Torus62 Limited (202415636)

Decision
Case ID	202415636
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported a number of repairs to the landlord over several years. In November 2024, she complained about delays to repairs, including kitchen works and plastering. She added there were uneven flagstones which she had tripped on and injured her wrist.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs in the property.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Reports of various repairs

6. The landlord’s response to repairs and the alleged injury was fair and proportionate. It committed to completing required works, agreed to a kitchen replacement, and appropriately signposted the resident to the personal injury claims process.

Complaint handling

7. While there was a delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2, the landlord recognised its error and offered appropriate remedies that put matters right.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £150 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already. The reasonable redress finding for its complaint handling is partly based on this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about delays in repairs including  flagstones, kitchen works and plastering. She added that uneven flagstones had caused her to trip and she had injured her wrist. She felt the landlord had made no progress despite her repeatedly raising concerns.
27 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint explaining that it found no evidence to support her claims that it had promised full plastering or to replace all flagstones. It confirmed that many repairs had been previously offered including to lift and re-bed the uneven flagstone, but these were refused as the resident sought to pursue disrepair action instead. The landlord advised that any injuries from the reported trip should be pursued as a personal injury claim and provided information to do so.
5 February 2025	The resident escalated the complaint, stating that she wanted the flagstones repointed and the gas meter relocated before the kitchen was replaced.
15 April 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It confirmed that repointing works to all driveway and rear flagstones were scheduled to start on 22 April 2025. It stated the gas meter was compliant with current kitchen design standards, posed no health and safety risk, and would not be relocated. The landlord said it had tried to arrange a joint visit to progress the kitchen replacement, but the resident declined as she felt pressured into accepting it. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £150 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she felt pressure from landlord staff over the kitchen replacement. She also told us there was poor workmanship and gas meter issues. She said the landlord repeatedly grouped separate repair issues together. The resident said the situation affected her wellbeing  and said works remained outstanding. As an outcome, she sought service improvements, completion of all repairs, and compensation for distress and injury.

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 various repairs
Finding	No maladministration

What we’ve not considered

8. The resident has raised multiple, overlapping repair and customer service issues across several landlord complaints over a number of years, some of which we have already investigated and will not be revisited. This investigation therefore focuses on the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint of 28 November 2024 and her escalation request in February 2025, up to its final response in April 2025.
9. The resident complained to the landlord and us that she tripped on flagstones and injured her wrist. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.

What we’ve considered

10. Following reports of uneven flagstones and other repairs in mid‑2024, the landlord arranged a property survey in July 2024. The survey identified several required repairs, including lifting and relaying a trip hazard flagstone, limited driveway works, remedial kitchen repairs, and patch plastering. The landlord clearly explained its scope of works.
11. The resident reported to the landlord sustaining an injury after tripping on an uneven garden flagstone. The evidence shows the landlord offered to lift and re‑bed the uneven flags to remove the identified hazard. The resident declined this offer and instead sought to pursue a disrepair claim, which she has since confirmed did not proceed to legal action. The landlord appropriately advised that personal injury claims should be pursued through the appropriate claims process and provided clear signposting. This response was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with good practice.
12. The landlord followed up in writing to confirm the agreed repairs and next steps. It explained why full replacement works were not required and confirmed that repairs would be completed on a like‑for‑like basis, supported by surveyor advice. Patch plastering was agreed in specific areas, with decoration vouchers offered. These explanations were clear and proportionate to the issues the resident had reported and the landlord had identified.
13. The landlord took reasonable steps to progress the kitchen work by proposing joint visits involving senior staff and a kitchen planner. It provided clear information about the gas meter, confirmed it was compliant and safe, and offered practical options to proceed or delay works if the resident wished to pursue relocating the meter independently via her energy provider. This demonstrated a balanced and fair approach, as the landlord would only be expected to arrange for the meter’s relocation itself if its siting posed a risk or other problem.
14. Although the landlord assessed the kitchen as remaining serviceable and not needing full replacement, it nonetheless agreed to include the resident on its kitchen replacement programme. The kitchen was subsequently replaced in July 2025. The evidence shows the resident remained unhappy following completion and did not allow a post‑inspection at that time. As a result, some additional works remain outstanding and now forms part of a newer complaint. The landlord’s decision to replace the kitchen, despite it being serviceable, demonstrated a reasonable and pragmatic approach to resolving the resident’s concerns.
15. While the resident disagreed with the scope of some repairs and sought full renewal in other areas, the landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyors assessments. It responded to concerns, engaged constructively, and explained that progress depended on agreeing access. The evidence shows delays were linked to access issues and circumstances outside of the landlord’s control.
16. The landlord continued to engage following further correspondence. It clarified what had and had not been agreed, appointed a single point of contact, and confirmed its willingness to discuss, clarify, and explain the proposed scope of works. Where the resident declined patch repairs or requested that works be paused, the landlord respected her requests and recorded them clearly.
17. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord went above and beyond its original repair obligation by agreeing, on 10 April 2025, to replace all external flagstones, rather than only remedying the identified trip hazard. Works commenced on 22 April 2025 and were completed by 25 April 2025, within the proposed timeframe and in line with 20 calendar day routine repair timescale.
18. Overall, the landlord investigated the reported repairs, raised and progressed appropriate repair orders, and communicated its decisions clearly. While some delays occurred, these were largely linked to access issues and disagreement over the scope of the work. Taken together, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, fair and proportionate.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The resident complained on 28 November 2024. On 12 December 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that it could not meet its original response timeframe. This was within the initial 10‑working‑day timeframe for stage 1 responses, in line with good practice. It clearly set a revised response date of 27 December 2024 and then met this commitment. This extension managed the resident’s expectations appropriately and was in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
21. The resident explicitly asked to escalate the complaint on 5 February 2025. However, the landlord did not do so. It therefore missed the opportunity to address her concerns promptly.
22. The resident experienced unnecessary time and trouble in seeking our assistance because the landlord only acted after we asked it to provide a final response by 28 March 2025. Even then, the landlord failed to meet this deadline and requested an extension to 8 April 2025, which it subsequently failed to meet. It eventually issued its stage 2 response on 15 April 2025, outside its complaint policy timescales.
23. Nevertheless, in its final response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure to escalate the complaint sooner. It apologised, provided an explanation and offered £150 compensation, which aligned robustly with our compensation guidance. While the delay was frustrating and contrary to its policy and the Code, the landlord took reasonable steps to recognise its error and put matters right.

Learning

24. The landlord did well by commissioning surveys, clearly explaining and evidencing its repair decisions, and engaging constructively with the resident, including going beyond its obligations to resolve concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

26. The landlord’s demonstrated good communication by promptly advising of response delays, setting clear revised timescales, and managing expectations. However, it should ensure escalation requests are acknowledged and progressed without delay to avoid unnecessary time and trouble.