Torus62 Limited (202407150)

Decision
Case ID	202407150
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 January 2026

Background

1. The resident alleged her neighbour was harassing her, causing damage to her car and issues with parking, as well as making loud noise. She put the landlord on notice about her concerns in February 2023 and it opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case. She also believed she was subjected to hate crime by her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
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

Reports of ASB

6. The landlord followed its ASB policies and procedures. The evidence showed it had fully considered all the resident’s reports of alleged ASB, the evidence she provided and considered the risk to her. It provided her with appropriate support including referrals and mediation, and made reasonable communication attempts.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and procedures and did not acknowledge its errors during its own investigation.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance.	No later than 09 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord as she was dissatisfied with how her ASB case was handled, and its lack of communication.
Between 26 and 27 June 2023	On 26 June 2023 the landlord tried to call the resident about her complaint. On 27 June 2023 it discussed her complaint with her and established that she believed: Her ASB case officer (staff member) was not providing updates. ASB allegations stemming from parking disputes with her neighbour were its responsibility. There were ASB allegations regarding noise, harassment, and hate crime perpetrated by her neighbour.
30 June 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response and said: That after the resident’s reports of ASB on 8 February 2023 regarding noise, hate crime and parking disputes, it had followed its ASB policy. Its staff member sent her the ASB action plan on 15 February 2023 and it re-attached this. It would not change the staff member handling the ASB case as they had kept her updated in line with its ASB policy from February 2023 onwards and responded to her communication. It had offered mediation to her and her neighbour on 6 March 2023. However, on 6 April 2023 it was told she and her neighbour could not come to an agreement. There was insufficient evidence that her neighbour deliberately drove into her car but it advised her to liaise with the police about this. It did not have evidence to substantiate that her neighbour was parking in a way that would fall under its harassment category of ASB.
Between 11 July 2023 and 22 September 2023.	The landlord told the resident on 11 July 2023 that it believed mediation to be a suitable next step and advised her the reported car damage was an insurance matter. It also said the police had been provided evidence and there was limited action it could take. It would close her ASB case if it did not hear from her. It reiterated that parking and minor neighbour disputes were not considered ASB under its policy.   On 25 July 2023 the resident rejected the landlord’s re-offer of mediation and then on 11 August 2023 she confirmed her complaint escalation to stage 2.   On 18 September 2023 the landlord’s director offered to contact the resident by phone or to visit the property regarding her stage 2 complaint. She replied to this on 22 September 2023 but said she would seek third party advice before agreeing.
29 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response which: Said that its position remained unchanged from its stage 1 complaint response. Provided examples of what was ASB and what was not considered ASB under its policy. This included that hate crime was ASB. Reiterated that there was insufficient evidence about her neighbour hitting her car and parking intentionally to harass her. It also reiterated that this would not be ASB under its policy. Reiterated the ASB case would not be transferred to another staff member as the staff member had made no failings to warrant this. Its director re-offered to meet with her.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us and said: The issue had been ongoing and was unresolved. She does not feel safe at home due to her neighbour’s behaviour. She remained distressed due to the landlord’s handling of the matter.

 

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 ASB
Finding	No maladministration

