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 (202432384)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432384

Torus62 Limited

25 July 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:
    1. Reports of faulty heating controls.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a house with her daughter, who has autism.
  2. On 8 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that the heating in the house was running constantly. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the resident’s property within 48 hours, and advised the resident that she could turn the boiler off at the mains in the meantime and switch it back on when needed.
  3. An operative attended the resident’s property on 9 January 2024 and reset the thermostat (the wall-mounted device that controls the heating schedule and temperature). Later that day, the resident told the landlord that the thermostat was not working. On 10 January 2024, the operative returned to the resident’s home and installed a new thermostat.
  4. On 9 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that the thermostat was not controlling the boiler. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend on 23 October 2024. At that visit, the operative adjusted the temperature settings on the thermostat and disconnected the boiler’s built-in timer.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 31 October 2024. She said the heating in her home had been running constantly since the start of the year, which had increased her energy costs. She explained that she could not switch off the boiler at the mains due to her daughter’s vulnerability, so she kept the windows open day and night. She said she contacted the landlord multiple times to explain the urgency of the issue, and on 1 occasion it raised a repair to address the faulty thermostat but later cancelled it. She confirmed the heating had worked correctly since the operative removed a pin from the boiler’s built-in timer. She also said the operative told her that the pin may have caused 2 heating programs to run at the same time.
  6. On 15 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, as she had not received a response to her stage 1 complaint.
  7. On 28 November 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had found no service failures in how it handled the resident’s reports. It also said it had no record of the resident raising further issues with the thermostat after its replacement earlier in the year, until her most recent report. The landlord said its advice to switch the boiler off at the mains was in line with standard practice.
  8. On 2 December 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process because it had not informed her that it needed more time to respond to her stage 1 complaint.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 9 January 2025. It apologised for not informing her that it needed more time to respond to her stage 1 complaint and explained that it could not escalate the complaint until it had issued its stage 1 response. It referred to guidance from this service, which states that landlords should explain why an extension is needed and confirm a new response date in advance. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation to acknowledge its service failure.
  10. In February 2025, the resident escalated her complaint to our service. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and said she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for additional heating costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told us that between January and October 2024 she reported to the landlord on several occasions that the boiler’s pressure kept dropping. She said this formed part of the complaint she brought to us. We have reviewed both the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s response and found that the issue with the boiler pressure was not raised by the resident or addressed by the landlord.
  2. As a result, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the boiler pressure issue as part of this investigation. The landlord must be given the chance to investigate and respond before we can consider a complaint about this matter. If the resident wishes to raise a formal complaint with the landlord about the boiler pressure dropping, she may do so. If she is not satisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, she may then refer that complaint to us for consideration.

Legal policy and framework

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for keeping hot water and heating systems in a good state of repair.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also classifies repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency – repairs affecting the safety or basic security of the property or household. These should be made safe within 4 hours and completed with 24 hours
    2. Routine – repairs that can wait without causing major inconvenience to the resident, and which require materials or scheduling to complete. These should be completed within 20 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustments policy sets out how it supports residents who may be vulnerable. Staff are expected to use empathy and professional judgment and consider whether any reasonable adjustments are needed to meet the resident’s needs. The policy confirms that additional support may be provided when residents report repairs, including adjusting how or when a repair is carried out to meet the needs of the household.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  5. If the landlord needs more time to respond at either stage, it must notify the resident, and the extension should not exceed a further 10 working days. Additionally, it will only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has responded at stage 1.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty heating controls

