From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Torus62 Limited (202402467)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402467

Torus62 Limited

27 June 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, and repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lived at the property between January 2022 and March 2025 when she transferred to another of the landlord’s properties. The property is a terraced house with an extension containing the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. The resident has vulnerabilities related to her mental and physical health, including asthma and fibromyalgia, which the landlord is aware of. She lived at the property with her daughter.
  3. Between September 2022 and July 2023:
    1. The resident reported a leak from the extension roof on 9 September, and the landlord completed work to apply a waterproof compound to the roof on 21 September. On 12 January, the resident reported wet patches on the kitchen ceiling and water running down the external wall. Contractors attended on 25 January and passed on work to inspect the roof for leaks. It reported completing this on 13 February.
    2. In response to separate concerns regarding the temperature of the property, the landlord raised work on 15 December to install a radiator in the kitchen, and other unrelated work to the floor. Records from 27 January show the resident declined work to install the radiator in the kitchen but asked that it replace her bathroom radiator, which it did in March.
    3. Operatives suspected damp in the kitchen and raised work for a damp survey on 3 February. Repair notes suggest that the landlord passed this to a contractor on 13 February. It re-raised work to install a kitchen radiator on 13 April, but this was cancelled on 23 June. It also completed work to level the floor and refix installations in the bathroom in May.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 27 July 2023 and explained:
    1. A roofing contractor surveyed the roof on 21 January 2023 due to flooding to her kitchen extension. Contractors said they needed to replace the roof as it was too flat, but she had chased this, and it had said it would not do so unless there was another leak. Water came through the roof that evening and she was concerned the ceiling would collapse.
    2. The landlord completed a damp and condensation survey on 13 February 2023 as the kitchen units smelt damp. She asked for an update on 7 July 2023, but it did not respond.
    3. She was unhappy that the lack of action had resulted in water entering her kitchen and bathroom and that she had slipped and injured herself as a result. She added that she could not store food in the kitchen cupboards as it quickly went stale. She said the situation was impacting her physical and mental health. She wanted it to resolve the problems or move her and her daughter to a property that was not hazardous to their health. She added that there were other repair issues in the property.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023, the landlord:
    1. Listed works it had raised between 9 September 2022 and August 2023. Following a survey on 10 August 2023, it found that it did not need to replace the roof but would replace the lead flashings. It aimed to complete this before 9 October 2023. It also ordered works to replace the kitchen plinths and a section of ceiling where previous water ingress had caused damage. It aimed to complete these works by 18 September 2023.
    2. Said that the roofing contractor who attended in January 2023 did not follow the correct procedure and did not notify it of follow-on works needed at the time. They provided the report on 7 August 2023, but its more recent survey had refuted the findings, and recommended different work to the flashings. It did not receive the outcome of the damp and mould survey in February 2023, so it had not ordered work. It had requested a second survey which would take place on 21 September 2023.
    3. Apologised for the delays and its failure to follow-up on the outcome of previous inspections. It recognised the impact the delays had on the resident’s physical and mental health, and upheld the complaint based on the delay and failures in its communication. It offered £200 compensation.
  6. Between August 2023 and January 2024:
    1. The landlord made the kitchen ceiling safe on 28 August. It renewed the kitchen plinths on 11 September. It completed a damp survey on 21 September and raised work to regrout the tiles in the bathroom and clear the gutter to the rear extension.
    2. Communication records indicate that roofing works would not take place on 22 September due to weather conditions but it reported completing this work on the same day. It completed work to the kitchen ceiling on 29 September.
    3. On 10 October, the resident raised concern that only works to the gutter and grout were raised following the damp survey, and that the surveyor said they would report the damp in the kitchen units and patches to the chimney breast wall in her dining room.
    4. The landlord raised a work order for a roofer to investigate water entry points to the chimney on 12 October and completed work to the grouting on the same day. It passed work to clear the rear gutter to its contractors on 15 October but cancelled this on 1 November following 3 attempts to book the work in October. It investigated the roof on 30 October.
    5. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 November and said that no one had contacted her about work following the damp survey. She chased work to the gutter, chimney breast, and damp in the kitchen units. She maintained that the situation was negatively impacting her mental and physical health, and she felt let down and ignored. On 6 November, the landlord apologised that it had not updated her and had chased work to investigate the roof, renew the plinths in the kitchen, and clear guttering with its contractor, who would respond by 20 November (due to leave).
    6. The landlord “updated complaint notes” on 16 November and acknowledged an online enquiry on 18 November. The resident chased the complaint on 11 December, and the landlord acknowledged her stage 2 escalation on 12 December. It discussed her complaint with her on 13 December and she said that the damp and mould caused damage to a bed, wardrobe, and other items.
    7. It raised another damp and mould survey on 13 December and then raised work on 5 January to; renew sealant to windows and a door, pointing to the brickwork on the extension and next to the dining room, overhaul trickle vents to several windows, overhaul 2 doors, clear the loft of items left by a previous tenant and install a ventilation system, and plaster the chimney breast.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response on 11 January 2024, the landlord:
    1. Listed its actions and contact from the resident following the survey on 21 September 2023 and noted several occasions when she did not receive a response. It also recognised that she asked to escalate the complaint on 16 November 2023, but it did not pick this up until 12 December 2023.
    2. Confirmed the work it had raised following the recent survey and advised that it intended to complete these by 14 February 2024. It said it would arrange another survey to assess the possibility of installing a radiator adjacent to the kitchen area.
    3. Upheld the complaint, apologising for the further delays and the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered £500 compensation, comprised of £200 toward the replacement of damaged household items and £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.

