From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Torus62 Limited (202417468)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417468

Torus62 Limited

12 September 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. damp and mould repairs while the resident was decanted
    2. the resident’s reports the kitchen was fitted without a sufficient gap for his fridge freezer
    3. the resident’s request for more electrical sockets in the living room
    4. the resident’s request to replace or compensate him for damage caused to mattresses while in the decant property

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. The resident lives in a one-bedroom bungalow with his wife.
  2. In October 2023 the landlord moved the resident while it conducted work, including a refit of the kitchen, and damp and mould repairs. In April 2024 the resident moved back into his original home. On 19 April 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint, he said:
    1. when returning to the property he could not fit the fridge freezer in the same kitchen space as before
    2. damp works had been signed off, but not all work scheduled was completed and he had to chase for this to be done
    3. more electric sockets were required in the living room
    4. when moving from the decant property, it was discovered the bottom of his and his wife’s mattresses were covered in mould
  3. The landlord responded on 20 May 2024 at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said:
    1. the kitchen was compliant with regulations, but it would consider creating more space for the fridge freezer as a gesture of goodwill
    2. electrical installations were up to standard, and it had a valid Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR)
    3. it was not afforded an opportunity to deal with the mould issue at the decant property, therefore it would not be responsible for the damage caused to the mattresses
    4. as a resolution it would:
      1. conduct a site visit to discuss sizing requirements for the kitchen
      2. arrange for a review of the EICR and extra sockets will be considered
      3. provide an update once all relevant information had been gathered
  4. On 24 June 2024 the resident escalated the complaint as he believed the landlord should cover the cost of new mattresses and the fridge freezer issue had not been resolved. The landlord responded on 26 July 2024 and said:
    1. an electrical upgrade was completed on 18 July 2024, and it had used its discretion to install extra sockets
    2. despite providing options relating to the fridge freezer, the resident had yet to agree to increasing the gaps available
    3. it had reviewed photos of the mattresses, but still did not consider itself responsible for the damage
    4. as a resolution it would:
      1. arrange for a team to increase the gap in the kitchen if the resident wanted it to do this
      2. ask a surveyor to conduct an inspection to review any damage caused by the contractor forcing the fridge freezer into a gap
      3. offer £200 for the inconvenience
  5. As the landlord did not receive a response to its stage 2 complaint response it called the resident to arrange a visit to the property. The visit took place on 23 September 2024, and a decision was made to increase the compensation to £500 as a gesture of goodwill. It also offered to pay for a professional clean of the mattresses. However, the resident refused this.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us in July 2024. In March 2025 the resident confirmed outstanding work had been completed. To resolve the complaint he wanted the landlord to cover the cost of the mattresses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communication with us the resident was concerned he had to pay utility bills at both the decant property and his home property during the decant period. In the interest of fairness the scope of this investigation has focussed on the issues raised directly with the landlord as a formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any dissatisfaction prior to our involvement. As this is a new issue, it can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Failure to complete the damp and mould repairs while decanted

  1. On 11 July 2023 a surveyor attended the resident’s property and noted that repairs were required to the living room and on the left side of the chimney. This work was combined with further damp and mould repairs which were to be completed during the resident’s decant. “Decant” refers to the process of temporarily moving residents out of their homes due to necessary repairs or safety concerns.
  2. The resident moved back to the property on 3 April 2024. He then reported to the landlord that the damp and mould work to the left side of the chimney had not been completed. The landlord arranged for this to be done, and the damp and mould work was completed by 19 April 2024.
  3. Considering the resident was decanted for about 5 months it was unreasonable for the landlord move the resident back into the property without completing all the work identified for damp and mould. This caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  4. It is important for us to consider all the circumstances of the case, including what the landlord did to put the matter right. While the landlord failed to complete the work it had identified, it acted quickly to rectify this. The impact to the resident was short lived as the landlord completed outstanding works within 2 to 3 weeks of him moving back to the property.
  5. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a short-lived impact because of the landlord’s failure a payment of between £50 to £100 is proportionate. The landlord in its revised offer of compensation offered £500 for the inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress for the inconvenience caused.
  6. We were not provided with a record of when this repair was completed or reported. Instead, we used the landlord and resident’s communication to assess the complaint and make a determination. Although we can make a fair decision with the evidence provided, the lack of records made it difficult for the landlord to defend its position. If it had full and detailed records it may have been able to show if there were any mitigating reasons for missing this part of the repair. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says that a landlord cannot provide a high-quality service without good record-keeping. Therefore, the landlord should ensure that it records all repairs and resident contacts.

Reports the kitchen was fitted without a sufficient gap for his fridge freezer

  1. On 8 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that after moving back to the property he could not fit the fridge freezer in the same gap in his kitchen. The resident requested a call to discuss the issue.
  2. The landlord discussed the issue internally on 10 April 2024 noting that the space left for the fridge freezer was 25 milometers to small. It suggested narrowing a corner post, moving some units, and replacing a radiator.
  3. Despite some internal discussions there are no records of what happened until a phone call note showing the resident called the landlord on 18 April 2024. He said:
    1. after reporting the fridge freezer issue the landlord said it would return when he was on holiday for a few days to fix the issue
    2. on return from holiday the landlord had put the fridge freezer in the space, but in doing so had:
      1. taking his kitchen door off and not put it back on
      2. damaged his skirting board
      3. forced the fridge freezer into the existing gap
    3. he wanted to escalate the issue due to the landlord’s actions
  4. On 29 April 2024 the landlord called the resident to explain why it had not increased the gap. It said that it could not move the kitchen units while the resident was on holiday as there was not enough time. And it could not replace the radiator as a smaller one would not be sufficient for the size of the room. While this was a reasonable explanation, it did not say why it attempted to put the fridge freezer into a gap that was too small.
  5. Based on the available evidence the landlord’s initial actions to try and resolve the issue were unreasonable. It accepted in its internal conversations that the gap for the fridge freezer was too small. However, it did not increase this gap and instead attempted to put the fridge freezer into an existing gap it knew was too small. Additionally, it left the kitchen door off its hinges. This caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  6. As part of its stage 1 complaint handling the landlord said it could increase the space within the kitchen. The resident did not accept the option provided and escalated the fridge freezer issue. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered further options on how it could increase the space in the kitchen for the fridge freezer. The work for the fridge freezer was completed by 14 August 2024.
  7. The landlord’s actions following the resident’s complaint were reasonable. It offered options to the resident and used its discretion to increase the gap needed to install the fridge freezer. Once the resident accepted the landlord’s recommendations it completed the work within its 20-calendar day repair timescale for routine repairs.
  8. The failures we identified lasted a short duration. There were also some mitigating reasons for the time taken. For example, the resident did not initially agree with the landlord’s idea to increase the gap. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £50 and £100 is proportionate where there is an impact which lasted a short duration. The landlord made an offer of £500 for the inconvenience caused to the resident. As such, we consider this to be reasonable redress.

Request for more electrical sockets

  1. The resident made a request for more electrical sockets as part of his complaint on 19 April 2024. The landlord’s initial response to this request was in its stage 1 complaint response. It said that as it had a valid EICR which meant the property was compliant with the relevant safety obligations. Therefore, no electrical sockets would be provided. This response was reasonable, the evidence shows a valid EICR from 12 June 2023 and the landlord was under no obligation to increase the number of sockets available.
  2. The landlord raised a repair to consider an upgrade to the electrics on 28 May 2024. The resident chased for an update on 28 June 2024 and 15 July 2024. On 16 July 2024 the landlord raised a repair to add some electrical sockets which were installed on 18 July 2024.
  3. The installation of the new sockets took 51 calendar days to complete. This was outside of its repair policy timescale of 20 calendar days for routine repairs. While the landlord did not need to install new electrical sockets, once it had committed to doing so it should have completed the installation in line with its own policy timescales. Additionally, the landlord failed to update the resident about any delay to the repair. This does not align with its repair policy which says resident’s will be kept informed of any potential delays. The time taken to complete the installation and failure to keep the resident updated caused the resident some inconvenience.
  4. Any impact to the resident lasted over a short duration (a 31-day delay), and the landlord used its discretion to install new electric sockets when it had no obligation to do so. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been an impact over a short duration then a payment of between £50 to £100 is proportionate. The landlord in its revised offer of compensation offered £500 for the inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress.

Damage caused to mattresses while in the decant property

  1. On 8 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and told them his and his wife’s mattresses had been damaged because of mould. The landlord asked for quotes to replace the mattresses, and the resident sent quotes to it on 12 April 2024. This initial step by the landlord was reasonable. It’s Discretionary Compensation Policy does allow for it to consider compensation for financial loss. The landlord requires quotes for the loss, and it will then consider if the loss was a direct result of any failings.
  2. On 19 April 2024 the resident made a formal complaint which included the damaged mattresses. The landlord used its complaint procedure to respond to the resident. As the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction about the mattress issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the matter under its complaint procedure.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it would not pay compensation as it did not consider itself responsible for the damage caused. It said that it had completed a search of its systems and had not received any communication reporting damp and mould at the decant property while the resident lived there.
  4. In order for the landlord to pay for financial losses under its compensation policy it must consider if there was a loss directly because of its failings. The landlord used its records to confirm if it had failed to deal with mould issues or repairs linked to mould issues at the decanted property. As it could not find it had failed in its service, it decided that compensation would not be made. This decision was fair and reasonable.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint, and the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint policy on 26 July 2024. In its reply it expanded on its reasoning for not paying compensation for financial loss. It said:
    1. it reviewed photos of the mattresses and it considered the mould issue was caused due to a lack of air movement in the room
    2. advice was provided to ensure that the bedroom in the decant property had sufficient airflow, but from the photos it considered the resident had not followed this advice
    3. as the resident had not raised a damp and mould issue at the decant property it did not have the opportunity to address the issue and prevent the damage
  6. The reply by the landlord was reasonable. It shows that it thoroughly considered the resident’s request for compensation in line with its policy.
  7. The landlord tried to resolve the matter with the resident again in its visit to the resident in October 2024. It offered to pay for a professional clean of the mattresses and made an offer of £500 in compensation for any inconvenience caused. This shows that the landlord was using the options available to it in its compensation policy to try and resolve the matter for the resident. This was reasonable.
  8. When taking all the circumstances into account we consider there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace or compensate him for the mattresses.
  9. We understand the resident’s view is that the landlord’s action or inaction caused his mattresses to become damaged. However, we do not consider it would be fair in all the circumstances to say the landlord should be responsible for these losses based on the evidence we have seen in this case. While we can consider if there has been an actual, evidenced financial loss we must be satisfied that this was as a direct result of a finding of maladministration.
  10. In this instance, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord failed to follow its policies and procedures when considering a payment of compensation for the mattresses. Nor have we seen any evidence that the landlord was aware of a mould issue at the decant property prior to the resident moving in, or the damage happening.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. damp and mould repairs while the resident was decanted
    2. reports the kitchen was fitted without a sufficient gap for his fridge freezer
    3. request for more electrical sockets in the living room
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace or compensate him for damage caused to mattresses while in the decant property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord contact the resident, and if the resident agrees:
    1. arrange payment of the £500 compensation it has already offered
    2. arrange for a professional clean of the mattresses as it has already offered