Torus62 Limited (202451694)

Decision
Case ID	202451694
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 June 2026

Background

1. The landlord said it would replace the resident’s kitchen in the 2024/25 financial year. The resident asked the landlord to remove an internal kitchen wall so that she had more room as she used a wheelchair in the kitchen. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Works to the resident’s kitchen following removal of an internal wall.
   2. Resident’s kitchen renewal and her request for the kitchen to be adapted.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the works to the resident’s kitchen following removal of an internal wall.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s kitchen renewal and her request for the kitchen to be adapted.
   2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Works to the resident’s kitchen following removal of an internal wall

5. The landlord accepted responsibility for the defects following the wall removal. It delayed unreasonably in completing the works. It apologised for the delays, agreed to complete the plastering works and made an offer of compensation which resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Kitchen renewal and her request for the kitchen to be adapted

6. The landlord failed to follow its adaptations policy by not referring the resident to the Occupational Therapist (OT) at the outset. It did not clearly communicate outcomes of visits or next steps to the resident. It also failed to proactively update the resident about the kitchen renewal despite the resident’s repeated contacts. The resident delayed contacting the OT following repeated advice from the landlord.

Associated complaint

7. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy. It failed to recognise the resident’s request to escalate her complaint in July 2024. This caused an unnecessary delay of 2 months, causing inconvenience to the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and her request for the kitchen to be adapted. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not set off against any debt owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 28 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the works to the resident’s kitchen following removal of an internal wall. We made this finding on the basis that the landlord pays the resident the £600 compensation it offered during its complaint procedure.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
In March 2025	The resident asked us to help her log a complaint.
10 June 2025	We asked the landlord to raise a complaint for the resident and send a stage 1 response within 10 days of the acknowledgement.
1 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said an internal wall had been removed from the kitchen but it did not know by whom. It accepted there had been delays in it completing works to make the kitchen safe and functional, following removal of the wall. It advised the resident to contact the OT to request an assessment on her request for an adapted kitchen. When it received the OT assessment it would add the kitchen renewal to its renewal programme and prioritise the work. It apologised for the delays and offered £600 compensation.
9 October 2025	We asked the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 20 days of the acknowledgement.
13 November 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been poor communication regarding the kitchen renewal. It said it had been unable to proceed with the kitchen renewal without OT involvement. It confirmed it had not removed the internal wall and it was still unclear who had done this. It had completed the necessary plastering and electrical safety works following its removal. The removal of the wall had contributed to the delays in progressing the kitchen renewal. The landlord would proceed with a standard upgrade to the kitchen as the OT had not recommended any adaptations.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident asked us to investigate the complaint she said she was still awaiting the kitchen renewal. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to install the kitchen. She also wanted the landlord to reimburse her for food which she had to throw away due to not having cupboards to store it in.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s kitchen following removal of an internal wall.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. On 22 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to remove an internal wall between her kitchen and the storeroom before it renewed her kitchen in 2024/2025. She explained that she used a wheelchair in the kitchen and removing the wall would give her more room. In March 2024 the landlord attended to complete electrical works in the kitchen and found the wall had been removed.
