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 (202424582)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424582

Torus62 Limited

17 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property during the sign-up process.

Background

  1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 4 April 2024 via the local authority’s housing allocation scheme. Within his application, he confirmed that he had a 50/50 custody agreement for his 2 children and they would not live at the property permanently.
  2. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is aware that the resident has anxiety and PTSD. The resident’s mother acted as a representative. Our report will refer to both the resident and his mother as “the resident”.
  3. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 9 May 2024. He said the landlord misled him. He said it told him during sign up that his benefit entitlement would cover the rent in full and he would be exempt from bedroom tax. He made a claim and found out he was not eligible. The property was not affordable as his benefit entitlement did not cover the rent charge in full, and he wanted the landlord to investigate.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 10 June 2024:
    1. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It noted that the local authority’s housing allocation scheme matched him to the 3-bedroom property. He was eligible for a 3-bedroom property due to the ages and genders of his 2 children.
    2. It said the allocations officer completed an affordability check and discussed the bedroom tax with him. They also checked whether Universal Credit (UC) would cover this and felt that due to the 50/50 court custody order, it would.
    3. Once it became aware that UC did not cover the bedroom tax, it applied for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). They refused this as DHPs were for short term help. It also discussed the decision with the DWP who explained that, as the resident did not receive chid benefit, it would need to consider this further. It explained that, in general, UC did not cover the bedroom tax when the parent does not receive child benefit for the children. The DWP said the copy of the 50/50 court order was not on their files and it provided this. The decision maker had the case since 21 May 2024, and it expected the decision by 14 June 2024.
    4. It had discussed the available options should the DWP’s decision not be in his favour. These included reducing the maintenance payments made to his child’s mother or amending the benefits so that each parent received child benefit for one child each. It noted that this was not something both parties agreed to.
    5. It discussed the matter internally and said it would complete a full affordability check to assess what properties would be affordable. Once the DWP had made a decision, it would look to match him with an affordable property.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident asked to escalate the complaint around 2 July 2024. It has not provided details of this request.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 29 July 2024, the landlord said:
    1. The DWP had reviewed the case and upheld the original decision not to award assistance to cover the bedroom tax. It was unable to comment on this decision but noted that the resident had a right to appeal this. It recommended that he contact DWP to reassess his circumstances.
    2. To assist him moving forward, it could refer him to Citizens Advice (CAB) to ensure his income was maximised. It asked him to provide consent for the referral. It noted that his mother had offered to pay the bedroom tax for one of the bedrooms, but said that it would not pay the tax on the remaining room.
    3. If, following the independent financial assessment of his circumstances, the property remained unaffordable, it would look into further options, including finding a more affordable property. It would also reimburse any removal costs.
    4. It found there had been service failure due to its poor record keeping and upheld the complaint. This was on the basis that it had not been able to find evidence to show that its Allocations and Lettings officer completed the affordability assessment. In addition, while it completed internal checks regarding the bedroom tax, it should have checked this with the DWP directly.
    5. It had now instructed team members to store all income and expenditure information on a new tenant’s record. In cases where shared custody applies, it would contact the CAB to make a referral for an independent financial assessment to ensure it provided accurate advice.
