Torus62 Limited (202341603)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a 3 story building. The resident has informed the landlord of vulnerabilities associated with his mental health and of a phobia of rats and mice. The resident first reported issues with pests at the property on 26 January 2022. He made multiple reports after this date in 2022 and in 2023. He has since moved out of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest control issue.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its response to reports of a pest control issue.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord acted reasonably in relying on the opinions of the pest control team and getting them to attend the resident’s property, largely in a reasonable time frame. However, it took too long to carry out the repairs that were recommended by the team. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have communicated more with him.
8. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and it did not initially recognise when the resident was trying to submit a 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.

Recommendations

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

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.

9. The resident reported rats in his property multiple times in 2022. There were three separate periods where he was reporting pests at his property, starting in January, then in May and then in August 2022. He contacted the landlord frequently in these periods. The landlord arranged for its pest control team to go to the resident’s property after each initial report. After the reports in January 2022 they attended within 8 calendar days and in May 2022, within 4 calendar days. There is no timescale in the landlord’s policies for pest control to visit a property. For a routine repair, the timescale is 20 calendar days. We consider this to be a reasonable timeframe to assess the landlord’s actions. The landlord acted reasonably here in its response to the resident’s reports.
10. On both occasions, after initially setting bait, pest control conducted repeated follow up appointments to check the property to see if the rats were still there. At the end of these repeat appointments they concluded the issue had been contained. The landlord took no further action, aside from the repairs recommended by pest control. It is reasonable for the landlord to be relying on the opinion of the experts it engaged. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord.
11. After pest control visited the resident’s property after his reports in January 2022, they recommended repairs on 3 February 2022. The landlord completed these repairs on 7 March 2022. This took 32 days, 12 days over the timescales set out in the landlord’s response repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord did not follow its policy here.
12. After the reports in May 2022, pest control recommended further repairs on 17 May 2022. They recommended various works inside the property and the removal of sofa that was in a communal storage area. According to the landlord, the internal repairs were completed on 18 October 2022. However, there is no direct evidence of this. This was 5 months from pest control’s recommendation, so not in line with the landlord’s policy.
13. However, there were mitigating factors for this. The resident had made a disrepair claim against the landlord on 30 May 2022. The result of this was a surveyor attending on 29 July 2022 and repairs being agreed as a result of this. While it might be reasonable for the landlord to want to conduct all repairs at the same time, the landlord arranged to complete the repairs on 25 August 2022. This would have been 27 days from the surveyors appointment, so outside of its timescales. Regardless, it could not gain access to the property on that date and so the repairs were completed in October. From 25 August 2022 to 18 October 2022 was 81 days. So while there were mitigating factors in the delay to the repairs, the landlord still did not complete the repairs in a reasonable timescale.
14. There is no direct evidence of when the sofa was removed from the property. There are emails that show it would have been removed between 22 October 2022 and 15 November 2022. Taking the earliest date, this was 5 months from pest control’s recommendation. Given that pest control had identified this sofa as a potential source of the infestation, it was not reasonable that it took the landlord over 5 months to remove it.
15. The delay in the repairs had an impact on the resident as he reported issues with rats again on 31 August 2022. After this report, it took pest control until mid-October 2022 to attend the property. However, the evidence shows that they were trying to arrange an earlier appointment but were struggling to get into contact with the resident. The response is therefore still considered reasonable given these difficulties.
16. However, if the landlord had completed the repairs in an appropriate time scale then we consider it reasonable to say that pest control may not have needed to attend the property. After the repairs were completed, the resident did not report any further issues for about a year. While there are reasons that the repairs were delayed, they still did not take place in a reasonable timeframe. The sofa should have been removed within the landlord’s timescales. Arranging for pest control to attend quickly and regularly was a positive. However, the landlord did not act reasonably in its response to the repairs raised by pest control.
17. Throughout this period, the evidence shows the resident repeatedly contacting the landlord. However, there is little evidence of the landlord contacting the resident. The landlords repairs policy says it will ensure that customers with special requirements are dealt with sensitively and in line with their individual needs. The resident informed the landlord of the impact that this was having on his mental health and that he had a phobia of rats and mice. The landlord made referrals to outside agencies as a result of some of the resident’s calls. We consider it reasonable that a landlord in this situation would make efforts to regularly communicate with the resident and inform him of the actions it was taking. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. There is no evidence of the landlord proactively contacting the resident, or responding to his requests for a call back in relation to the issues. The landlord did not act reasonably here.
18. The resident then didn’t report any further issues with pests until around a year later, when he reported that there were mice in his property on 20 November 2023. The landlord arranged for its pest control team to attend the resident’s property on 14 December 2023. This was 24 days from when the resident first reported the issue, 4 days over the landlord’s timescale for a routine repair. The landlord did not arrange for pest control to attend in a reasonable timeframe.
19. The pest control team took measures to remove the infestation and recommended repairs in the resident’s property. They undertook follow up appointments, the first one after the appointment on 22 December 2023 took place on 18 January 2023. This was 27 days after the initial appointment. The evidence shows the distress the resident was experiencing in this time period, he told the landlord he was experiencing suicidal thoughts due to the issue. This was not a reasonable timeframe for a follow up appointment. The landlord did not act reasonably here.
20. The pest control team recommended repairs on 3 January 2024 and recommended further repairs on 29 January 2024 after a follow up visit. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that repairs were completed on 18 January 2024, though there is no evidence of repairs being completed on this date. The landlord has said to this service that the repairs were completed on 2 February 2024. The evidence shows that a repair or a follow up visit was registered on this date, but the record is unclear as to which. Taking 2 February 2024 as the day the repairs were completed, the 3 January 2024 repairs were completed in 30 days, so not within the landlord’s timescales. Whereas the repairs recommended on 29 January 2024 were completed within the landlord’s timescales.
21. As part of these reports, the resident requested to be moved to a different property on 18 December 2023. The landlord’s temporary decant procedure says that a move will only be considered in extreme and exceptional circumstances. The landlord did explore whether a decant was necessary, it asked for the opinion of its pest control team. The pest control team said it did not look like a major infestation. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its experts here in refusing to temporarily move the resident. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and phobias  it would have been reasonable for it to have engaged with him, and the organisations supporting him, when considering whether a decant was appropriate. That was a failing. Further, there is no evidence this was communicated to the resident.
22. The resident reported hearing rats again on 26 April 2024. The landlord’s records show this as being attended to on 7 June 2024. However, it would appear that this happened sooner. The landlord’s account of events state this was attended to before its stage 2 complaint response was issued on 7 May 2024. Its stage 2 notes the resident has confirmed that the infestation was under control and there is no evidence that the resident disputed this. We consider it reasonable to say that the issue was looked at before this date. There was 11 days between the report and the landlord’s stage 2 response. Therefore, the landlord responded to these reports in a reasonable timeframe.
23. The resident complained about the conduct of a member of staff on 16 January 2024. He was unhappy because he had been trying to get into contact with this member of staff about his issues with pests. The member of staff had not been returning his calls. The landlord looked into the issue and in its stage 2 complaint response agreed that its service standards had not been met. It apologised and offered the resident compensation. The landlord investigated the matter and took action to address the failings it identified with the resident. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
24. The failings identified here caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord was aware the resident had a phobia of rats and mice and of his vulnerabilities. The resident informed the landlord of how the situation was affecting his mental health and that he was contemplating suicide on more than one occasion. The landlord did not recognise this particularly in its consideration of a decant or recognise its failings beyond its communication with the resident in its complaint response. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to the resident. Had the landlord acted appropriately, we consider that it should have communicated with the resident more regularly. It also should have removed the sofa within its timescales. It should also have taken a maximum of8 weeks to complete the repairs agreed with the surveyor. This takes into account the delay due to arranging for a surveyor and the lack of access, but considers that repairs recommended by pest control could have taken place within that time. The landlord took 5 months, or 20 weeks. Considering our guidance on remedies, an appropriate level of compensation for the failings we have identified would be £400.This sum reflects that there was a failures which adversely affected the resident and takes into account the increased impact due to his vulnerabilities.
25. The landlord offered the resident £350 for its failings related to communication. Considering our guidance on remedies, we consider this to be an appropriate level of compensation for those failings specifically.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 7 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. We have not seen whether the landlord acknowledged either of the resident’s complaints. However, the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 10 working days, so within its timescales.
27. There is no evidence of when the landlord believes the resident submitted his stage 2 complaint escalation. It references a call where it discussed the escalation with the resident on 18 April 2024. From the call to the response is 12 working days, so this would be in line with its complaints policy,
28. However, there is evidence of the resident trying to escalate his complaint earlier than this. There is an email on 21 March 2024 where the resident states he is unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord should have taken this as an escalation to stage 2. The landlord also did not recognise that the resident had made a stage 1 complaint on 16 January 2024. The resident had sent an email in which he specifically stated he would like to make a formal stage one complaint. This would fit the definition of a complaint in the landlord’s policy. It is a failure that the landlord missed both the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint and his escalation to stage 2.
29. The delay in recognising the resident’s stage 1 complaint had a minor impact on the resident as this was a difference of 1 working day. However, there was a longer delay for the resident in not recognising his stage 2 complaint. There was 32 working days between the escalation and the response. The landlord did not recognise that it missed these complaints on either occasion. The delay at stage 2 increased the resident’s frustration and he had to contact us to help escalate the complaint. The landlord should apologise and pay compensation. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level would be £75.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to repairs associated with this matter was poor. The above report highlights instances of this. Landlord’s should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records as they provide an audit trail and increases a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems. Failing to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, or missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate. It can also affect our ability to conduct a thorough investigation. We have not made a separate finding here, but we have recommended that the landlord review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management to ensure its repairs information is captured effectively.