Torus62 Limited (202347389)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202347389 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Torus62 Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
4 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported a burst water pipe in December 2022. Water had come through the ceiling from the loft into the flat, damaging his belongings.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Reports of a leak and damage to the resident’s belongings.
- The complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- Service failure with the landlord’s handling of repairs.
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- We found:
- The landlord failed to consider further actions earlier, which increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience. Its communication and record keeping were poor, and it did not account for the impact on the resident. Through the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged some failings and took steps to put things right, showing learning by updating its repairs policy.
- The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and missed chances to manage expectations. It did not escalate the case to stage 2 promptly and then delayed its response. Once it escalated the complaint, it set appropriate actions and communicated clearly. It also offered compensation for its complaint handling failures and repair delays.
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 provide us with documentary evidence it has done so by the due date. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 05 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £300 compensation (£100 in addition to the landlord’s offer of £200) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 05 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the water pipes in the loft. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date and provide us with documentary evidence it has done so by the due date. 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that a suitably qualified person:
The report must set out:
|
No later than 19 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
The landlord should contact the resident to make sure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the household’s current circumstances, and that it considers any reasonable adjustments. It should discuss communication with the resident to ensure any barriers to contact or access for repairs are removed. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
19 December 2022 |
The resident reported a burst water pipe and leak through the ceiling. |
|
30 December 2022 |
The resident made a stage 1 complaint saying:
|
|
23 January 2023 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response saying:
|
|
1 March 2023 to 8 December 2023 |
The resident called the landlord to discuss his complaint and expressed dissatisfaction. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint. The resident called to escalate his complaint again in December 2023, and the landlord escalated it to stage 2 of its complaints process. |
|
29 January 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 response saying:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred the complaint to us saying:
|
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 |
Reports of a leak and damage to the resident’s belongings |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend emergency repairs in 4 hours to make safe and will complete the job in 24 hours. The landlord sent a plumber as an emergency within the times set in its policy, but the plumber reported they were unable to gain access. The resident disputes this, saying he was at home.
- The landlord’s repairs policy says it will send automated texts about appointments and confirm residents’ communication preferences in advance. However, there is no evidence it checked the resident’s preferences or tried to contact him to gain access at the first appointment. The policy at the time did not address no‑access emergencies. The resident said he was at home and disputes the landlord’s position.
- A scheduled gas appointment took place the following day on 20 December 2022, and the landlord made repairs to the pipes. It is unclear from the evidence how the landlord monitored or planned to resolve the emergency leak following the no access appointment. Had the scheduled gas check not already been arranged for a separate issue, the evidence does not show what action the landlord would have taken to follow up the emergency report. Given there had been a leak, it would have been good practice for the landlord to offer dehumidifiers or contact the resident to check if he needed further help.
- The landlord did not arrange follow up work until the resident made a complaint on 30 December 2022. It only requested a surveyor visit on 17 January 2023, after the resident reported damp and a smell on 9 January 2023. The surveyor attended on 26 January 2023 and raised a job to plaster the ceiling. This was 26 working days after the resident reported the leak.
- The landlord’s repairs policy does not set clear timescales for surveys. However, an earlier inspection would have helped the landlord identify any need for follow‑on work and ensure the home was safe for the resident. It did not arrange this promptly, including during its complaints process.
- The landlord gave communication issues with the resident as a reason for delaying its stage 1 complaint response. However, the evidence shows the resident had called the landlord, and the landlord relied on email to reach its contractor, causing further delay. Although it agreed an extension with the resident, the delay was avoidable had there been more effective communication between the landlord and its contractor.
- The resident said that the property was cold because of the time of year and the damp made the property feel colder. Whilst separate to this investigation, the resident also said that the windows were due for repair. This further contributed to difficulties keeping the property warm. As there is no evidence of a follow up inspection, it is unclear how the landlord considered the effect on the resident’s household.
- The resident says the landlord’s operative told him that the pipework in the loft needed replacing because it was old and the wrong size. The landlord’s records do not show what the operative reported, and there is no evidence that the landlord investigated this further. Where there are differing accounts, the landlord should have made enquiries to clarify the position and offer reassurance to the resident. The absence of a follow up inspection added to the landlord’s failure to monitor the repair and ensure that it resolved any underlying issues within its policy response times. We have therefore made an inspection order to offer some clarity and reassurance to the resident.
- The landlord did not provide any detailed notes or photographs from any of its visits or inspections. The landlord has told us it deemed the damage to be minor, but a lack of clear record keeping means that it cannot show how or why it made its decisions, what actions it considered, or what advice it gave the resident.
- The evidence records no access for the ceiling work on 26 and 31 January 2023, with a target completion date of 3 April 2023. The resident said he refused the work because the plasterboard was wet and at risk of collapse. It is unclear whether the appointments went ahead or at what stage the resident cancelled the appointments. However, the records do not indicate a genuine no‑access situation, and inaccurate records can affect the service the resident receives. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about the appointment dates in advance or responded to his safety concerns.