Events following the complaint

  1. The landlord reported completing work to the chimney breast plaster on 31 January 2024. It did not find any damp and installed 2 vents to the living and dining room. It completed work to the window sealants, trickle vents, and pointing between 31 January and 22 February 2024. It completed work to install ventilation on 25 May 2024. Its repair records show that it reported installing a kitchen radiator on 24 January 2025 and cleared the loft of the previous tenants’ belongings on 18 February 2025.
  2. The resident initially referred her complaint to us in April 2024 and said that the landlord’s lack of action had negatively impacted her physical and mental health. She felt it had ignored her as it had not communicated with her and had not offered suitable support. She was also unhappy with the lack of support in moving despite sharing all relevant medical evidence. In November 2024, she added that it was only just completing some repairs and had not recognised the impact of ignoring her for 10 months. She then moved from the property in March 2025.
  3. In its communication to us in May 2025, the landlord recognised that there were more delays following its stage 2 complaint response. It offered a further £300 compensation which it said brought its total offer to £800. It said it would offer this directly to the resident at the time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the situation impacted her health. While we do not doubt her comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her transfer application and the lack of support offered in relation to moving. While she expressed in her complaint that she wanted to move if it did not complete repairs, the landlord’s handling of any application did not form part of the complaint we are considering. The resident applied for rehousing via a choice based letting system run by the local authority and has now moved. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter, she may wish to raise a separate complaint.
  3. In her complaint on 25 July 2023, the resident said that there were other repairs issues in the property aside from the leak into the kitchen and her reports of damp. We have not seen specific evidence confirming what repair issues she was unhappy with at the time. Our investigation is limited to the issues specifically raised and responded to in the landlord’s complaints process, and any commitments it made in its complaint responses. We have not considered repairs related to the bathroom or electrics, or the concerns she raised in November 2024 about the ventilation or bay window.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, gutters, walls, chimneys, floors and ceilings, but not the decorative finish. It is also responsible for installations it has provided.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would attend emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours. It aimed to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. It aimed to complete more complex work, such as structural repairs, within 60 days. It would keep residents informed of any potential delays and would consider putting temporary measures in place to mitigate the situation. Some jobs would require an inspection. in these cases, it would arrange for a surveyor to attend and advise the resident what repairs it would complete.
  3. The policy further states that it recognises that some residents with vulnerabilities may require an enhanced repairs service, and would tailor its services to accommodate adjustments they may need.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy (January 2023) states that, following a report, it would check for any undiagnosed leaks, consider whether there are issues with the fabric of the building, and check whether there is sufficient ventilation in the property. Its updated policy from October 2023 confirms that a suitably qualified surveyor would inspect and it would take appropriate action to remedy the cause and problem. It would also arrange a 3-month follow-up after any works to check it had resolved the problem.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. It aims to respond within 10 and 20 working days respectively once it has acknowledged the complaint. If there is likely to be a delay, it should communicate with the resident, explain the reason and provide a new response timescale, which should not be longer than a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, and repairs

  1. It is evident that there were multiple repair issues affecting the property and the resident spent time and trouble pursuing updates on the work required, which resulted in her complaint in July 2023. In its complaint responses on 15 August 2023 and 11 January 2024, the landlord recognised that there were delays, that it did not communicate effectively and that it did not follow up on the outcomes of previous surveys.

