial leak which is inappropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant.

The landlord’s decant policy explains that decants will be considered in “extreme and exceptional” circumstances only. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to make arrangements to decant the resident due to the risk of contamination within the property. It is important that the landlord takes steps to communicate clearly to the resident the reason for the decant and the implications of the process to be followed. The landlord’s policy explains that once this has been agreed with the resident, the decision will be confirmed in writing through a “confirmation of temporary decant status” letter. No record was seen that this letter was sent to the resident, which was a missed opportunity to manage her expectations.
In the event of an emergency where there are health and safety risks, as was the case in this scenario, the landlord’s decant policy explains that the locks will be changed. As explained in the assessment of the repairs, a key safe was not ordered until around June 2023, 2 months after the first sewage leak. Although records show the resident was warned against entering the property, the landlord did not take robust steps to ensure it prevented any unauthorised access whilst repairs were in progress.
It is accepted that the landlord’s stock was limited and finding a void property suitable to the resident’s needs at short notice was difficult. Given the urgency, it was appropriate for it to have placed the resident in temporary hotel accommodation. Records show that around the time of the sewage leak, there were 2 significant international events taking place in the local area and the landlord found it difficult to source the same hotel for consecutive nights whilst it established the extent of the works required to her property. This resulted in evident inconvenience and distress for the resident, who frequently had to check out of a hotel and wait until she was able to check into the next one.
It was important that during her decant, the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident. In her email dated 11 May 2023, she said she had received “no contact” from the landlord. Evidence shows that this was not the case as the landlord’s housing officer regularly conducted “welfare checks”. However, there were missed opportunities to better manage her expectations specifically with regards to when she would have to move between hotels and when a more suitable longer term property was likely to become available. For example, there was a miscommunication between the hotel, landlord and the resident on 10 May 2023 when she was told to check out, only to be told she could check back in to the same hotel for a further 4 nights. The uncertainty and upheaval caused the resident understandable worry and distress.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her request for reimbursement from the landlord for payment towards travel and expenses. The landlord’s decant policy allows for discretionary payments on a case by case basis, and can include payment for “reasonable expenses that are a natural and direct consequence of the displacement”. In this case, there is limited evidence that the landlord reviewed the resident’s subsistence payments. On 22 May 2023 the resident made reference to being offered “£300 as a maximum” and informed the landlord it was not enough to cover food and travel expenses for her and her daughter. There is no evidence that it responded to these specific concerns, or that it provided her with a breakdown of expenses it would cover which was unreasonable.
When the resident later queried whether she was entitled to qualify for a home loss payment, the landlord informed her she did not because the decision to rehouse her was only temporary, and once the repairs were completed she could move back in. Whilst this is correct, there were significant delays which prevented the resident returning to the property, and therefore the landlord should have considered at an earlier stage whether a further discretionary payment was due to recognise the distress and inconvenience that had been caused.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord said it has offered the resident a permanent move to the decant property, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has said it has “clearly outlined” this offer to the resident, however she disputes this. Whilst it is recognised that the resident is now happy with the prospect of making the temporary decant her permanent home, this cannot be considered reasonable redress where her original property remains uninhabitable. The Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which takes into consideration the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident during the time of her decant, in line with our remedies guidance. An order has also been made to clarify its offer of a permanent move to the resident in writing.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant. Whilst the housing officer was in regular contact with the resident from a welfare perspective, there was a lack of coordinated approach between its assets and neighbourhood teams in communicating the next steps. This resulted in disruption and inconvenience which caused the resident considerable upset. Its offer of a permanent move did not go far enough to address the resident’s query about reimbursement of costs incurred whilst decanted and did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

The resident first made her complaint on 15 May 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, a stage 1 response should follow within 10 working days. In this case, when the landlord responded on 30 June 2023 it failed to provide key detail or the outcome of any investigation. Despite saying it needed to collate a timeline of events to respond further to her, it went on say it that her complaint had been concluded. This statement was confusing and did not provide any resolution for the resident.
A further stage 1 response followed on 17 July 2023. The response was heavily focussed on the resident’s dissatisfaction with the progress of her insurance claim and request for compensation for damaged belongings. Contrary to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues, the landlord failed to set out what aspect of her complaint would be dealt with by its insurers and what it would investigate in respect of any service failures. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of understanding and thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint, and resulted in her request for an escalation.
The landlord’s final response was an opportunity to adopt the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced inconvenience and distress with regards to the repair which was reasonable. However it failed to recognise that there had been a service failure in its complaint handling. It made no apology for its delay in responding to her at stage 1 and did not acknowledge it had failed to respond fully to her complaint.
Despite listing all the elements the resident was dissatisfied within its final response, the landlord still did not respond to each part of her complaint. This demonstrated poor complaint handling and repeated mistakes where it did not address all of her concerns. With key aspects of her complaint unanswered, it failed to put matters right for the resident and took no learning to ensure it made the same mistakes in the future.
In responding to a resident’s complaint it is important that any remedy offered by a landlord clearly sets out what will happen by when, and followed through to conclusion. In this case, the landlord provided no reassurance of when she could expect a further update with regards to the outcome of the loss adjuster assessment or the completion of the repairs. As a result, the landlord was unable to fully conclude the resident’s complaint, causing her frustration.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. There were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and its response on 30 June 2023 was confusing. In providing the resident with a final response, it focussed solely on when the resident could expect an offer of compensation through its insurers, and offered no resolution to any other aspect of her complaint. In doing so it failed to put matters right and learn from the outcome of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a sewage leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £5,700 in compensation, within 4 weeks. The amount is comprised of:
1. £5,000 the landlord offered the resident on 22 December 2023, if not already paid.
2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing her complaint.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with confirmation of its intended plan of action to resolve the outstanding repairs in the property.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of the loss adjusters and a final breakdown of the level of compensation that has been offered.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review the resident’s request for subsistence payments during the time she was decanted, as referenced in paragraph 26 of this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to confirm the permanent move in writing to the resident, making arrangements to amend her tenancy agreement as appropriate.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review must include, but is not limited to:
1. a review of its process for instructing specialist surveys. To include confirmation of how the outcomes of any surveys will be stored and shared with due regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
2. a review of its management oversight of long-term decants, with confirmation of how it will ensure subsistence payments are agreed with the resident and paid in a timely manner.
3. confirmation of its process for monitoring cases which have been referred to its insurers, with due regard to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues. In doing so, it should provide an explanation of how it has trained it staff to respond to complaints involving insurance claims.
1. a review of its staff training on the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.