Torus62 Limited (202339646)

Decision
Case ID	202339646
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 May 2026

Background

1. In May 2023, the resident reported issues with her staircase to the landlord. It inspected and agreed to replace it. After several failed installation attempts, she complained in November 2023 about its handling of the works. Following its response she remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

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

a)     A staircase replacement in the resident’s property.

b)     The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of a staircase replacement in the resident’s property.
4. There was 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

Landlords handling of a staircase replacement in the resident’s property

5. While there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the staircase replacement, it acknowledged these in its complaint response, apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation for the failings and subsequent impact.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. There were significant failings in how the landlord handled the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. It failed to recognise two escalation requests she made and delayed. issuing its stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge any complaint handling failings in its response.

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 £200 to recognise the complaint handling failings identified in this determination. 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 23 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 November 2023	The resident complained that the landlord had not replaced the staircase, despite agreeing to do so in May 2023. She said its contractor failed to install it several times in November 2023 due to sizing issues and staff shortages. She was unhappy with the delays and inconvenience.
18 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there had been issues in its handling of the staircase replacement and this had led to the delays. It apologised and confirmed the staircase would be installed at the end of the month.
19 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the staircase had still not been fitted, and the previous attempts to do so had caused damage to the walls and flooring surrounding the stairs.
4 March 2024	The resident tried to escalate her complaint again. She said the stairs fitted in December 2024 had left large gaps and damage in the area surround the stairs. She wanted the landlord to put the works and damage right.
3 April 2024	The landlord emailed the resident saying it was still investigating her complaint. It extended its response deadline by a further 10 working days.
3 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been issues with the workmanship and handling of the staircase replacement. It apologised, offered her £750 compensation and agreed to fix any outstanding issues with the stairs and subsequent damage.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She felt the landlord’s response had not considered how much distress and inconvenience its poor handling of the staircase replacement had on her. She wanted it to take more ‘accountability’ for its handling of the works.

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 a staircase replacement in the resident’s property
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

7. In her complaint to the landlord and referral to us, the resident said she fractured her toe during the repairs process for which she felt the landlord was to blame.
8. 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.
9. When the resident referred the complaint to us, she said she was also unhappy with the quality of landlord’s promised repairs to the damaged walls and flooring around the staircase. She said she raised a further complaint with the landlord, but this did not complete its complaints procedure and was not referred to us.
10. We can only investigate complaints that have completed the landlord’s complaints process and been referred to us. This investigation therefore considers whether the landlord completed the repairs it agreed to carry out. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the quality of those repairs, she will need to pursue this as a new complaint to the landlord.

What we have investigated

11. The resident complained that the landlord had handled the staircase replacement in her property poorly. At stage 1 she complained about the length of time it had taken to arrange the replacement, the inconvenience of frequent inspections and surveys and recent failed attempts to install the new staircase. She mentioned issues such as turning up unannounced to do the work, the staircase then not fitting and the contractor cancelling another appointment at short notice due to staff shortages.
12. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said while the replacement staircase had now been installed it had been done poorly. She said the staircase did not appear to fit correctly in the space and she had been left with holes in her kitchen and damage to the walls and floor surrounding the stairs. She wanted it to rectify these issues.
13. In response, the landlord acknowledged failings in replacing the staircase. It accepted there were delays in completing the replacement, which it attributed to getting a custom staircase made and some contractor miscommunication. It also recognised issues with installation, including poor fit and damage to walls and flooring. It said it had made the staircase safe and would complete outstanding works to the stairs and damaged areas. It apologised and offered £750 compensation (£500 for workmanship and damage and £250 for distress and inconvenience).
14. The landlord’s response was reasonable. There had been failings in its handling of the staircase replacement such as delays to fitting the new staircase, missed appointments and damage to the surrounding areas when it was installed. However, it acknowledged all of these failings in its response, apologised and agreed to rectify the outstanding issues. This was reasonable given the failings identified.
15. The compensation the landlord offered was also reasonable. While its compensation policy did not set a particular amount, the £500 offered for poor workmanship and damage caused and £250 for distress and inconvenience was in line with our remedies guidance and reflected the severity of each of its failings and the level of impact caused. The resident has confirmed to us that she received this compensation from the landlord.
16. The landlord took a further 5 months to rectify the issues with the new staircase and the damage to the walls and the floor. However, it had ensured in the interim that overall the stairs were safe to be used, despite some outstanding issues with the banister, and did not impact overall use of the home. Furthermore, it was visiting to try and complete the necessary repairs throughout the 5 month period.
17. Overall, while there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the staircase replacement it appropriately acknowledged all of these failings in its response, apologised and offered to rectify the outstanding issues. The compensation it offered was also reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

18. 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).
19. There were no failings in how the landlord handled stage 1 of the resident’s complaint. It responded 10 working days after receipt of her complaint, which was in line with both its complaints policy and the Code.
20. There were failings in how the landlord handled the escalation. It said the resident escalated her complaint during a call on 19 March 2024. Even on this basis, its stage 2 response was issued 32 working days later, exceeding the 20‑day timescale in its policy and the Code. Although it requested a 10‑day extension, it still responded 2 working days late and did not acknowledge the delay.
21. However, the evidence shows the resident tried to escalate earlier. She emailed on 19 December 2023 expressing dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and ongoing works, and again on 4 March 2024 clearly requesting escalation. The landlord should have treated either as an escalation in line with the Code. Instead, it issued its stage 2 response 94 working days after the December email, which was far outside its timescales.
22. Overall there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. It failed to act on two escalation emails she sent and even when considering the date it said she did formally escalate her complaint still issued its response outside the deadlines set in its policy and the Code. It failed to acknowledge any of these failings in its response.
23. In line with our compensation guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the complaint handling failures we have identified above. This amount is based on the scale and nature of its delay.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Overall the landlord had robust records, including repair logs and both internal and external communications.

Communication

25. There were issues with the landlord’s communication relating to the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond to two different escalation requests the resident made. The landlord is reminded to ensure it maintains clear communication with the resident at all times. For further guidance the landlord can review our Communications Spotlight Report.