Diagnosis and record keeping

  1. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, we expect to see evidence that it completed a damp assessment, using professional tools, to establish the underlying cause of the issues, and the location of any defects. It should assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem to provide a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
  2. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the case, including the outcome of inspections and surveys, and details related to the repairs. It provided evidence; however, this was not comprehensive, which it has somewhat recognised. In its communication to us, it said that the damp was caused by water ingress through defective flashing to the roof, pointing to brickwork, a lack of heat, and ventilation issues. However, the extent of damp is unclear from the evidence provided.
  3. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp as it can be difficult to identify the cause(s) of the issue at the outset. In some cases, a landlord may need to attempt different repairs before the matter is resolved. We note that there were approximately 7 surveys and inspections between January 2023 and January 2024, and multiple further appointments.
  4. The landlord has not provided the outcome of surveys to document the reasons for its diagnosis, and it is of concern that it may have had the opportunity to identify repairs that were needed sooner had it gained comprehensive reports. The lack of available evidence likely contributed to a lack of oversight in its handling of the matter, and a lack of clear explanation to the resident about the cause of the problems through the complaints process.

Reports of a leak and damp

  1. The landlord completed work to apply a waterproof sealant to the resident’s extension roof in a timely manner following her initial reports of a leak coming through on 9 September 2022. We have not seen evidence to show that she raised any further roof issues until 12 January 2023, when she reported damp patches on the kitchen ceiling and water running down the external wall. An operative said there could be damp in the kitchen on 3 February 2023 and it was reasonable for the landlord to therefore arrange a survey.
  2. The landlord has suitably recognised that it did not follow up on its investigations at the time, and that its contractors did not provide the outcome of 2 surveys to investigate the roof, or damp within the property, in February 2023. Despite completing other unrelated works to the bathroom during this time, the landlord did not inspect further regarding these matters until 10 August 2023. This was in response to the complaint and a further leak, which was a considerable time later.
  3. We note that the resident declined work to install a radiator in the kitchen in January 2023 following her reports of cold temperatures. Cold conditions can contribute to damp and mould growth and the landlord was aware, from December 2022, that the kitchen had no form of heating and a flat roof. Following a survey of the bathroom in April 2023, it raised work to fit a kitchen radiator again but cancelled this on 23 June 2023. There is no evidence to show why, or whether it was reasonable for it to do so given that it was aware there was no form of heating in the kitchen, and the increased risk of damp as a result.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that a more recent stock condition survey (on 10 August 2023) refuted the findings of the previous survey (received on 7 August 2023) regarding the roof. While it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its qualified surveyors when stating that it did not need to replace the roof, we have not seen a copy of either survey. It is unclear what the previous survey recommended, what the findings were, whether it had fully considered any recommendations, or whether its proposed work to replace the flashings was adequate.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete the survey on 10 August 2023 given the lack of evidence of its previous investigations into damp, and the time that had passed. However, this does not appear to have investigated her concerns about damp within the kitchen units. It could have done more to ensure that it suitably considered all matters, including her reports of damp and any other contributing factors, at the visit to prevent further delays and multiple appointments.