8. Our investigation has assessed if the landlord’s response about ASB followed its policy and was fair, not whether ASB occurred. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation has focused on events from February 2023, which were addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
9. After the resident reported ASB (about noise and parking disputes) to the landlord on 8 February 2023 it opened an ASB case on the same day. It adhered to its ASB policy by sending the resident an action plan which had reasonable steps and was issued promptly. In line with its ASB procedures it attempted to interview the resident and her neighbour which was part of the action plan and it made contact with the police. There was no evidence that it failed to follow the action plan.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy also says it would work with external organisations. The landlord proactively sought the resident’s consent to make contact with third parties on her behalf on 15 February 2023. The landlord received counter ASB allegations against the resident and it told her this on 2 March 2023. After subsequent reports of ASB from the resident, it offered mediation to the resident and the neighbour on 6 March 2023. This was done in a reasonable timeframe via referral to its mediation partner.
11. Once the landlord was put on notice that the resident and her neighbour were unable to resolve her ASB concerns via mediation, it queried its mediation partner as to why she and her neighbour could not come to an agreement. This showed the landlord was proactive with its communication and resolution focused.
12. Following the mediation meeting between the resident and her neighbour, the landlord received additional reports of ASB and evidence from her. It is clear the landlord considered the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy having referred her to a hate crime charity on 23 May 2023. It had also relayed her evidence to the police. On 30 May 2023 it also explained its position about not installing closed circuit television (CCTV) for her and it not being able to soundproof the property. This showed it attempted to manage her expectations at that stage. It also made a further referral for her to a joint action group in June 2023.
13. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it did not have sufficient evidence about the resident’s allegation her neighbour purposefully damaged her car. However, it provided the resident with further advice to pursue this allegation via the police and her car insurance. As such it followed its ASB policy which stated it would support and encourage reporting of issues.
14. Additionally, the landlord clearly explained in its final response what it considered to be ASB and what it did not, under its policy. It had previously explained in May 2023 that parking disputes between neighbours were not ASB. It also re-offered the resident a meeting with a director from the landlord which showed it remained resolution focused. We have not seen evidence the resident subsequently accepted this.
15. During the complaints procedure, the landlord explained its position that its staff member followed its ASB policy. While we cannot comment on the resident’s concerns about terms of employment or other personnel issues regarding her ASB case officer, it was reasonable the landlord investigated the resident’s concern and explained why it would not change its staff member. The resident believed she should have been contacted every 2 weeks, but this was not within its ASB policy or the action plan made with her.
16. Overall, while we acknowledge this was a distressing period for the resident, but there is no evidence landlord failed to properly respond to her ASB reports. Its actions and communication with her was reasonable.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

17. When the resident submitted her complaint on 19 June 2023, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints procedure. The landlord’s policy said it would contact the resident within 2 working days of registering a stage 1 complaint and then respond in 10 working days. The evidence showed the landlord’s initial contact was 3 working days over target. However, this would not have caused the resident significant detriment as it then sent its stage 1 response in 4 working days. As such, the resident’s stage 1 complaint journey was a total of 9 working days.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy said its target to respond at stage 2 was 20 working days from receipt of a complaint escalation. If it needed more time, it would inform the resident or it would agree an extension. Its policy did not state that it acknowledged complaint escalation requests.
19. The landlord’s records showed it had logged the complaint at stage 2 on 11 August 2023 following the resident’s contact that day. A stage 2 response would have been due by 8 September 2023. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the status of the complaint or agree an extension with her. While the landlord contacted the resident on 18 September 2023, the complaint response was already overdue and no reasons for any delays were provided, or a new timeline to respond proposed.
20. Overall, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was 15 working days over target. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 September 2023 about needing advice from third parties before she would consider meeting with the landlord. It was clear the landlord had the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about her complaint journey, but it failed to do so and this caused her inconvenience. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
21. Having considered the above events, we order the landlord to pay £50 in compensation to the resident to reflect the level of inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases when the landlord has failed to acknowledge a minor failing, and has made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding her reports of ASB was good. It was able to substantiate its communication attempts with her and third parties via its contact log. This was positive record keeping.
23. Our spotlight report on noise complaints (October 2022) recommended that landlords should review their ASB policies in regard to the frequency of updates to residents. While in this case its communication attempts were reasonable, the landlord could consider further learning from the resident’s complaint by establishing clear timescales for when it would make contact.
24. In contrast, as above it had failed to clearly communicate or manage the resident’s expectations about the delays to her complaint journey. These failings could have been avoided if it had adhered to its complaints policy. However, it is positive the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be in line with our Complaint Handling Code.