Torus62 Limited (202320063)

Decision
Case ID	202320063
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a mid-terraced house and the resident has lived there since 1998. The landlord has not advised us about any vulnerabilities it has recorded for the resident’s household. The resident complained about various outstanding repairs and said that the landlord had not dealt with the repairs, despite carrying out various surveys, including one in June 2022. The resident asked us to investigate because she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
3. We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not communicate the purpose of an inspection in June 2022 or its outcome and did not follow-up the repairs that were identified during the inspection. However, the landlord apologised for the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of various repairs, arranged a further inspection and agreed to rehouse the resident temporarily to allow the repairs to proceed. It also offered the resident reasonable compensation to put things right.
7. The landlord could not locate an online complaint form submitted by the resident in April 2023 and did not use the complaints process to apologise for this and put things right.

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 due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £750 offered in its stage 2 reply for its response to the resident’s reports of various repairs if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about the arrangements for temporarily rehousing her so the outstanding works can be carried out.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 March 2022	The resident phoned the landlord to report various repairs, including defective window handles, electrical sockets exposed in the kitchen and damp downstairs. She also asked the landlord to fit a wash hand basin in the downstairs toilet.
14 April 2022	The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and raised various repair orders.
19 and 28 April 2022	The landlord’s records state that it attended appointments to carry out repairs but was unable to obtain access.
28 June 2022	An independent structural engineer carried out a survey and identified various works, including repairs to the underside of the roof, replacing internal door lintels, adding new solid floors downstairs, renewing the cavity wall ties and repointing the chimney stack.
3 October 2023	The resident raised a complaint because: She said the landlord had advised her that she would be getting new flooring and she had therefore stripped the wallpaper in one of the rooms and had not redecorated in anticipation of getting the new flooring. She said there were issues with the ceiling in the loft, the chimney breast was unstable and there was movement in relation to the stairs. She said the only works that had so far been booked was to make safe the plastering.
19 October 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 response in which it said the following: The resident had reported making a complaint on 29 April 2023, however, the landlord had not been able to locate the complaint and the landlord said it deleted certain records after 3 months. The landlord wanted to arrange a surveyor’s inspection to identify the outstanding works and said the resident had agreed to provide the surveyor with a suitable time/date when he could inspect.
13 November 2023	The resident advised the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response as the repairs were still outstanding.
22 December 2023	The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said: The surveyor had attended on 2 December 2023 and afterwards confirmed that all of the outstanding issues were contained in the report from June 2022. The landlord’s planning team had confirmed that substantial repairs were needed and the family would need to be temporarily decanted to allow the works to proceed. The landlord’s neighbourhood team would contact the resident to progress the decant, however, this would be subject to the availability of properties. The landlord upheld the complaint as it said there had been no follow-up to the survey done in June 2022. It apologised and offered compensation of £750.
29 April 2024	The resident contacted us and asked us to investigate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response, including its offer of £750.
30 January 2025	The landlord wrote to us to say that the independent survey in June 2022 had been carried out as part of a decarbonisation retrofit project. The purpose of the survey had been to check the suitability of the property for retrofit decarbonisation works such as fitting solar panels, external wall insulation and new insulated flooring. However, the landlord had subsequently decided not to proceed with the works as part of its investment programme as the costs were higher than anticipated.   It said that the remedial works it would be carrying out to the property were not urgent and therefore would be scheduled as part of its planned programme, rather than being raised as responsive repairs.   The landlord also said it contacted the resident on 7 January 2025 and she said she did not want the works to be carried out until we had concluded our investigation.
17 November 2025	The resident wrote to us and said the following: In December 2024 one of the fence panels had blown down and despite various visits by operatives, the work had not been completed satisfactorily. She was concerned about her autistic grandchildren leaving the garden due to the defective fence. The condition of the property has caused her mental and physical conditions to worsen, resulting in her having to take time off work. She asked the landlord to move the downstairs toilet to under the stairs so that the kitchen could be made larger to help with her disability but she said the landlord has not discussed this. Other properties in the area had received external rendering but she understood that her property was not included in the programme. She wanted to receive certain assurances regarding the property she would be decanted to. The landlord did not respond to an online complaint she had made in 2022.