Events following the stage 1 complaint response

  1. The landlord completed work to replace the kitchen plinths as agreed in its stage 1 response on 11 September 2023. This was within a reasonable time. It is unclear how this related to the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen units or whether this was a separate repair. A further damp and mould survey did not take place until 21 September 2023. While this was 2 months after the complaint, the resident asked to rearrange this from 16 August 2023, and the delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  2. The landlord took steps to make safe and repair the kitchen ceiling between 24 August and 25 September 2023. Given the resident’s reports of a leak in her complaint on 25 July 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to have made the ceiling safe under its emergency timescales to prevent further risk.
  3. The landlord said it completed work to replace the flashings on the roof on 22 September 2023. However, it also told the resident that this would not go ahead on the day due to weather conditions. It has not provided completion photos or other evidence to confirm how it satisfied itself that it did complete the work. However, we have assumed it did so as we have not seen evidence to show that the resident continued to report water leaking in the same area after 22 September 2023.
  4. The landlord has not provided a surveyor’s report detailing the investigations it completed into the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 21 September 2023. We appreciate that the landlord has said that the root cause of damp was the roof, which it was due to repair at the time. However, it raised the survey to “assess all areas” and it has not demonstrated it did so. While it raised work to regrout some tiling, and clear the rear gutters, we have not seen clear evidence to show that it considered whether there were other factors, aside from the roof, that were contributing to damp, or that it diagnosed the cause of damp in the kitchen units which formed part of the resident’s complaint.
  5. We note that the resident also raised concerns about damp patches to a chimney breast wall at the time of the survey. Despite the landlord raising work to investigate the roof and flashings for water entry points, it has not provided the outcome of the inspection it said it completed on 30 October 2023. It has not evidenced that it took any further action to remedy the damp patches at the time. It did not explain the findings within its stage 2 complaint response, which was likely to have caused concern to the resident.
  6. The landlord passed gutter clearance works to another contractor on 15 October 2023. It then cancelled the work after 3 attempts to contact the resident between 26 and 31 October 2023. It is of concern that despite her contact in November 2023 regarding this, and other work to address damp in the kitchen units affecting the chimney breast, the landlord did not seek to rebook the work.
  7. The landlord said it would ask the surveyor about work to the gutters, kitchen plinths, and roof investigation on 6 November 2023. However, its own records indicate that it had either cancelled or completed these repairs. While it was reasonable for it to chase the outcome of the roof inspection, it should have been able to provide more up to date information. It is of concern that it did not refer to the gutter or damp within the kitchen units within its stage 2 response.
  8. Following a further survey, the landlord raised multiple repairs on 5 January 2024. While we have not seen a copy of the survey, the works raised were to address issues that can contribute to water ingress and damp, including pointing, plastering to the chimney, overhauling sealant and trickle vents to windows, and installing a ventilation system. As set out above, we have not seen evidence to show that it “assessed all areas” as instructed as part of the previous survey in September 2023. It is therefore unclear whether it had the opportunity to identify these repairs sooner.

Events following the complaint

  1. The landlord completed most of the work it committed to within its stage 2 complaint response within a reasonable timescale following the complaint, except for installing the ventilation system, clearing items from the loft, and assessing the possibility of installing a radiator in the kitchen. We note that in April 2025, the landlord made an additional offer of £300 toward further delays which we have considered below.
  2. Its records show that there were delays in installing a ventilation system to the loft due to it not clearing the loft in the first instance. While it completed work to install the system on 25 May 2024, it is evident that it did not clear items in the loft when doing so, and the resident needed to pursue this. It reported clearing the loft on 18 February 2025, a significant time later. While this was unlikely to have affected the resident’s use of the property, it was a failing that it did not complete the work sooner, resulting in additional time and trouble after the complaint.
  3. The landlord committed to assessing the possibility of installing a radiator adjacent to the kitchen area on 11 January 2024 and said it would be in touch “in the coming days” to book an appointment. However, we have not seen evidence to show that it raised work to do so until 7 November 2024, almost 10 months following the complaint. It completed the work, which involved removing a door and installing pipework, on 24 January 2025. The delay may not have made a significant difference in the warmer months (March to October 2024), but it was a failing that it did not progress works as agreed. The landlord was aware that the kitchen had no form of heating which could increase the risk of damp, and that the resident had vulnerabilities that could be impacted by cold and damp conditions.

Communication and consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities

  1. Despite recognising its poor communication with the resident in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not take steps to improve this, and she needed to continue to chase it for updates. It recognised several occasions where it did not respond to her within its stage 2 complaint response, but did not confirm this as a failing, or provide redress for its continued poor communication. In addition, while it raised several repairs, it did not explain what was causing the damp in the property or offer any reassurance as to how the repairs would resolve the problems. This was likely to cause uncertainty.
  2. At various stages, the resident noted the impact of the situation on her mental and physical health, and existing medical conditions. While not raised as part of the complaint, she said that the landlord had not updated its systems to reflect her vulnerabilities. It confirmed that it had updated its housing management system on 19 September 2023, indicating that it may not have suitably considered any adjustments needed to its service before this.
  3. While it is beyond our remit to determine whether the landlord’s actions or inaction had a direct impact on the resident’s health, we have not seen clear evidence to show that it considered or referenced the possible impact of ongoing damp on her medical conditions (including asthma and fibromyalgia) when handling the repairs. Its communication was also poor and lacked clarity. While the landlord should communicate clearly with any resident, we have not seen evidence that it considered any adjustments to its communication in view of her mental health vulnerabilities and knowledge of “communication barriers”.
  4. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered appointing a staff member as a point of contact for the resident given the complaint, the previous failures to follow up and communicate, and her known vulnerabilities. By doing so, it could have ensured that it had oversight of the repairs needed, communicated more effectively, and monitored outstanding actions to completion.

