Torus62 Limited (202341651)

Decision
Case ID	202341651
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has complained to the landlord about a sewage smell coming from her bathroom. The resident has said that it is affecting her mental health. The landlord’s investigations were inconclusive. The resident advises the issue is ongoing and asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a smell in the bathroom.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a smell in the bathroom.
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 meet its obligations under the occupancy agreement. While it responded to individual reports, it failed to take a holistic approach to the complaint. It did not acknowledge its failings or take steps to put things right.
7. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process in a timely manner. It did not address this in its complaint response and provided no apology or redress for its failings.

 

 

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 23 December 2025
2	Inspection order  We have made an inspection order because the issue with the smell has not been resolved and further investigation is needed. What the landlord must do  The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025
3	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a smell in the bathroom. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between January 2022 and December 2022	The landlord responded to 2 reports of smells in the bathroom 11 months apart. No issues were identified.
1 March 2023	A repair order was raised following a report of a sewage smell in the bathroom. It is unclear exactly when the resident reported this.
7 March 2023	The landlord attended and confirmed the drains were running clear. A follow on order was recommended for a no return valve to be fitted to the shower pump.
25 March 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to report that there was a United Utilities “unit” that managed waste water flowing into the nearby river. She said that this could be the potential source of the issue if it was connected to her drains.
12 April 2023	The landlord raised a repair order for the no return valve to be fitted to the shower pump.
15 May 2023	The landlord attended to fit the no return valve. The operative said that as the smell was the issue it was noted that this would not do anything to aid with that. The operative confirmed that the shower and sink were fitted with traps so there was no smell from them. They said it could be air admittance from the flat above causing the issue.
17 October 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she was unhappy with the smell coming from the bathroom and that the landlord had not found the cause of this.
27 October 2023	The landlord requested a 10 day extension to the stage 1 complaint response due date.
14 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in finding the root cause of the smell and said that it had completed repairs but found no issues. The complaint was upheld due to previous failings regarding a damaged carpet. The landlord advised a new appointment had been made for a surveyor to attend on 20 November 2023 to carry out further investigation.
20 November 2023	The landlord attended and was unable to identify any smell at the property or issues with the drainage. It said that the pipework was enclosed so was unable to inspect this.
9 December 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and the ongoing smell in her property.
15 January 2024	The landlord issued a follow on to its stage 1 complaint response advising of the outcome of the surveyor appointment. It also said the flat above was vacant and it would be investigated to see if any smells were coming from there.
8 February 2024	The local authority contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. It asked the landlord to investigate the smell.
19 February 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and reiterated its stage 1 complaint response and steps taken so far. It asked if the resident would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
25 March 2024	The resident confirmed that she did wish for her complaint to be escalated. She said that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and that the smell had been ongoing since 2019.
17 April 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It said that it had reviewed all repair logs and the smell had first been reported in January 2022 and was noted as a smell from the extractor fan. The complaint was not upheld as all works had been carried out within target dates and there was no evidence to indicate the cause of the smell in the bathroom.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the smell is still ongoing at her property to date. She asked us to investigate as she felt the landlord had failed to undertake any in depth works due to the costs involved. The resident said that the constant smell was affecting her mental health and wanted further investigations and works to be completed to find and eliminate the smell.

 

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 landlord’s response to reports of a smell in the bathroom
Finding	Service failure

8. The occupancy agreement requires the landlord to keep internal and external pipework in working order. This includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, and waste pipes. Under its repairs policy, any responsive repairs must be completed within 20 calendar days.
9. The resident said she reported bathroom smell issues since moving in to the property in 2019. The landlord stated the first report it received was in January 2022. It is unclear whether the landlord failed to record earlier reports or delayed raising the initial works order. We cannot establish what happened. However, landlords must maintain an accurate audit trail of all reports. Not only to assess performance, but to provide contemporaneous evidence to independent bodies, such as the Ombudsman, in case of a dispute.
10. The resident reported the sewage smell in March 2023, and the landlord attended the repair within its timescales, which was good practice. However, after the appointment on 7 March, it took until 12 April for the landlord to raise the follow-on works for the no return valve to be fitted. It is unclear why this delay occurred as there is no evidence it was unavoidable. Once raised, the repair took 34 calendar days to complete, which was outside its repairs policy timescales.
11. The landlord completed the repair appointment in May 2023. There were no further reports from the resident until the stage 1 complaint in October 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to presume there were no further issues as it had not been informed of any. It is the responsibility of the resident to report repairs under the occupancy agreement. The landlord’s inaction between May and October 2023 was appropriate in the circumstances.
12. The landlord fulfilled its stage 1 commitment by inspecting the property on 20 November 2023, which was positive. It reported no smell and stated it could not access the internal bathroom pipework to investigate it. No further works or investigations were carried out, and the complaint was closed. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated all of the pipework and waste pipes it is responsible for under the tenancy agreement. If the landlord believed it had exhausted all options, it would have been reasonable to signpost the resident to the utilities company for further investigation so that some resolution could be achieved.
13. The stage 2 complaint was not upheld. When the landlord issued its response, it had received 6 reports of the smell within a year and was aware of the reported detriment to the resident. The landlord’s failure to arrange a more thorough investigation in response to the stage 2 complaint was a failing. It took no further action regarding the reported issues and provided neither a long-term resolution nor an adequate response to the complaint. This was a departure from the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and resulted in service failure. The landlord acted proportionately overall but failed to consider the wider context. It addressed each report separately instead of investigating holistically and using elimination to resolve the issue. We have ordered further inspections at the resident’s home and compensation to redress the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the Code. It responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 21 days and issued the stage 2 complaint response within 17 days. During the stage 1 complaint process, it spoke with the resident and requested an extension of 10 days which was agreed. This was in line with the former Code and meant the timescales for complaint handling were met at stage 1 and stage 2.
15. The landlord issued a follow up to the stage 1 complaint response on 15 January 2024, confirming the actions it had completed as part of the stage 1 commitment. It was positive that it was monitoring these actions and providing a further update to the resident. This demonstrated good complaint handling.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 December 2023, to say she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not make contact with the resident to discuss this and did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. It received further contact on behalf of the resident on 8 February 2024. In response to this, it emailed the resident and reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 25 March 2023. This was a delay of almost 4 months which was a departure from the Code and meant additional time and trouble for the resident. It took 3 attempts to contact the landlord before the escalation was actioned. The landlord did not acknowledge its failing or provide any redress for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
17. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This was due to its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 appropriately. Although this was a minor failure, the landlord did not acknowledge this or attempt to put things right. As such we have ordered £100 compensation to reflect the additional time and trouble for the resident having to make additional contact to escalate the complaint.

Learning

Communication

18. Clear communication and proactive engagement are necessary to maintain trust between the landlord and resident. There were instances when the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident or respond to their requests. The landlord may wish to review how it signposts to external organisations when additional support is needed.