  1. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial report in January 2024. Its records show that it arranged attendance within 48 hours, which was in line with its routine repair timescales. The resident said in her complaint that she had asked to be seen urgently. However, given that she still had heating and there was no indication of an immediate safety risk, it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the routine repair for faster attendance rather than treat it as an emergency. This demonstrated a proportionate response in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, that balanced the resident’s concerns with the level of risk involved.
  2. The landlord advised the resident to turn the boiler off at the mains while waiting for the repair visit. We are not qualified to assess whether this was technically necessary. However, the landlord gave this advice in response to a report that the heating was running continuously and could not be controlled. In that context, it was reasonable to offer a practical step to reduce disruption.
  3. When the resident expressed concern about this advice due to having a vulnerable child in the home, the landlord’s records show that it escalated the matter to a manager, who arranged for the repair to take place within 24 hours instead. This demonstrated appropriate responsiveness and professional judgement to meet the resident’s needs, in line with the landlord’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustments policy.
  4. The landlord’s follow-up after its initial visit to the resident’s home, fell short of best practice. Its records show that the operative reset the thermostat during the visit, and later ordered a replacement part, indicating further work was needed. However, there is no evidence that the landlord relayed this information to the resident at the time. The Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning on Repairs, available on our website, encourages landlords to confirm repair outcomes, next steps, and timescales in writing where possible. Doing so helps residents understand the current position and supports clear, confident communication.
  5. In this case, the landlord’s records show that when the resident called later that day to report the thermostat was still not working, it told her a new job had been raised. It then cancelled that job when it realised the earlier one was still open because of the ordered part. Although we would not consider this a serious failure, it shows the practical consequences of weak communication – duplicated actions and unnecessary calls. The resident raised this confusion in her formal complaint, underlining the frustration it caused. Better follow-up would likely have avoided this uncertainty and given the resident confidence that the repair was in hand.
  6. There is a dispute between the resident and landlord about what happened after the thermostat was replaced in January 2024. The resident’s complaint said the heating continued to run constantly, causing high energy bills. The landlord said it had no record of any further reports until October 2024. We asked the resident for evidence of her contact during this period, and she told us all reports were made by phone. She also said she asked the landlord to review its call recordings to verify her reports, but it refused and did not respond fully to her subject access request (SAR).
  7. We have not seen evidence that the resident asked the landlord to review calls relating to this specific issue. The records we have seen show her request related to a separate complaint about asbestos. We are not suggesting the resident’s account is untrue. However, as an impartial service, we base our decisions on the evidence available. We have seen no record of these reports, so we cannot assess how the landlord responded. Nor can we expect it to consider redress for increased energy costs during a period it was unable to verify.
  8. If the resident is dissatisfied with the integrity of information the landlord shared with her through the SAR, she may wish to raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is the appropriate body for such matters.
  9. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report in October 2024. Its records show it raised a routine repair and arranged for an operative to attend within 15 days, in line with its routine repair timescales. There is no indication the resident reported an emergency, so this response was reasonable. During the visit, the operative found the thermostat set to 25 degrees, adjusted the temperature, and removed the boiler’s built-in timer. The resident later confirmed that the heating worked correctly after this, suggesting these actions resolved the issue and the repair was completed in line with policy.
  10. In her complaint, the resident said the operative told her the ‘pin’ (built-in timer) may have been causing 2 heating programs to run at the same time. The operative’s notes support this as a possible contributing factor. However, that does not in itself indicate a failing by the landlord. The landlord can only be expected to act on information available at the time. Our role is to consider whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances, rather than assessing with the advantage of knowing what came later. We are satisfied that once a potential issue became clear, the landlord’s operative took reasonable steps to resolve it.
  11. In response to our enquiries, the landlord explained that it is not standard practice to remove a boiler’s built-in timer, as the thermostat normally overrides it. It said the heating may have remained on due to the high temperature setting on the thermostat, and that the resident would have received a user guide when the new thermostat was installed. We have not seen evidence to confirm this. We therefore recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether she received clear guidance on how to use the thermostat and heating controls. If not, it should take reasonable steps to provide this. This will help reduce the risk of further confusion or unnecessary heating use in the future.
  12. Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty heating controls did not amount to maladministration. While there were isolated instances where its communication could have been clearer, these did not cause significant delay or detriment to the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports. It raised repairs in line with its policy, acted reasonably on the information available to it at the time, and resolved the heating issue once potential contributing factors became clear.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 31 October 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 21 working days later, exceeding its published timescales. The stage 1 complaint response did not apologise for the delay or explain the reason for it. The lack of explanation or apology at this stage likely left the resident feeling overlooked and contributed to a sense that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
  2. That said, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that it had not met the stage 1 timescale and accepted that it should have requested an extension in advance. It also apologised for not explaining sooner that it could not escalate the complaint before issuing a stage 1 response. In recognition of these failings, it offered £25 compensation.
  3. While these actions should have come earlier, the landlord’s overall approach aligned with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which expects landlords to take responsibility for service failures, explain what went wrong, and put things right. Taking accountability for its poor communication helped show willingness to learn from the complaint and supported a more open and honest landlord-resident relationship.
  4. The landlord’s compensation offer also broadly aligned with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, which sets out our approach to resolving disputes where there have been minor service failings and limited impact on the resident.
  5. Considering these factors, we are satisfied that the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to concerns about its handling of the resident’s formal complaint. It recognised its service failures through its own investigations, took steps to put things right before our involvement, and its compensation offer appropriately reflected the limited impact of the service failure.
  6. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of faulty heating controls.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether she received clear guidance on how to use the thermostat and heating controls. If not, it should take reasonable steps to provide this. This will help reduce the risk of further confusion or unnecessary heating use in the future.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.