Torus62 Limited (202413004)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413004

Torus62 Limited

17 January 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of drainage issues in the garden.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident lives there with her 2 children.
  2. On 4 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the garden was waterlogged. On 9 April she raised a complaint to the landlord, as she was unhappy that the drains in the garden had not been replaced as agreed. She said that there was damp in the property and she had had to throw belongings away.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024, in which it said:
    1. Its contractor had determined that the drains did not need to be replaced.
    2. It had carried out a survey on 22 April. No external walls were found to be damp, however some areas were showing as amber on the damp reader. It raised repairs, booked in for 17 May.
    3. It accepted that it had not updated her about there no longer being a need to change the drains and offered £50 compensation to recognise the poor communication.
  4. On 9 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 27 June 2024 in which it said:
    1. Not all skirting was removed as agreed on 17 May. It apologised for this error by its contractor and the delays this had caused.
    2. It confirmed it had raised a further job and would ensure that the contractor was briefed before attending.
    3. It offered further compensation of £150, made up of £100 for delays and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  5. On 28 June 2024 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to investigate the complaint. She said that repairs had still not been completed and her belongings were being ruined by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised a previous complaint about damp and mould in the property in 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 May 2023 and whilst the resident did initially approach this Service, she later confirmed she did not want to progress this complaint. She did not subsequently refer the damp and mould issues to this Service until 28 June 2024.
  2. Residents are expected to bring complaints to this Service within 12 months of their landlord issuing a final response, while they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has only considered the landlord’s actions since it sent its previous stage 2 response on 16 May 2023.