- The landlord told the resident that it could provide a decorating voucher once it had completed the outstanding works. By that point, around 3 months had passed since the leak. The resident had already raised a stage 1 complaint to request compensation or support with redecorating. If the landlord considered a voucher to be an appropriate offer, it would have been helpful to issue it sooner. The delay created additional steps for the resident and extended the time needed to reach a resolution.
- After escalating the complaint to stage 2 in December 2023, the landlord did not contact the resident until 9 January 2024, 20 working days later. This was a further delay, particularly as it had missed the escalation 9 months earlier. Though the repairs policy does not give timeframes for surveys, the landlord could have arranged one sooner. An earlier survey would have avoided additional delay and reduced the impact on the resident, potentially removing the need to extend the response time.
- Once the landlord made contact, it responded appropriately. It arranged a survey and communicated clearly with the resident, showing understanding of his circumstances. The appointment took place on 1 February 2024. Evidence shows that the resident asked for replacement wallpaper and carpets and raised concerns about cracks in the ceiling. The landlord offered carpet cleaning but explained that decorative plaster cracks were the resident’s responsibility. This response was reasonable and aligned with its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement.
- The resident called the landlord on 5 March 2024 asking to cancel the carpet clean. The resident has explained that the carpet was wet and mouldy, and he did not feel that adding more moisture to it would rectify the situation. He said he had no option by this time but to replace the carpets. The resident has told us that he also had to replace wallpaper throughout the property, make good the ceilings, and replace other personal belongings that were water damaged.
- The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider compensation for quantifiable losses. It excludes for damage where the landlord is not directly responsible, with flooding as an example. It says it may offer compensation for avoidable distress or inconvenience. The landlord applied its policy when considering the request for compensation for damage to belongings. However, it only told the resident this at stage 2 of the complaint process where it gave the resident advice about pursuing an insurance claim. It could have done this earlier. The landlord acknowledged delays with its repair service in the stage 2 complaint and offered £200 compensation which it has paid.
- The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for internal painting or decorating, and the repairs policy places responsibility on the resident to replace home contents. Although the landlord offered compensation and additional measures to resolve the issues, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the delays to resolve the leak. The evidence does not show the landlord listened to the resident’s views or considered the time that had passed since the leak. The resident gave valid reasons for rejecting the options, but the landlord did not follow up when he raised these concerns.
- We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the repair. The landlord accepted there were delays, but its offer of £200 did not reflect the length of time it took to put things right or the impact on the resident. It did not arrange follow-on work in a timely way, and its poor record keeping and communication added to the resident’s uncertainty and contributed to further distress. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay a further £100 to the resident to compensate for his time and trouble.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaint policy met the definition set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on time. Although its stage 1 response was late, it agreed an extension date with the resident, which it kept to. While the resident reported not receiving the stage 1 response, there is no evidence the landlord failed to send it.
- At stage 1 the landlord did not address the resident’s report of damaged items and did not give him the relevant advice about making an insurance claim. The Code says that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble as he had to escalate his complaint.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2023. The notes from this call show that he was unhappy about the length of time he had waited for the repair and that he wanted compensation. The landlord’s records also showed that it had already issued a stage 1 complaint response. It should therefore have treated this call as a request to escalate the complaint. The Code says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. The resident’s call met that definition.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2023 to ask about the complaint escalation and report damp in the property. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024, 232 working days after the resident first attempted to escalate his complaint in March 2023. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the Code.
- When the landlord accepted the resident’s escalation in December 2023, it agreed an extension date with him. The evidence shows the landlord sent its stage 2 by the promised revised date. Furthermore, the landlord showed learning. It appropriately acknowledged the resident’s desire to claim for damaged possessions and directed him to make an insurance claim.
- While there were gaps in the landlord’s complaint handling, including delays and missed opportunities to escalate the case, its stage 2 response acknowledged these issues and set out appropriate actions. The landlord offered £150 compensation to recognise the time and trouble caused which it has paid. This amount falls within our remedies guidance when a failure adversely affects a resident. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint and are not making any further recommendations.
Learning
- The landlord has shown some learning already with changes made to its repair policy in 2023. A no access procedure reduces the risk of emergency repairs being missed. The landlord has also included a section about offering redecoration after damage. This shows that the landlord is learning from feedback and looking to improve.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should ensure that its staff and contractors keep accurate records of when visits took place, and what actions it took to provide a clear audit trail. It should ensure that information recorded on its systems about failed or cancelled appointments is accurate.
Communication
- The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to ensure it monitors contractor actions, and that it has clear systems of communication with its contractors to prevent delays in it delivering its service.
- The landlord should ensure it has suitable systems in place to notify residents for appointments. Good communication builds trust between landlords and residents. Landlords can read our information on ‘Attitudes, respect, and rights’ on our Centre For Learning page. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that a landlord can avoid failures when it:
- lets residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
- gathers feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory