Torus62 Limited (202417538)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her 4 children. At the time of her complaint she was pregnant.
2. The resident reported an issue with the drainage in her property to the landlord on 29 May 2024. She said wastewater was rising in her property and the garden whenever the toilet, shower or washing machine was used. She also felt the landlord’s customer service had been poor around the issue. She raised a complaint for these issues to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of wastewater and drainage issues.
   2. The residents report of poor customer service.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of wastewater and drainage issues.
   2. The resident’s complaint.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s report of poor customer service.

Summary of reasons

Drainage and wastewater issues

6. The landlord’s response was supported by the evidence and its handling was in line with its policies. It responded to the first report of the issue in good time, based its handling on its contractor’s reports and offered several reasonable interim solutions while the resident awaited a full repair.

Poor customer service

7. The landlord acknowledged it did not have sufficient evidence to investigate the complaint. It recognised its failure to have robust records of the interaction, apologised and offered reasonable compensation.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord provided both its responses in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns that she did not receive a copy of its stage 1 response.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s repairs policy, states the landlord is responsible for drainage repairs.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it offers appointments for repairs Monday to Friday from 8am to 7pm. It also offers appointments on a Saturday between 8am and midday, providing these appointments are booked at least a week in advance. It says it’s out of hours repairs service is for emergency repairs only, including where this is a danger to life. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
11. The landlord’s temporary decant policy says it may consider offering temporary accommodation to a resident in an emergency. It will first see if a resident is able to stay with a relative or friend. If not possible, an Area Manager may consider offering a hotel stay. Any hotel stays offered should balance the resident’s needs with what is available at the time.
12. The Code says landlords must provide full, and clear, explanations in its complaint responses.
13. The resident complained that the landlord mishandled the drainage and wastewater problem. She said the first operative who attended did not carry out proper checks, said they would return the next day, and did not. She said the only assistance it offered was to place her and her children in alternative temporary accommodation, which she felt was unsuitable. When the contractor later returned, they did not complete the work they said they would. She said this left her with wastewater in her home and garden and without access to drinking water, a toilet, or washing facilities for over a week.
14. In response the landlord acknowledged failings in how its contractor handled the repair (but did not explain what those failings were). It apologised and said it had raised the matter with the contractor directly. It recognised the repair situation was distressing but said it had acted appropriately and understood the issue was now resolved. It said it had offered a chemical toilet, alternative temporary accommodation and drain cleaning as suitable interim measures while the issue was awaiting repair. Once the contractor found the cause of the problem was further down the line and the utility company’s responsibility to repair, it notified both her and the company. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the stress caused.
15. The evidence supports the landlord’s response. When the resident first raised the issue it organised for an appropriate contractor to attend within 48 hours to investigate. This was in line with its repairs policy. The contractor reported back that while there was a drainage issue that it would reattend to repair the following week, there was no evidence of any overflowing wastewater within the property, just in the rear garden. It said in the interim the resident had drinking water, bathing and toilet facilities despite the drainage issues.
16. The contractor’s findings were further supported by one of the landlord’s operatives who attended to clear the drains during the weekend. The operative confirmed that while there was a drainage issue there was no wastewater overflowing within the property and the resident would be able to use all facilities while the issue was yet to be repaired. Its response was reasonable based on the information it had at the time and was in line with its repairs policy.
17. The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident several options while the repair was pending. Notes of the resident’s stage 1 complaint said the resident herself confirmed the landlord had offered a chemical toilet and to explore alternative temporary accommodation, possibly a hostel. However she declined both as she felt neither were suitable. Although not ideal, these offers were in line with its repair and temporary accommodation policies. It also offered to send an operative the same day to try to clear the drain temporarily, which the resident accepted and went ahead. This demonstrated good practice in trying to alleviate the situation while awaiting a full repair.
18. The landlord offered compensation as it felt its contractors had provided a poor service to the resident. This was appropriate for it to do. Nevertheless, nothing in the evidence indicates failings in how the contractor approach the issue.
19. Overall, the landlord’s response is supported by the evidence. It organised for an appropriate contractor to investigate the issue in good time and based its approach on the contractor’s reports. When the resident raised further concerns on how long the repair was taking, it offered reasonable interim measures to mitigate the impact on her.

20. The resident complained that the landlord’s out of hours manager had been rude and unhelpful during a call on 1 June 2024. She said the manager had accused her of lying about how bad the drainage issue was and had only offered to place her and her children in an out of town hostel, which she felt was not suitable.
21. In the landlord’s response it acknowledged it did not have a call log or a recording of the call between the resident and the manager and apologised for this. It said it would raise the resident’s concerns with the manager and reiterate its customer service standards. In light of its poor record keeping it offered the resident £50 compensation.  Nevertheless, it felt the options the resident said the manager offered were reasonable given the circumstances.
22. The evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and asked the manager in question for their account of the event. The manager’s recollection differed from the resident’s.
23. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that without robust records of the call it was at fault. Rather than refuting the resident’s allegation, it recognised its lack of records had impacted its ability to investigate fully. It was therefore good practice for it to apologise regardless and remind the staff member involved of its customer service standards. The offer of £50 compensation for poor record keeping was also reasonable given the impact of the failing.
24. Overall, the landlord appropriately investigated the complaint as far as it was able, and recognised its failing in not keeping robust records of the call. It apologised and offered reasonable compensation..

25. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it may extend either deadline by a further 10 working days providing it agrees this with the resident.
26. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint aligns with the Code from April 2022.
27. There were no issues with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It responded to the stage 1 complaint in 9 working days, and the stage 2 in 19 working days. Both responses were within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. Both responses addressed all the issues the resident raised in her complaint and escalation, albeit with the limited explanation for the failings the landlord had identified with its contractor’s actions.
28. The resident said she had not received the stage 1 response when she escalated her complaint. In the landlord’s stage 2 reply, it said it had sent the response but apologised if she had not received it and confirmed it would provide another copy. It also noted that it had already given her the response verbally. While nothing in the evidence suggests the stage 1 was not sent, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response and apologise regardless.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. As the landlord identified, there were issues with its record keeping of the call between the resident and a manager on 1 June 2024. The landlord must ensure it keeps robust notes of any communication with residents.

Communication

30. The resident continually chased the landlord for updates on the wastewater issue, sometimes multiple times a day. This was more than understandable given the nature of the issue, nevertheless the landlord provided a reasonable level of communication on the matter throughout.