Drainage issues

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out routine repairs within 20 calendar days. Its policy allows 60 days for more complex repairs.
  2. The landlord carried out a CCTV survey of the drains to check for damage in March 2023 and flushed the gulleys to the rear of the property. The survey found no issues with the main line but could not check gulley lines as it said they were old style gulleys which would need to be removed to be surveyed. From the information provided, it is not clear whether this took place.
  3. On 4 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that the garden was clogged with water. The landlord’s repairs log said that a survey was needed as the garden was prone to flooding. A survey was carried out on 8 March, which said that the old channel was getting blocked and needed to be replaced with an ACO drain channel. It also said the gullies needed jetting.
  4. A contractor for the landlord attended on 8 April 2024. They said that in their opinion ACO drains were not required and only jetters were needed to clear out the gulleys. The contractor’s notes do not clarify whether they had been made aware that the gulleys had already been cleared out on a number of occasions. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made the contractor aware of the recurrence of the issue to ensure they had all information before forming an opinion. As there is no evidence it did this, it is unclear whether the contractor’s opinion could be relied on.
  5. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 9 April 2024 as she was unhappy that the ACO drains were not being installed. She said the garden was still flooded, despite the drains being flushed. On 18 April the landlord contacted the person who had carried out the survey on 8 March. They said that if the other contractor was a drain expert then the landlord should go with their opinion. Had the landlord ensured the drain contractor had all of the relevant history, this would have been a reasonable approach. However, given that the landlord has not shown this was the case, it was not clear that the drain contractor’s opinion was formed based on all available information.
  6. In its stage 1 response of 8 May 2024, the landlord said that its contractor had said that no ACO drains were needed, because water was not pooling against the property, so flushing the drains was the correct action. It accepted that it should have updated her as to why the ACO drains were not needed and offered £50 compensation for poor communication.
  7. The resident asked the landlord for the case to be escalated on 9 May 2024, as she remained unhappy that the drains were not being changed. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 27 June did not make any further comments about its decision not to change the drains. As the resident had escalated both parts of her complaint, it was not reasonable for the landlord to not address this point at all in its response.
  8. On 23 September 2024 the landlord’s repairs log showed that the resident had again raised that the garden was waterlogged and a survey was required. The landlord has not yet carried out this survey, and has booked it in for 3 March 2025.
  9. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues in the garden. The landlord told the resident it would be replacing drains after carrying out a survey. It then cancelled this job based on a contractor’s opinion, when it was not clear that this contractor had been given a full history of the issue.
  10. Given the conflicting opinions, it would have been a reasonable step for the landlord to take to arrange a survey carried out by a drainage expert. The resident has since reported the garden being waterlogged again, demonstrating that flushing the gulleys did not resolve the problem. The landlord has failed to carry out a lasting repair within the timescales set out in its policy.
  11. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to resolve the drainage issues in the garden. This has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £250. An order has also been made for the landlord to arrange for a survey to be carried out by a drainage expert.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will:
    1. Spot signs of condensation, damp and mould and understand the causes and remedies of these.
    2. Conduct maintenance to prevent the occurrence of damp and mould.
    3. Understand the components in its properties which may cause damp.
    4. Carry out work to fix any problems that are found.
  3. The resident first raised a problem with damp within the property on 9 April 2024 when she raised her complaint. She said that this damp was in a downstairs cupboard and had damaged her belongings, which she had had to dispose of.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 8 May 2024 the landlord said that a survey had been carried out on 22 April, however it has not provided this Service with a copy of the report. It said it found that the external walls were not showing signs of damp, but some areas were showing as amber on the damp reader. It raised a job for 17 May to remove skirting boards in some areas of the property to try to locate the source of the damp.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 June 2024, in which it said that the job was not fully completed on 17 May. The contractor had only removed the skirting in the kitchen. It apologised for this mistake and for the delay this had caused. It said it had provided feedback to the relevant manager and would ensure that the contractor was correctly briefed before attending to carry out further investigation. It offered £150 compensation to recognise the delay and inconvenience caused.
  6. The stage 2 response said a recall job had been raised with a target date of 6 May 2024, however this date had passed and the job had not been completed. The response did not acknowledge that it had failed to meet this target, or provide the resident with a new target date, which was not appropriate.
  7. A new job was booked for 8 July 2024, however the resident called to cancel this and rearrange for 12 July, when the landlord was unable to gain access. This Service’s Spotlight on: Damp and Mould highlighted that landlord’s should have processes in place to follow up with residents to rearrange the appointment following a no access visit. There is no evidence the landlord attempted to rearrange this appointment, and no contact was made until the resident reported the damp again on 23 September.
  8. A survey was booked in for 6 December 2024, however the resident said she was not going to be available on this date. It was then rebooked for 3 March 2025. This Service appreciates that there was a no access appointment and rebooked appointments that were not in the landlord’s control. However, given that its contractor had not carried out investigations correctly in May 2024, an appointment in March 2025, 9 months later, is not a reasonable timeframe.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 January 2025 to provide her with information on how she can make a claim under its liability insurance. Whilst it could have provided this information during its internal complaints process, it is reasonable that the landlord has proactively provided this information.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. Its failure to carry out a full investigation into the source of the damp has led to the resident living with damp and mould for a protracted period. When it was unable to get access in July 2024 it did not follow up with the resident and waited for her to contact it again 2 months later.
  11. Repairs have not been carried out within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It had failed to demonstrate that it has taken its obligations under the HHSRS seriously and has not acted in line with its own damp and mould policy. It told the resident in its stage 1 response that the drainage issues in the garden were not causing the damp and mould issues inside the problem. However, it has not provided a copy of any survey reports to evidence that it has looked into this fully and that the 2 issues are not linked. Its stage 2 response referred to a target date for a recall job that had already been missed and did not set out a plan on when it was going to carry out this job.
  12. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience the delays have caused her. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £400. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says it will send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident requesting escalation. At both stages it says that it can extend the timeframe by 10 working days, as long as the resident is kept updated.
  3. The resident raised the complaint on 9 April 2024 and the landlord sent her a text message to acknowledge the complaint on 10 April. On 23 April it emailed the resident to say that due to the complexity of the issues it needed to extend the deadline by a further 10 working days, to 8 May. It sent its stage 1 response on 8 May, within the extended timeframe and in line with its policy.
  4. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 9 May 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 16 May. It set a deadline of 13 June, which was outside the timeframe of 20 working days set out in its policy. On 13 June it tried to make contact with the resident to get a better understanding of what was outstanding. It was unable to make contact via telephone and sent her an email extending the deadline by 10 working days to 27 June. It sent its stage 2 response on 27 June, 34 working days after the escalation was requested.
  5. As explained above, this stage 2 response only addressed the internal damp and mould, and did not provide any further comments on the draining issues. Even where the landlord believes that its stage 1 response was correct, this Service would expect it to review its stage 1 response. The landlord could then have explained why it still felt the stage 1 response was right. In this case it does not appear to have reviewed this issue at stage 2, which was not appropriate.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. At stage 2 it set itself a timeframe that was outside of its policy. It did not try to contact the resident to discuss the complaint in more detail until the day of the deadline it had set. If it was not clear what the resident felt was outstanding, it should have made contact with her to clarify this when it escalated the complaint. Delaying requesting this information meant that it had to delay its final response unnecessarily.
  7. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling process to ensure the need for additional information is identified at an early stage of complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in relation its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues in the garden.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in relation its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £750, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £250 in relation to the drainage issues.
    2. £400 in relation to damp and mould.
    3. £100 in relation to complaint handling.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology.
  3. The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
  4. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for an drainage survey to be carried out by a drainage expert. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report, and a schedule of works setting out a timeframe for repairs, if required.
    2. Carry out a damp and mould survey to identify the source of the damp. This should including investigating whether the damp is linked to the external drainage issue. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report, and a schedule of works setting out a timeframe for repairs, if required.

 Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review its complaint handling process to ensure the need for additional information is identified at an early stage of complaints.

Chat to us