Torus62 Limited (202326026)

Decision
Case ID	202326026
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 June 2026

 

Background

1. The resident moved into his property in July 2020. He told the landlord at the time that he needed it to complete several adaptations as he is a wheelchair user. These adaptations included replacing the kitchen with one that was wheelchair accessible. After waiting for these works to be completed, he complained in October 2023.

 

What the complaint is about

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

a)     Request for adaptations to his kitchen.

b)     Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to his kitchen.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to his kitchen

5. In the landlord’s response it acknowledged the resident had waited a considerable length of time it to complete the recommended kitchen adaptations and its communication with him about the progress of works was poor. However, the compensation it offered did not reflect the scale of the communication failings and the impact this had.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. While the landlord issued its stage 2 response 1 day over the 20 working day deadline set out its complaints policy, this delay was minor and caused no significant impact. Other than this, its response was thorough and fully responded to the resident’s complaint.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication in relation to the kitchen adaptation works. This amount includes the £100 already offered by the landlord for its handling of the kitchen adaptation request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
July 2020 – April 2021	When the resident moved into the property, in July 2020, he told the landlord he needed it to complete adaptations, including fitting a wheelchair accessible kitchen. An occupational therapist from the local council assessed the property in November 2020 and, in December 2020, recommended that the landlord replace the kitchen to improve accessibility. The landlord considered this recommendation at its adaptations panel in early 2021 gave provisional approval, subject to a “feasibility” survey of the property.
11 October 2023	The resident complained about the landlords delay in adapting his kitchen. He said he had waited over 2 years and despite regularly chasing the landlord for updates had received no response. He said the delay impacted his ability to use the kitchen. He asked it to complete the work as soon as possible.
19 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident had been waiting for some time for the kitchen adaptations and apologised for the lack of updates. It said it had completed a feasibility survey and was now waiting for a quote from its contractor. It said it would provide regular updates going forward.
February 2024	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. We advised he needed a stage 2 response from the landlord before we would investigate.
18 April 2024	We contacted the landlord, on the resident’s behalf, asking it to escalate his complaint. We advised he was unhappy with how long it took the kitchen adaptations to be completed and that he wanted compensation for the delay.
20 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said the kitchen adaptations were completed in November 2023. It acknowledged the work took around 3 years to complete but this could be typical for some adaptations. It apologised for poor communication and outlined steps it had taken to improve its service. It offered £100 compensation for the frustration caused by its poor communication.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He felt the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the length of time it took to do the kitchen adaptations and the subsequent impact on him. He wanted it to offer more compensation.

 

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to his kitchen
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident complained about the length of time the landlord took to adapt his kitchen. At stage 1, he said he had waited 2 years for work to start and had received no updates despite chasing the landlord. He said the lack of accessibility made the kitchen difficult to use. At stage 2, he noted the work was complete but said the delay was still unreasonable. He wanted compensation that reflected the delay and its impact on him.
8. In response, the landlord acknowledged the kitchen adaptations took several years to complete but said this was typical due to it needing to prioritise certain adaptations and budget limitations. It also explained how it was dealing with an adaptation backlog caused by a reduced repairs service during the pandemic.
9. The landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident about the progress of his request had been poor. It apologised and explained recent changes it had made to keep resident’s waiting for adaptations regularly updated. It also offered him £100 compensation for this failing.
10. Parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. It acknowledged the resident had been waiting a significant length of time for it to complete the kitchen adaptations and gave reasonable explanations for some the delays (including impact from the pandemic on its service and needing to priorities adaptations for its tenants in line with individual circumstances and budgets). It appropriately apologised for any distress caused. It was also appropriate for it to outline recent changes it had made to how it would communicate with residents awaiting adaptations.
11. The resident told us that he had chased the landlord for updates while he waited. However, no evidence of that has been presented. He also explained that he had been able to use his kitchen over the period, although not as well as he would have after the adaptations.
12. The landlord explained that adaptations like the resident needed could sometimes take several years to install, based on the nature and scale of the work and competing priorities. It’s possible, therefore, that the resident’s wait may not have been any shorter even if he had complained sooner.
13. Nonetheless, the landlord did not update the resident on the kitchen adaptations between April 2021 and October 2024, a gap of approximately 2.5 years. In its response it showed good practice in explaining recent process changes it had made to ensure those awaiting adaptations receive regular updates from it going forward.
14. However, the landlord should have reflected the significance of the 2.5 years of no contact with the resident in the compensation it offered. There is no evidence it did, and the £100 compensation was disproportionately low when considered against our guidance for a failing of this scale.
15. Overall, parts of the landlord’s response were reasonable. It acknowledged the length of time the resident had waited for the adaptations, provided explanations for some of the delays, and outlined steps to improve communication with residents awaiting adaptations. However, although it apologised and offered compensation, the amount awarded did not adequately reflect its communication failings.
16. While the landlord’s compensation policy does not specify amounts it will offer in compensation for particular failings, our own remedies guidance does. Based on our guidance, we have therefore ordered it to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation to reflect the communication failings we have identified above.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it had a two stage complaints process. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It responded to all of the issues he had complained about in full. While it issued its stage 2 response 1 day outside of the 20 day response timeframe, this delay was minor and had no adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall the landlord had robust records relating to this case.