Torus62 Limited (202445799)

Background

1. The property is a flat. The resident complained about a leak from the roof and associated damp and mould. The issues have been resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:

4. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of repairs at the property, including damp and mould.
5. We have found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs, including damp and mould

6. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and damp and mould. However, the repairs have now been completed, and the compensation offered fairly reflected the resident’s distress and inconvenience. We therefore consider this to be reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not fully acknowledge all of the issues raised by the resident during the complaints process.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

Repairs

8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete all routine repairs within 20 calendar days.
9. The resident reported a possible leak from the pitched roof on 9 January 2024. The landlord correctly classified this as a routine repair. Its contractor attended on 12 January 2024, identifying ceiling damage from slow water ingress. A roofer attended on 24 January 2024 and the issue was marked as resolved. A plasterer completed the ceiling repair on 31 January 2024. The landlord was proactive in resolving the issue, which was positive.
10. The resident reported a leak from the flat roof on 14 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 February 2024 and advised further works requiring scaffolding. It booked scaffolding for 21 March 2024, and the roof was repaired on 22 March 2024. The repairs took 37 calendar days, which was 17 days outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale. While the delays may have caused the resident inconvenience, we acknowledge that roof‑leak repairs may take longer due to scaffolding and the possibility of multiple visits. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord explained the delay to the resident, and this was a communication failing.
11. On 22 March 2024 the resident reported a further issue with the pitched roof. The landlord’s contractor attended on 8 April 2024. It completed some repairs including clearing gutters and downpipes and temporarily securing the chimney stack. The contractor returned on 23 April 2024 and its notes said that the roof work was completed. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy and resolved the issue.
12. In her escalation request on 22 November 2024, the resident reported further leaks  affecting the living‑room ceiling. It was unclear when reviewing the evidence whether this was a recurring or new issue. The landlord arranged a surveyor visit for 26 November 2024, which was a prompt response. Following the survey’s recommendations, the landlord carried out a roof inspection on 20 December 2024, erected scaffolding on 23 January 2025, and completed the works on 25 January 2025.
13. The evidence showed that the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies. It was proactive and committed to resolving the issues. Although there were some delays, these were due to coordinating contractors and arranging scaffolding.

Damp and mould

14. The resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom on 29 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 March 2024 and treated the mould, confirming the issue was resolved. The landlord requested a damp and mould survey on 11 March 2024. This was in line with its repairs policy, which states that damp and mould will be inspected by a qualified surveyor.
15. On 9 April 2024 the resident reported damp and mould again. The landlord’s contractor attended on the 3 May 2024 and noted that it treated “multiple rooms”. The contractor’s visit was 24 calendar days after the resident’s report and not compliant with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. We note that this was a short delay which likely would have had a minimal impact on the resident. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to communicate with the resident regarding this, and we have not seen evidence that it did so.
16. The previously requested damp and mould survey took place on 16 May 2024. It is unclear why this was delayed and there was some evidence that the resident had been chasing this. This was a failing which caused time and trouble to the resident. The landlord noted that the surveyor attributed the damp and mould to the roof leaks. It recommended remedial works, including renewing the plaster in the bathroom and living room and replacing the skirting boards. This work was completed on 21 June 2024. This was 16 calendar days outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales which was a further failing.
17. In her escalation request, the resident said that the damp and mould had got worse. As mentioned above, the landlord responded promptly by arranging a survey of the property for 26 November 2024. The survey identified further works, including installing a vent in the cupboard to increase airflow. These works were completed in January 2025. This was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales, but we note that the remedial works were delayed whilst the roof repairs were resolved. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the roof leaks were resolved before completing remedial repairs. However, as mentioned above, we have not seen evidence that the landlord communicated this with the resident, which may have contributed to her frustration.

Bath panel

18. On 25 September 2024 the resident contact the landlord and requested that her bath panel was replaced. This job was booked for 11 October 2024, but the contractor was unable to proceed as it did not have the required parts. A different contractor attended on 18 October 2024 and was also unable to fix the bath panel. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated these delays with the resident, and this would have caused her time and trouble.
19. In the resident’s original complaint, she said that the bath panel repair was outstanding. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend and re-seal the bath panel on 7 November 2024. This repair was completed on this date. The resident waited 43 calendar days for the bath panel to be repaired. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s 20-day repairs policy timescale, and was a failing.
20. The resident told us that while the bath panel was fixed, there have recently been further issues relating to this. We are unable to assess this until the landlord has been given a fair opportunity to respond via its internal complaints procedure. However, we have recommended the landlord contacts the resident about the bath panel.

Compensation

21. The landlord awarded the resident £150 during its complaints procedure for the impact caused by the identified failures in its handling of the repairs at the property. This award aligns with our remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance says that compensation of between £50 and £100 is appropriate where there was a minor failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As we have not identified any further failings, we are satisfied that the offer made was proportionate in the circumstances of the complaint. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

22. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. In line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code, it must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Its complaints policy states that if it requires an extension to these timescales, it will notify the resident in writing and provide a reason why.
23. The landlord notified the resident in writing of extensions to the deadline for its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It provided reasonable explanations on both occasions. This was in line with its complaints policy.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response lacked detail and did not address all parts of the resident’s complaint. For example, the resident said that she felt that she hadn’t been listened to. It would have been good practice for the landlord to acknowledge these concerns, but there is no evidence it did this.
25. In her escalation request the resident repeated that she felt she had not been listened to. The landlord, in its stage 2 complaint response, said the surveyor had re-attended the property and noted that “all the repairs required had been raised at the previous visit”. It was evident that the landlord had acted on the resident’s concerns by asking the surveyor to re-attend, and this was positive. However, the stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge the resident’s concern and was not clear enough to reassure the resident that she had been listened to. Additionally, the tone of the writing may have felt dismissive to the resident. This was a failing which would have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
26. Effective communication is essential, as it can help to minimise the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. During the complaints process, the landlord did not fully acknowledge the resident’s concerns or demonstrate that it was listening to her. This falls short of our communication expectations and may have contributed to the resident’s likely distress.
27. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above, and in recognition of the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. There was a lack of information regarding the resident’s communication with the landlord. The landlord should review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its responsibilities regarding repairs and complaint handling.

Communication

29. The landlord may want to consider how it communicates with residents during its complaints process. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of empathy and use of tone to support positive communication with residents.