    6. It apologised for the lack of clarity around his housing costs and the frustration and distress caused. It offered £100 compensation and said it would review its offer once the financial assessment had taken place.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident continued to communicate with the landlord following its stage 2 complaint response, and asked several questions on 31 July 2024 which the landlord took steps to address on 14 August 2024. The resident gave his permission for the landlord to refer him to the CAB in August 2024 and the assessment took place in October 2024.
  2. During this time, the resident asked the landlord for updates, challenged why the assessment was needed (given that he knew he had the correct benefits), and asked what would happen with the debt on his rent account in the meantime. He added that he had been granted an additional benefit which would allow him to pay the UC shortfall, but wanted to explore more affordable housing options.
  3. On 17 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and set out:
    1. CAB confirmed that he was receiving the correct benefits. Due to the shortfall in his housing benefit linked to the second and third bedroom in the property, he needed to pay £185 toward the rent each month. He also agreed to pay £14.23 per week directly to allow for the additional rental week not covered by UC over time, and £20 to help build a credit over time so that rent was paid in advance as per the tenancy agreement.
    2. The current arrears on the rent account were £1,163.75 as of 14 October 2024. It accepted that the arrears were the result of incorrect information provided at the start of the tenancy.
    3. If the resident wanted to remain in his current property, it would apply for a grant via the Tenant’s Support Fund to clear the arrears. He would need to pay £185 each month moving forward to cover the shortfall alongside the other agreed amounts linked to the 53 week year which would end in April 2025, and the payment to build a credit on the account, which would stop when the account was in 1 month’s credit.
    4. It noted that the resident wanted to consider moving to a more affordable property. It would work with him to make 1 offer of an alternative property but was not able to confirm costs until it identified a property. If he wanted to do this, it would assist with the current arrears via the Tenant Support Fund, but he would need to contribute toward the rent and maintain the existing arrangements in the meantime. It would also look to assist him with removal costs and reimburse reasonable costs of carpet and blinds.
    5. It now had full information regarding his financial circumstances and recognised the situation had a negative impact on his mental health. It increased its compensation offer to £800 and apologised for the incorrect advice given at the start of the tenancy.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to us as he was initially unhappy that the landlord had removed the arrears but not offered a permanent solution. He felt that it left him in a situation that was causing distress. He wanted the landlord to move him to an affordable property, or remove the bedroom charge so that he was in a position to pay the rent. In September 2025, he informed us that he had moved to another 3 bedroom property earlier that month, there were arrears on his rent account at the former property and he was told the arrears would be written off, but had not heard anything further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the decision by the DWP on liability for bedroom tax. Our role is to look at complaints about the landlord’s actions. Any action taken by DWP is outside of our jurisdiction to consider. The resident may wish to communicate with DWP directly should he wish to appeal a decision.
  2. The resident has shared that these events negatively impacted his mental health conditions, and his children’s mental health. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and whether the landlord has put this right.
  3. The resident wanted the landlord to reduce the rent or pay the shortfall in his UC payments as a result of the incorrect information it gave him when he signed for the property. It is not within our jurisdiction to order the landlord to reduce the rent charge to account for the bedroom tax on his benefits, or to pay the shortfall. The tenancy agreement is a legal document and any decisions about the resident’s liability for the rent payment would be a legal matter. He may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this further.

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that, by signing, the resident agrees to pay the rent for the property, including when receiving benefits, and any other outgoings. The rent is payable a week in advance.
  2. The landlord’s sign up procedure sets out the actions it takes when agreeing a tenancy with a prospective resident. It states that it should complete an affordability assessment alongside a summary document noting any benefits the resident receives. The allocations and letting officers are responsible for collating and recording information, and making sure housing benefit or UC accounts are updated accordingly.
  3. Its policy further states that, as part of the affordability assessment, it would check that the size of the property meets the requirements of the applicant and their family, whether the applicant is likely to be subject to charges for under-occupying the property, and whether the property is affordable.
  4. The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and responds within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days, and respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property during the sign-up process

  1. Within its responses, the landlord has recognised that it did not hold clear records to show it completed an affordability check during sign up. It also should have checked the resident’s liability for the bedroom tax directly with DWP, rather than internally, to ensure it provided accurate information. It offered £800 compensation, following the complaint process, in recognition of the significant impact the situation had. It also applied for a grant to clear arrears of £1,163.71 on the resident’s rent account as of 14 October 2024, and took steps to find him an alternative property which he has now moved to in September 2025.
  2. The landlord has admitted to failings which negatively impacted the resident. Our role at this stage is to determine whether it has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  3. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include internal records about the resident’s complaint, or communication logs. We have been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail to show how it followed its own policies and procedures.
  4. The resident was eligible for a 3 bedroom property due to the age and genders of his 2 children who he has a 50/50 custody arrangement for. We note that he was matched with the landlord’s 3 bedroom property via the local authority’s housing allocation scheme rather than directly by the landlord. We have not seen evidence to show the conversations between the resident and the landlord at sign up, but the landlord has recognised that it gave incorrect information about whether his benefit entitlement would cover the rent in full. While the resident had the opportunity to discuss his benefits with DWP to ensure they covered the rent in full before accepting the tenancy, it is understandable that the resident took the landlord’s advice at face value.
  5. While the landlord said it completed an affordability assessment, and checked whether the resident’s UC would cover the rent in full internally, it has not provided any documentary evidence to confirm these actions took place, or that it followed its own policies and procedures. It should have been able to evidence the actions it had taken. However, this failing may not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. It ultimately recognised that it did not have evidence of the affordability assessment, and that it should have checked whether the resident’s benefits would cover the rent in full with DWP directly.
  6. Once it was aware that the resident’s benefit entitlement did not cover the rent in full (due to the bedroom tax on 2 “spare rooms”), the landlord appears to have acted reasonably by applying for a discretionary housing payment (DHP) and a revised decision through the DWP in order to support him. While we have not seen clear documentary evidence of its discussions with the DWP, this was a reasonable action to take in order to support the resident. The resident has not disputed that DHP and revised DWP decisions were made. Any delay in receiving the outcome was outside of the landlord’s control as the decision stood with DWP. It acted reasonably by confirming the outcome to him in its stage 2 complaint response.
  7. We note that the landlord recommended discussing the benefit payments and child maintenance payments with his ex partner to come to an agreement to make the property more affordable. While this advice was not wholly unreasonable, this was largely dependent on both parties agreeing and was not practical.
  8. It is understandable that the landlord may have required full documented information about the resident’s benefit entitlement and finances in order to determine the actions it could take to support him. This included whether he was eligible for the Tenant Support Fund, and the level of rent that would be affordable moving forward to support finding an alternative property.
  9. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to refer the resident to the CAB for an independent financial assessment in an attempt to progress that support. However, it initially offered to refer him to the CAB if this was something he wanted, then subsequently said this was required for it to look into other options, such as finding him an alternative property.
  10. The resident raised concern about the assessment at various stages following the stage 2 complaint response, and confirmed that he had already had an assessment, and knew he was receiving the correct benefits. Overall, the landlord could have done more to explain why it needed an independent assessment in order to comment on the next steps. It acted reasonably following contact on 14 August 2024 by responding to the resident’s concerns and sharing that it required supporting paperwork to establish his affordability before looking into further options.
  11. The landlord committed to reviewing the compensation it had offered at stage 2 (£100) once it had a clear understanding of his financial circumstances. We would usually expect a landlord to put matters right at the time of its complaints process. However, it is understandable that the landlord may have required information about the resident’s financial circumstances, and whether it would be able to apply for funding to clear the arrears, before it could determine the impact its failings had on him. It acted reasonably by reviewing the compensation on 17 October 2024, and confirming the available options within a short timeframe of receiving the outcome from the CAB.
  12. The landlord was not obligated to reduce the rent or pay the shortfall in the resident’s benefits on his behalf and any decisions about the resident’s rent liability, or changes to the contracted tenancy agreement would be a legal matter. We note that he explained he was able to afford the shortfall due to an additional benefit in October 2024. We note that unless the resident moved to a 1 bedroom property, he would likely remain subject to the bedroom tax and be liable to pay a shortfall depending on the decisions made by the DWP. This is outside of the landlord’s control.
  13. We have found that the landlord took proportionate measures to put right what went wrong and address the impact on the resident as a result of the information it provided at the start of the tenancy. While the decisions made by the DWP were not within its control, it acted fairly by recognising its mistakes and attempting to put things right by supporting the resident.
  14. The landlord has demonstrated that it learnt from the complaint by setting out the actions its staff would now take in similar circumstances, and has since updated the bedroom tax section of its website to provide correct advice. It also acted reasonably by apologising for the impact the situation had on him and his mental health. It was resolution focused for it to apply for a grant to clear the arrears on the account at the time of the complaint and offer £800 compensation to recognise the impact on him.
  15. Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation offers between £600 and £1,000 can be considered proportionate where there has been maladministration by a landlord and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This includes where a failure had a significant impact on a resident, including an emotional impact. The landlord’s offer is within this range and is suitable to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused to the resident as a result of the information it provided at the start of the tenancy, and the length of time taken to provide a resolution.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, in relation to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property during the sign-up process, which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord pays the resident £800 compensation as previously offered, if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that it paid this.
    2. The landlord provides the resident with rent account statements for his previous property, confirms the level of arrears, and steps it can take to support him with the balance.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.