 

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.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of various repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says:
   1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
   2. Routine repairs are those that can wait without causing major inconvenience to the resident. The landlord will schedule an appointment to suit the resident’s needs and will aim to complete the repair within 20 calendar days.
   3. 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.
9. The resident wrote to us on 29 April 2024 and said she had experienced various repair issues dating back to 2006. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2022 onwards up to the date of its final complaint response.
10. The resident told us on 17 November 2025 that the condition of the property had resulted in her mental and physical conditions worsening and this had led to her having to take time off work. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
11. The resident phoned the landlord on 22 March 2022 to report various repairs, including the window handles not opening, exposed wires on 2 of the kitchen electrical sockets and damp downstairs. The landlord raised orders on the same day to repair the kitchen sockets and the window handles. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it repaired the electrical sockets on 31 March 2022, which was 7 working days after the resident reported them. As the landlord categorised the job as a routine repair, it completed the work within an appropriate timescale. The landlord carried out the repairs to the window handles on 7 April 2022, which was 12 working days after the resident had reported the defect. Again, as the landlord had categorised the repair as a routine job, it had carried out the work within an appropriate timescale.
12. The landlord also raised an order on 22 March 2022 to carry out a damp and condensation survey. The surveyor attended on 14 April 2022 and therefore attended within a reasonable timeframe. Following the inspection, the surveyor raised orders on the same day to reglaze an internal door, remove the ground floor toilet pan, replaster the bedroom and refix the flashing near the chimney breast. The landlord had therefore carried out the survey 17 working days after the resident had phoned, which was reasonable and had promptly raised orders after the survey which was also reasonable.
13. The landlord’s records show that it attended the property on 19 April 2022 to carry out repairs but there was no access. The job notes stated that the operative had knocked at 1pm and then phoned at 1.15pm but there was no answer. The landlord then contacted the resident on 20 April 2022 to reschedule the appointment to 28 April 2022. It attended at 9.35am on this date but again there was no answer according to the job notes. Its records state that it left a ‘no access’ card. The resident later disputed that she had been aware of the appointments. However, based on the evidence seen, including the landlord’s job notes made at the time, we consider it fair and reasonable to conclude that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to attend in order to carry out the repairs.
14. The landlord arranged for an independent structural surveyor to attend on 28 June 2022. The landlord has advised us that the purpose of the survey was to check the suitability of the property for works that would be funded from the landlord’s ‘decarbonisation retrofit fund’. The works would involve fitting solar panels, external wall insulation and new insulated flooring. The landlord has advised us that it later decided not to go ahead with the works because the costs were higher than expected.
15. As the decarbonisation works were part of an improvement programme, rather than responsive repairs, the landlord was entitled to decide not to proceed with the improvement elements of the work, such as adding external wall insulation. Its statutory obligations, as set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, are to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and to keep the various installations within the property in repair and working order. The landlord’s obligations under section 11 do not extend to improvement works. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decide not to go ahead with the improvement parts of the work.
16. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated the purpose of the survey to the resident or its decision not to proceed with the work. This was unreasonable as the evidence suggests the resident thought the survey was linked to her reports of repairs. For example, the resident phoned the landlord on 27 September 2022 to ask about the external wall insulation and other structural works. She referred to the survey that had been carried out in June 2022 and said she had not heard anything further. Again, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident to explain about the survey, which was unreasonable.
17. As well as the works relating to the decarbonisation project, the structural surveyor identified structural repairs that were needed, such as repairs to the stairs, uneven flooring and distorted door lintels. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow up the survey to arrange these structural repairs, which it was responsible for carrying out under the tenancy agreement.
18. The resident phoned the landlord on 28 April 2023 to report that 3 of the stairs were damaged and uneven and there was a fault with the downstairs toilet which kept discharging “rusty water”. The landlord’s repairs log shows that although it raised orders to carry out these repairs, it then cancelled both jobs as it said they the tenant’s responsibility.
19. We have not seen any evidence showing that the landlord wrote to the resident advising her of this decision. This was unreasonable as the tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep toilets in good repair and proper working order. It also confirms that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property. The structure generally includes walls, floors and stairs. Therefore, if the landlord considered it was not responsible for the repairs, it should have advised the resident of its reasons. As we have not seen any evidence explaining the reasons for its decision, we have concluded that it was unreasonable for the landlord to decide that the issues regarding the stairs and the toilet were the resident’s responsibility.
20. On 3 October 2023, the resident made a complaint that there were outstanding repairs. She said she could see daylight through the ceiling of the loft, the chimney breast was unstable, the stairs had “shifted”, the internal door frames were warped and the downstairs toilet was not working. She said she had also been advised previously that the landlord would be laying new floors. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2023 and confirmed it had spoken to her and agreed it would send a surveyor to inspect the property. It said that due to the resident’s work commitments, she had agreed to contact the surveyor with a suitable date for the inspection. As the resident had reported various repair issues, including structural issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose an inspection by a surveyor.
21. The surveyor attended on 2 December 2023 and concluded that substantial repairs were needed and the resident would need to be temporarily moved in order for the works to proceed. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the surveyor and his recommendations that the resident should be moved temporarily to allow the works to be carried out. It was also reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that its neighbourhood team would contact her to progress the temporary move.
