Torus62 Limited (202417443)

Decision
Case ID	202417443
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	20 January 2026

Background

1. Having received notification of his service charges for 2024 to 2025, the resident complained to the landlord asking it to explain the reason for the 48% increase. The resident is a variable service charge payer.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the increase in his service charges and his request to view documents and accounts supporting the increase.
3. We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about the increase in his service charges and his request to view documents and accounts supporting the increase.
   2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s queries about the increase in his service charges and his request to view documents and accounts supporting the increase.

5. The landlord provided reasonable responses with regards to charges for cyclical decoration, communal lighting, Health & Safety, building insurance, door entry and its management fee. It also confirmed the resident’s right to inspect the accounts and documents once the actual accounts had been finalised. The landlord accepted it had not dealt with the resident’s concern about staff conduct at stage 1. It put this right at stage 2 by apologising, paying compensation, and taking steps to improve customer service.
6. The landlord agreed at stage 2 to review the grounds maintenance charge and gave an update in July 2024, saying most front areas were shared. However, it did not deal with the disputed meterage. Three months later, it confirmed the meterage and cut the grounds maintenance charge from £202.02 to £101.68. However, the delay and the need for the resident to chase the landlord for updates caused unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience and frustration for him.

How the landlord handled the complaint.

7. The landlord handled the complaint in line with both its complaints policy and the Code.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failure identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation. This is made up of: £100 for the unnecessary inconvenience and frustration caused by its delay in completing its investigation into the disputed grounds maintenance charge. The £50 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response, for its failure to address his concerns about his contact with a member of its staff. This only needs to paid if the landlord has not already done so. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 17 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 April 2024	The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the increase in his service charge. The resident said: The service charge notification letter from the landlord, for the period April 2024 to March 2025, gave no reason for the large increases. He contacted the landlord to find out more but its staff member was rude and dismissive and offered no further information. He had the right to inspect the accounts within 6 months of receiving the cost summary. The resident said he had also requested this by email but had received no response. The resident said he was now requesting this.
3 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response in which it: Provided explanations for the increase in the cyclical decoration, communal lighting, Health & Safety, building insurance, door entry and management fee charges. Explained a grounds maintenance charge of £202 had been added for the shared gardens at the front of the block. The landlord said the resident paid 1/4 of the contract cost. The landlord provided a breakdown of the amount and the area covered. It noted this charge had been missed before, but the lease allowed it to recover the cost. It said it would not claim the missed years as the error was its own. Said the charges were estimates. It would review the actual costs at year end. Any over or under spend would appear in the statement of accounts due in September 2025.
22 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint saying: He needed a more detailed explanation as to why his charges had increased. The landlord had not addressed his concerns about the rude and dismissive attitude of its member of staff. He challenged the landlord omitting the grounds maintenance charge in error. The resident said the landlord had previously been told by residents that they maintained the gardens as a ‘local agreement’.
20 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it said: The cyclical decoration charge included a £290.41 adjustment from a past deficit, which added to that year’s rise. The stage 1 figures were the only ones it could give at that time. These were based on contractor costs or last year’s figures with inflation added. It was still waiting for more details about the grounds maintenance charge and said it would update the resident within 4 weeks. The landlord apologised for not addressing the staff conduct concern at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation. It said it had spoken with the staff member, who apologised, and confirmed that customer training was in place for front‑line staff. It also explained that the right to request a written summary of costs applied only to the actual accounts, not estimates. Such requests must be made within 6 months of the accounts being issued. The most recent accounts were sent in September 2023. The next set would be sent in September 2024, when the resident could request the supporting documents.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said: The landlord had responded to his complaint and provided information but this simply showed that the charges had increased. No explanation was offered and he was not provided with access to documents to support the charges. His new charge included costs for grounds maintenance. However, the grounds the landlord referred to were either maintained by resident’s or did not exist.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the increase in his service charges and his request to view documents and accounts supporting the increase.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered.

8. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. We do not investigate whether the service or the costs of works themselves are ‘reasonable’ or whether the services provide value for money. We also do not investigate where there is a dispute about the extent of the works required. This is because these matters require a level of expertise that we are unable to provide.
9. If the resident wanted to pursue his concerns about these matters, he may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

What we have considered.

10. In accordance with the lease, the resident must pay the landlord, on demand, ‘an appropriate proportion’ of the costs incurred by the landlord in providing services and facilities to the main building. The lease also confirms:
    1. The resident is obliged to pay an ‘interim charge’ to the landlord (estimate). The interim charge includes any surplus accumulated from the previous year’s ‘accounting period’.
    2. At the end of the ‘accounting period’ the landlord will prepare, and serve on the resident, the ‘relevant expenditure’ for that accounting year.
11. The resident has the right, under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) to request in writing for the landlord to provide facilities for the inspection of the accounts, invoices, records, and any other documents supporting the ‘relevant expenditure’.
12. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about cyclical decoration works, communal lighting, Health & Safety, building insurance, door entry and management fee, and his request for the supporting information, were in line with the above obligations. As previously explained, we have not considered the level, increase or reasonableness of the charges. Nor have we considered whether those charges provide value for money for the resident.
13. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about his contact with a member of its staff in its stage 1 response. The landlord put this right in its stage 2 response. This it did by apologising to the resident and offering him a proportionate level of compensation. It also confirmed it had spoken to the member of staff in question, shared their apology with the resident and set out what action it was taking to improve its customer service going forward.
14. The lease states the services provided by the landlord to the main building include the tending of any garden and common area (if any) serving the main building. The plans provided by both the landlord and the resident confirm the grounds to the front of the resident’s building, which the disputed grounds maintenance relates to, are common areas and not included within the demised property.
15. In its stage 2 response of 20 June 2024, the landlord agreed to investigate the grounds maintenance further. It also committed to updating the resident with any progress within 4 weeks of that response. This was a reasonable and solution focused approach for the landlord to take.
16. The landlord did what it said it would do, providing the resident with an update on 10 July 2024. The landlord confirmed:
    1. A ‘validation’ exercise had been undertaken.
    2. The rear garden was recorded as being ‘resident maintained’.
    3. With a few exceptions, most of the immediate frontage of the main building was communal and it would maintain those areas.
    4. The service charge for the front communal grounds maintenance was correct.
17. However, its response failed to explain how it had decided the charge was correct. The resident continued to dispute this with the landlord. The resident met with the landlord on 1 August 2024 to discuss his concerns. On 5 September 2024, he chased the landlord for its response. The resident said the landlord had contacted him on 7 August 2024 and told him he could expect to hear from it in a couple of weeks, but he heard nothing further.
18. On 20 September 2024, 3 months after its stage 2 response, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the square meterage had now been confirmed. The landlord also confirmed this had resulted in a decrease in the resident’s service charge for the grounds maintenance from £202.02 to £101.68.
19. Whilst the landlord ultimately reduced the resident’s charge, it was not reasonable for it to have taken 3 months, from the date of its stage 2 response, to complete its investigation. The delay and having to chase the landlord for updates would have understandably caused unnecessary inconvenience and frustration to the resident.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

20. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.
21. In accordance with both the Code and its complaints policy, the landlord would be expected to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being made. It would also be expected to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
22. We are satisfied the landlord handled the complaint in line with both its complaints policy and the Code. This is because:
    1. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 23 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being received, doing so on 3 May 2024.
    2. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 May 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request being received, doing so on 20 June 2024.

Learning

23. There was a delay in the landlord completing its own investigation into disputed ground maintenance. It may wish to consider how it keeps resident’s updated when it needs more time to investigate such disputes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. There were no knowledge information management issues identified in this investigation.

Communication

25. Outside of the findings of this report, we have identified no other communication issues in this investigation.