9. In its complaint responses, the landlord stated it did not remove the wall or knew who had done so. The evidence we have seen supports this. There is also no evidence that the resident arranged for the wall to be removed.
10. The landlord accepted it was responsible for making safe the defects caused by removal of the wall. This was electrical wiring and gaps left in the plaster. The landlord should have completed these works within a reasonable timescale and in line with its repair policy.
11. The landlord first became aware of the defects on 7 March 2024. In line with its policy, it should have made the electrics safe within 24 hours. This did not happen. However, it was reasonable that the landlord took time to make enquiries about how the wall was removed so it could establish its responsibility. If the resident had deliberately removed the wall, the landlord may not have been responsible for fixing the defects or it may have been classified as chargeable repairs.
12. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the plaster around 23 March 2024. The record from this visit was poor, noting only that it needed to make further enquiries. This shows poor record keeping.
13. Later internal correspondence shows the surveyor found that kitchen cupboards removed from the wall had been left on the floor, restricting the resident’s movement. The resident told the surveyor she was waiting for a new kitchen. The surveyor assumed the kitchen team removed the wall and would fix it. Despite knowing the resident was vulnerable and that electrical wires were exposed, the landlord did not raise emergency works. It also did not raise any further works for the plastering. This was a failing.
14. Following contact from the resident in April 2024, the landlord raised urgent electrical works and an inspection of the wall area on 25 April 2024. It made the electrics safe on 26 June 2024. This was approximately 4 months after it first became aware of the defect. This was a failing.
15. On 26 June 2024 the landlord assessed the wall and agreed to make good when it renewed the kitchen. Whilst we understand the landlord may want to batch works together, it did not have a date for the kitchen renewal at this time. This left the resident without a timescale of when it would complete the works. The landlord also failed to assess the risk at this time, which it should have done due to the resident’s mobility issues.
16. The resident contacted the landlord for an update in November 2024. She explained that as a wheelchair user the kitchen was unsafe. Whilst the landlord updated the resident in relation to the kitchen renewal it failed to take any steps to assess if there were any risks to the resident at this point.
17. Following the resident’s complaint in July 2025, the landlord inspected the kitchen on 8 July 2025. It noted the kitchen was safe and that the limited space was due to clutter.
18. The landlord raised repair works on 18 July 2025. It completed the plastering works on 26 September 2025. This was approximately 17 months after it first became aware of the issue.
19. In summary, the landlord accepted responsibility for the defects, inspected the issues, made the electrics safe and completed the plastering works. However, it failed to act in line with its repair policy by not making the electrics safe within a reasonable period, taking around 4 months instead. It kept poor records, failed to recognise and respond to the risks despite knowing the resident was vulnerable. It did not raise or progress necessary repairs at an early stage. It also delayed works by linking them to a kitchen renewal without a confirmed date and failed to reassess risk when the resident later reported safety concerns. The landlord’s actions caused an unreasonable delay of around 17 months in completing the work. This resulted in avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident, causing detriment.
20. Where the landlord admits failings in its service delivery, it is our role to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. In this case, the landlord completed the plastering works, apologised and offered the resident compensation of £600. This was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused and the delays in the landlord completing the works to the kitchen following removal of the wall.
22. This amount is within the range of awards under our Compensation Guidance for service failings which adversely affected a resident. This therefore leads to a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s kitchen renewal and her request for the kitchen to be adapted.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

23. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she said she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for food she had thrown away. We can only consider issues that have completed the landlord’s complaint procedure. As the resident did not raise this in her initial complaint, we cannot consider it as part of this investigation.

What we have investigated

24. In February 2024 the landlord told the resident it would replace her kitchen in 2024/25. The landlord deals with kitchen renewals within its planned or cyclical improvement plan. It says it will complete such works within a reasonable timescale. The policy says the landlord will keep the resident informed of any potential delays.
25. In February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to remove an internal wall to improve wheelchair access in the kitchen. The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will advise residents to contact the OT service if they request structural adaptations. Based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot be satisfied this happened.
26. On 7 March 2024 the landlord attended to design the resident’s kitchen. Records show it was unable to complete the design as the internal wall had been removed. The landlord was aware from the resident’s previous contact, that she had mobility issues and had asked the landlord to remove the wall. It should therefore have referred her to the OT at this point. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord discussed this at this visit.
27. The landlord visited again on 14 May 2024 to discuss the kitchen design. In line with its policy, it advised the resident to seek OT recommendations.
28. Between September 2024 and January 2025 the resident called at least 4 times for an update on the kitchen renewal. The landlord tried to call the resident back on 16 October 2024. The records show it made at least 4 attempts to call her but all were unsuccessful. It put a note on the resident’s file advising staff to inform the resident she needed an OT assessment when she next called in. There is no evidence that it made other attempts to provide the resident with an update, such as an email or letter. This was a failing.
29. Although it was the resident’s responsibility to request the assessment, the landlord’s repair policy says it will provide an enhanced service to vulnerable residents. This includes referrals to agencies. In December 2024 the landlord raised internal concerns about whether the resident understood the adaptations process. As it knew she was vulnerable, it should have ensured she understood the process and offered support, if needed. However, the resident had previously been involved with the OT service for other adaptations in her property, including a stairlift. So, this was not the first time she had used this process.
30. Following further contact from the resident on 28 January 2025, the landlord informed her that she needed an OT assessment before it could proceed with the kitchen renewal.
31. The resident called the landlord for an update on 6 March 2025. The landlord asked its contractor to call the resident back. There is no evidence that this happened.
32. In July 2025 and October 2025 the landlord again informed the resident that she needed to obtain an OT assessment before it could proceed with the kitchen. The resident confirmed she had contacted the OT on 2 October 2025.
33. On 13 November 2025 the OT confirmed that the resident did not require an adapted kitchen, but they did recommend repositioning appliances. The landlord agreed to consider the recommendations when designing the kitchen. It installed the new kitchen in April 2026.
34. Overall, the landlord advised the resident to seek an OT assessment, agreed to consider the OT’s recommendations and completed the kitchen installation. However, it failed to refer the resident to the OT service at the outset, kept poor records, and did not clearly communicate outcomes or next steps. It also failed to proactively update the resident or offer support in making the referral, despite repeated contact. This caused unnecessary uncertainty for the resident.
35. The landlord acknowledged its communication regarding the kitchen renewal had been poor. However, it failed to recognise the other failings identified. This leads to a finding of maladministration. It should pay the resident compensation to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
36. When setting compensation, we consider whether the resident contributed to the situation. In this case, the resident did not act on the advice from the landlord to contact the OT from May 2024 until October 2025. Although the landlord should have considered supporting the resident with the referral, the resident’s inaction delayed matters.
37. In line with our Compensation Guidance, the landlord should pay £150 compensation. This reflects failures by the landlord in the service it provided which it did not appropriately acknowledge in its complaint process. It also considers the mitigating factor that the delay in the resident contacting the OT contributed to the overall delays in this issue.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Maladministration

38. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the 2024 Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
39. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2025 and said it would respond by 25 June 2025. On 18 June 2025 it wrote to the resident to explain that it needed more time and said it would respond by 1 July 2025. It sent the stage 1 response within the extended timescale. The landlord’s stage 1 response was therefore in line with its policy and the Code.
40. On 4 July 2025 the resident informed the landlord she was not happy with the amount of compensation offered. The landlord said it would reconsider the compensation following the inspection the following week. The landlord should have considered its obligations under the Code and accepted this as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It should have acknowledged the escalation by 11 July 2025 and sent its response 20 working days thereafter, by 8 August 2025. Its failure to recognise this as an escalation caused an avoidable delay of 2 months.
41. On 9 October 2025 we asked the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days. We said it should send a final response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
42. The landlord acknowledged the escalation within 1 working day, on 10 October 2025. It should have sent its stage 2 response by 7 November 2025. Instead, it sent it on 13 November 2025, which was 5 working days outside its 20-working day policy timescale.
43. Although it wrote to the resident explaining it needed more time, it only did so on 13 November 2025. It should have requested this extension when it knew it would not meet the 20-working day timescale.
44. Both complaint responses appropriately defined and responded to the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language.
45. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with its own policy and the Code. The failures identified delayed the resident being able to refer her complaint to this Service for investigation. This is likely to have caused her distress and inconvenience. This leads to a finding of maladministration. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise, recognise learning, and pay compensation of £100. This is in line with our Compensation Guidance for situations where there was no permanent impact but the landlord unreasonably delayed sending the complaint responses.

Learning

46. Despite not knowing who had removed the wall, the landlord appropriately accepted that it was responsible for ensuring the kitchen was safe and functional for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord’s systems should enable them to keep accurate and accessible records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Some of its repairs records were unclear and did not detail the nature or outcome of visits. It may wish to review our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

48. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident which resulted in her having to chase it for updates. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses.