Torus62 Limited (202323182)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord until August 2025. It was a 3-bedroom semi-detached property, and she lived there with her 3 children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs

4. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its repairs policy timescale. It knew it needed to do a further survey in April 2023 but delayed doing this until August 2023 when the resident reported the issues again. It acknowledged its delays and failings in its complaint responses and offered compensation to the resident, which was proportionate to its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s policy and failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us the repairs and condition of the property had a detrimental impact on the family’s health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put things right. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaints about the issues with her drains and kitchen. Therefore, we have no power to investigate.

What we did investigate

8. The resident reported an issue with her flooring on 22 December 2022. She said the floor was coming away from the wall in the living room. The landlord completed a survey on 9 February 2023 and raised a repair the same day to fill the gaps between the skirting board and flooring. It did not attempt to complete this work until 10 March 2023. This was inappropriate and outside of its repairs policy timescale which says it aims to complete all routine repairs within 20 calendar days.
9. The landlord did not attend again until 13 April 2023. This was unreasonable and we have not seen any evidence why it did not attend sooner. On this visit, it found the work needed was more than it initially raised and said it would request a further survey.  However it failed to do this, which caused the resident time and trouble reporting the issue again on 21 August 2023.
10. Following the resident’s further report, the landlord arranged another survey on 23 August 2023. It re-raised a repair to fill in the gaps under the skirting board and raised a job to re-plaster the hall, stairs and landing. However, on 4 September 2023 the resident reported her floor had dropped and so the landlord arranged a priority survey on 5 September 2023. This was a reasonable and proportionate action to the resident’s report. Following this survey, it raised work to remove the concrete floor in the living room and lay new floor.
11. As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the work required and the impact of it on her and her family. The landlord arranged another survey for 28 September 2023 by a senior surveyor to inspect the work needed. It was reasonable for it to do this to find a solution and explore alternative repairs to minimise disruption to the resident.
12. On 28 September 2023, on the advice of its senior surveyor, the landlord cancelled work to remove the concrete floor and raised a job to screed it instead. It also cancelled the plastering work and raised a repair to patch up the areas and fill the holes. The resident disagreed with its decision to screed the floor and not fully replaster, but it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its senior surveyor. It also raised jobs to renew the resident’s back door, fix her bathroom sink and install curtain battens to all her windows.
13. The landlord completed the plastering repair work on 25 October 2023 and flooring work on 29 November 2023. Its repair records show it fitted the curtain battens on 29 November 2023 and fixed the sink on 30 November 2023. It raised these jobs on 28 September 2023, and it did not complete them in line with its 20 calendar days repairs timescale, which was inappropriate.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it raised a job on 28 September 2023 to renew the resident’s back door. It completed this work on 8 January 2024. This was outside its repairs policy timescale for programmed and planned repairs which says it aims to complete these within 60 days of reporting. The landlord was not proactive in keeping to its timescale. It knew there was a lead time of 6 to 8 weeks after it had measured the door, but it did not measure the door until nearly 2 months after it raised the job. This was unreasonable and caused unnecessary delays.
15. The landlord’s communication with the resident about whether she needed to move out for the flooring work was unclear. The landlord explored hotel options with her which was reasonable, however a hotel was not suitable for the resident and her family. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the conflicting information it gave. It agreed the resident would remain in her property while the work took place. She asked for advice about re-housing, which the landlord provided.
16. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. In its complaint responses, it acknowledged its delays and poor communication. In line with its compensation policy it apologised, explained what went wrong and what it would do to put it right, which was appropriate. The landlord offered £1250 compensation.
17. We recognise the resident, and her family had limited access to downstairs while the landlord completed the floor work and the disruption this may have caused. The landlord also acknowledged this, and its offer of £1250 is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which significantly affected the resident. In view of this, we find the compensation offered was proportionate to the failings identified and it offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s repairs.
18. The landlord also recognised the difficulty the resident and her family had accessing the kitchen, while it completed the floor work. It has told us since its stage 2 response it offered her food allowance vouchers in addition to its compensation offer, which was reasonable.

19. The resident complained on 2 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2023. This was inappropriate and not in line with its complaints policy timescale, which says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Its policy allows for an additional 10 working days to respond with agreement from the resident. However, we have not seen any evidence of an agreement for an extension.
20. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 October 2023 and said it would respond within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy. However, it took 38 working days for it to respond. This was inappropriate and we have not seen evidence it agreed an extension with the resident.

21. In view of the above delays and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this in its complaint responses, we found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for service failures that have caused time and trouble to the resident over a short duration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord does not have the survey reports from 5 and 28 September 2023. This is evidence of poor record keeping. We would expect landlords to have a record of the surveys it completes.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It should consider how it can improve its communication with residents for repair and survey updates.