Torus62 Limited (202406994)

Background

1. The resident complained about the length of time taken to repair a bathroom leak. The landlord did not act on several reports and took a long time to fix the leak. The resident felt the severity of the leak could have been avoidedif the landlord had acted when he first reported a problem with the bathroom door.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A bathroom leak and associated repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a bathroom leak and associated repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

A bathroom leak and associated repairs.

5. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the home in good repair, this includes internal doors, door frames, walls and ceilings. The landlord’s repairs policy sets a 20-calendar day timeframe to complete routine repairs. It also says it will make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours and aim to complete the job within 24 hours. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as repairs affecting the safety or basic security of the property. This includes water leaks and serious electrical faults.
6. On 11 January 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom door would not close and that the top of the door frame was swollen, causing damage to the paintwork.The landlord acknowledged the report and said it had passed the information to the defect team to raise a repair. No appointment was made and the repair was not attended. The landlordlater discovered the report had notreached the relevant team because of IT issues. Although the IT issues was outside of the landlord’s control, the repair was not attended and completed within the 20-calendar day timeframe in its repairs policy.
7. On 11 February 2024 the resident reported water coming through the bathroom light fitting. This report had also not been passed to the relevant team due to the same IT issues. Therefore, the landlord did not make the area safe within 4 hours or carry out further repairs within 24 hours, as required in its repairs policy. This error caused additional delays and inconvenience to the resident.
8. On 20 February 2024 the resident chased the repair because the leak had worsened, and his carpets were saturated. He said mould had begun to appear in the bathroom. The landlord carried out a tenancy visit on the same day and said it would raise the matter as an urgent repair, asking him to call if he had not heard anything by 22 February 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 February because no one had been in touch to attend or fix the leak. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and caused further delays in addressing the hazard.
9. On 28 February 2024 the landlord attended the property. It confirmed the leak originated from pipework in the bathroom ceiling. It said the pipework had not been fitted correctly when the property was built. The landlord repaired the leak and said it would return to complete further remedial works. The resident said the severity of the leak could have been avoided if the landlord attended when he first raised concerns about the bathroom door.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the contractor would complete the additional repairs on 1 and 2 May 2024 and said the contractor would pay for the carpet replacement. The repair dates were outside of the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, but the offer to replace the resident’s carpets was fair and reasonable.
11. The contractor did not complete the works as agreed, and the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on the outstanding repairs. The resident carried out his own mould treatment because he was concerned about the potential impact to his and his daughter’s health. The landlord did not complete the repairs until 3 October 2024. This delay did not meet the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
12. The resident said the bathroom door and door frame were never replaced. He said the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out the replacement but said the job required 2 people and could not be completed. There is no evidence that the landlord replaced the door, and its records do not show what works, if any, were carried out to the door or frame. Clear and detailed repair records could have confirmed whether the landlord had agreed to carry out the works. They could also have helped reduce the delays when the resident first reported the repairs.
13. The landlord confirmed it would cover the cost of replacing the carpet. The resident provided a quote for the carpet replacement on 26 March 2024. He said he removed the existing carpets so the new ones could be fitted. The carpets were not replaced until 23 May 2024. This delay would have caused the resident further inconvenience.
14. The resident reported a further potential leak in May 2024. He told us he also reported damage to the skirting boards and living room door. The resident did not raise the potential leak during the complaint process, and it is not clear from the landlord’s records if the other repairs were raised during the complaint process either. So, we cannot assess the landlord’s response. However, we recommend the landlord inspects the property for any ongoing leaks and outstanding repairs.
15. The landlordsaid the service provided was below standard. It apologised for the delay in paying for the replacement carpets and for not completing the mould treatment in the bathroom. It offered £250 in compensation, made up of £100 for service failure, £100 towards electricity costs, and £50 for the mould solution. This amount does not reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident. While the landlord accepted its failings and apologised, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this case.
16. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair. The landlord did not attend in line with its repairs policy and took an excessive amount of time to complete the works, with some bathroom repairs reported to be outstanding. We order the landlord to pay the resident £550 for the inconvenience, time and trouble this has caused the resident. This amount is inclusive of the £250 it has already offered and is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

The Associated Complaint

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. The code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlord’s must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. And stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Code.
18. On 28 February 2024 the resident complained about the time taken for the landlord to respond to the repairs he had reported. He also said he attempted to make a complaint on 22 February 2024, but the customer service operative refused to email him confirming that the complaint had been logged.
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 18 working days. This did not meet its complaint policy, which states it will aim to respond within 10 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay. Given that the resident had already experienced delays in the repairs process, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep him updated and request an extension. It did address the issues raised in the complaint and apologised for the service provided and told the resident how it aimed to put things right, this was proportionate.
20. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 April 2024 and attached a document to his email with the request. We asked the landlord to provide this document, but it said it could not locate it. The landlord should ensure it retains documents provided by residents wherever possible.
21. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 May 2025. The response was issued 4 days outside of its published timescale. This was not in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
22. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord did not address the delays in its responses, could not confirm whether the resident had raised a complaint before 28 February 2024, and could not provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request. It also did not complete the repair works on 1 and 2 May 2024, despite stating in its complaint response that these would be carried out.

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.