22. One of the issues raised by the resident was that she had requested a wash hand basin for the downstairs toilet as other properties in her road had one. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord agreed to install a wash basin in the toilet and we have not identified the lack of a wash basin in the toilet as a service failure. This is because the addition of a wash basin would be considered an improvement, which the landlord is not obliged to agree under the terms of the tenancy. It was, however, a shortcoming that the landlord did not give the resident a clear decision on whether it would install the wash basin.
23. We have not investigated events that occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response on 22 December 2023 or matters that were not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, such as issues regarding her fence and the decanting arrangements. This is because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response.
24. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs:
    1. The landlord did not communicate the purpose of the June 2022 survey to the resident or its decision not to proceed with the work.
    2. The landlord did not follow up the structural repairs, such as the work to the stairs, that had been identified in the June 2022 survey.
    3. It decided that repairs to the stairs and the toilet, which were reported by the resident in April 2023, were the resident’s responsibility. However, it did not explain its reasons to the resident, even though the tenancy agreement shows it is responsible for maintaining them.
25. The landlord’s lack of communication and follow-up of the repairs identified in the June 2022 caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and resulted in her spending additional time and trouble chasing the landlord.
26. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 response to acknowledge its failings in its response to the repairs. In particular, it accepted that it had failed to follow up the repairs identified in the survey of June 2022. It sought to put things right by apologising for its failings, carrying out a further inspection and agreeing the surveyor’s recommendation to rehouse the resident temporarily to carry out the repairs. It also offered compensation of £750 for the impact on her, including the distress and inconvenience she experienced.
28. In terms of the level of compensation, the amount offered was in line with the range of sums recommended in our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident, including physical and/or emotional impact. In this case, we consider there was a significant impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in carrying out the repairs and the landlord’s poor communication.
29. Having considered the landlord’s offer of compensation, we have concluded that the offer of £750 was fair and proportionate to put things right, alongside its offer to rehouse the resident temporarily to carry out the works. We have therefore found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress.
30. We have noted that the resident has expressed various concerns about the temporary rehousing arrangements and the impact on her current tenancy. We have therefore recommended that the landlord meets with the resident to discuss these concerns so that the temporary decant can be arranged as soon as possible.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will contact the resident by phone within 2 working days to clarify the details of the complaint. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at either stage without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale for the response. The landlord should agree the period of extension with the resident.
32. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 October 2023. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident within 2 working days to acknowledge the complaint. However, it spoke to the resident on 17 October 2023 and wrote to her on 18 October 2023 to request an additional 10 days to respond to the complaint as it was arranging for a surveyor to attend. The resident replied to say she was willing to extend the deadline by a couple of days but not by 10 days.
33. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not phone the resident within 2 days of receiving her complaint. However, it sent its stage 1 response on 19 October 2023, which was 12 working days after receiving the complaint. As the resident had agreed to the landlord extending the response timescale by a couple of days, the landlord had responded to the stage 1 complaint within a reasonable timescale.
34. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023 to escalate her complaint. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord spoke to the resident within 2 working days to acknowledge the complaint. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as it was not in line with its complaints policy.
35. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 December 2023, which was 32 working days after she made her stage 2 complaint. This was longer than the 20-working day timescale stipulated in its policy. However, the landlord’s records state that during the intervening period, it had spoken to the resident to agree a 10-day extension to allow a surveyor to inspect the property on 2 December 2023. Therefore, taking into account the extension of time to allow for the inspection, we have found that the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale.
36. As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she had raised a previous complaint on 29 April 2023 and the landlord had not logged this as a complaint. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had no record of the complaint made on 29 April 2023 and that it deletes records after 3 months. The resident later provided the landlord with a copy of the automatic acknowledgement she had received when she submitted the complaint on 29 April 2023.
37. The automatic acknowledgement received by the resident shows that she did submit an online complaint on 29 April 2023 and therefore the landlord’s lack of a record of this complaint shows a deficiency in its recordkeeping. The landlord’s explanation that it deletes records after 3 months was also unsatisfactory. Its privacy policy available on its website states that it will only hold recordings of phone calls for 3 months, however, it says that it will retain personal data for as long as reasonably necessary to fulfil the purposes it collects it for. It adds that personal data may be retained for a longer period in the event of a complaint.
38. As the resident had submitted an online complaint, rather than making a complaint over the phone, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have retained a copy of the form until at least the complaint had been resolved. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not have a record of the complaint made on 29 April 2023 and it did not use its complaint response to apologise for this and put things right. The landlord’s failure to process the complaint led to the resident submitting a further complaint in October 2023 and this caused additional distress and inconvenience.
39. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not have a record of the resident’s online complaint submitted on 29 April 2023 and did not use its complaint response to apologise for this and try to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £100, which is within the recommended range of sums set out in our remedies guidance for service failures that have caused distress and inconvenience.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord failed to retain a copy of the online complaint form submitted in April 2023 and incorrectly advised the resident about its policy for the retention of information.

Communication

41. We have found there were problems with the landlord’s communication with the resident. It did not communicate the purpose or outcome of the survey in June 2022, despite the resident raising this with the landlord on various occasions.