Damage to personal belongings

  1. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident raised concerns about damage to her belongings due to damp, other than to food items in her initial complaint. The landlord said she reported damage to a bed, wardrobe, and other personal possessions in a call on 13 December 2023. It then offered £200 toward the replacement of damaged household items at stage 2.
  2. While the resident raised some concerns about mould around the window in the bedroom in December 2022, she did not raise any specific concerns during the time of her complaint, and we have not considered the landlord’s handling of this matter. It is beyond out remit to determine if the landlord was liable for the damage caused to her belongings and claims for damage to personal items are best resolved as part of an insurance claim.
  3. The landlord showed it was resolution focused by making an offer toward the cost of replacing items. However, it is not clear how it reached this figure or whether it requested evidence of the damage or costs when making the offer. It would have been appropriate for it to have signposted the resident to make an insurance claim to account for any costs over the £200 offered.
  4. We have included an order below for the landlord to provide information about how the resident can pursue a liability claim if the cost of damaged items was over the £200 it offered. We have not considered the landlord’s offer toward the cost of replacing damaged items as part of its total offer of redress for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the repairs.

Summary and Conclusion

  1. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, and repairs. Its offer of £300 towards distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its final response on 11 January 2024 is not proportionate to the failings identified in this case. This offer is disproportionately low given the inconvenience and time and trouble the resident experienced because of continued poor communication, the cumulative impact of multiple appointments and surveys, unclear information about the cause of the damp within the property or how repairs would resolve the issues reported, and its failure to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s additional offer of £300 made in April 2025 goes some way to recognise the impact of the further delays in completing the agreed complaint actions to the ventilation and radiator after January 2024. It is unclear as to whether the landlord would have made a further offer had the complaint not been referred to us for investigation and we have considered its learning and monitoring of complaint actions within the complaint handling section below.
  3. Our remedies guidance states that compensation offers between £600 and £1,000 should be considered in cases where there has been a failing or failings which had a significant impact, including a physical or emotional impact on a resident, over a significant period. We have included an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation in view of the impact on the resident over a 2-year period from January 2023 to January 2025.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 25 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023. This was a period of 15 working days and considered a reasonable timescale. While we have not considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application, it would have been appropriate for it to have commented on her request that it moved her or signposted her to information about her housing options to provide a full response to her concerns.
  2. The resident submitted a webform to the landlord on 3 November 2023 and raised concern that she had not heard from it about the works despite chasing. She also highlighted the impact the situation was having on her health. While the landlord responded on 6 November 2023, apologised, and said it would chase the outstanding work, it would have been appropriate for it to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process at the time in view of her ongoing dissatisfaction.
  3. While its records show it “updated complaint notes” on 16 November 2023, we have not seen the resident’s formal escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 January 2024, 37 working days later. The landlord recognised that it did not pick up her request to escalate the complaint until 12 December 2023 but did not offer suitable redress for its delay.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response primarily set out what happened and did not recognise any specific failings in its handling of the repairs or its communication aside from “further delays”. For example, while it noted that the resident did not receive communication despite chasing, it did not identify this as a failing on its part or explain how it would improve this moving forward. In addition, despite raising specific concerns about outstanding work to clear the guttering and to address damp within her kitchen units, the response did not address these aspects. This was a failing and likely to cause uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. It is of concern that the landlord did not adequately monitor its agreed complaint actions through to completion or progress the agreed actions in a timely manner following its stage 2 complaint response, especially given the overall timeframe to that point. The continued lack of oversight of the repairs indicates that it did not take adequate points of learning from the resident’s initial complaint. We have made a recommendation below for the landlord to review the case to identify points of learning. We have also included an order for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the failings in its handling of, and response to, the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, and repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for its failings.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £400, comprised of:
      1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursing repairs.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Pay the resident £600 as previously offered through its complaints process and following the complaint in April 2025, as well as the £200 it offered toward damaged belongings, if it has not already done so.
    4. Provide details of its public liability insurance to the resident. It should support her in making a claim if she is able to provide evidence that the cost of damage to her personal items was greater than £200.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to us within this timescale.

 Recommendations

  1.  We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Reviews the case to establish points of learning and avoid similar failings. It should consider:
      1. Whether it has suitable systems in place to monitor the outcome of any inspections or surveys in a timely manner.
      2. How it monitors any agreed complaint actions through to completion.
      3. How it communicates with residents regarding repairs and whether it should appoint a staff member as a point of contact where a complainant has vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the recommendations within 4 weeks.