Torus62 Limited (202501658)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202501658 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Torus62 Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
23 December 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. For several years she has reported a leak through her roof when it rains.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the resident’s roof.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the resident’s roof.
- We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s response to reports of a leak
- Despite attending on several occasions to complete repairs, the landlord failed to provide an enduring solution to reports of leaks from the roof. In its responses, the landlord failed to consider the impact of years of temporary repairs to the roof on the resident.
Complaint handling
- The landlord took too long to issue its stage 2 response. It failed to recognise this failing or apologise 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:
|
No later than 27 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a survey of the roof completed by suitably qualified surveyor. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:
The survey report must set out:
Following the inspection the landlord must provide the resident and us with an assessment as to whether a roof replacement is necessary and in any event, whether the planned replacement date is effected by the results of the survey. |
No later than 10 February 2026 |
|
3 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct £200 offered in the complaints procedure if it can evidence it has already paid this. |
No later than 27 January 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
March 2021 to July 2024 |
The resident reported leaks, damp and concerns about the tiles on the roof on at least 8 occasions within this period. The landlord attended, inspected the issue and completed repairs. |
|
17 July 2024 |
The resident raised a complaint. She said there had been problems with her roof for 15 years. She wanted the landlord to replace it. |
|
14 August 2024 |
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it had attended on 11 occasions but had completed each repair in accordance with its repair policy. It said a survey in July 2023 had found the roof to be in good condition. It advised it would replace the resident’s roof in accordance with its general roof replacement programme, but this could take 5 years. It agreed to raise a new inspection in response to the resident’s complaint. |
|
29 November 2024 |
The resident approached her local councillor for support. With their help, she escalated her complaint as she said the issue had not been resolved. |
|
29 January 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It outlined each repair call out. It said it had failed to re-arrange one appointment in September 2024. It offered the resident £200 compensation broken into: £100 for her time and inconvenience dealing with the leaks. £100 for the service failure of not re-arranging the appointment. It said it had re-arranged the cancelled appointment and would act on the recommendations of that inspection. |
|
March 2025 to December 2025 |
At least 3 further appointments took place since the stage 2 complaint response to inspect and rectify issues with the roof. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the roof continues to leak when it rains. She would like a new roof and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she has experienced. |
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 response to a leak in the roof |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not considered
- The resident told us that she had reported leaks in the roof for 15 years. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2010. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints which have not been raised as a complaint with the landlord within a reasonable time of the events occurring, normally 12 months.
- When deciding the scope of this investigation we have considered that the issue in dispute relates entirely about leaks from the roof and is the same throughout the whole timeline. Although the resident did not formally complain to the landlord until July 2024, the evidence shows the landlord was dealing with the reports consistently from March 2021. As such we have exercised our discretion, and it is appropriate for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s response from this point forward.
What we have considered
- In March and April 2021 the resident reported water ingress in the loft and concerns about missing tiles from the roof. The landlord responded to these reports within its repair targets. It inspected and completed minor repairs to the tiling. This was in line with its responsibility for maintaining the roof, as outlined in the tenancy agreement.
- In January 2022 the resident reported damp in her loft due to a leaking roof. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this report. A damp survey conducted in March 2022 in response to a later report found damp in a meter cupboard, but nowhere else in the property. Despite the fact damp was not later identified in the loft, it was a failing that the landlord did not raise an inspection in January when the issue was reported and as required by its policy.
- The resident made further independent reports of leaks or missing tiles in March 2022, January, April and June 2023. The landlord inspected on each occasion as required by its policy. The landlord commissioned a stock survey of the entire property in July 2023 which found the roof to be in good condition with an estimated replacement date of 2053. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the account of a suitably qualified surveyor to decide upon dates for the replacement of the roof as part of planned upgrade works.
- The resident reported a recurrence of the leak on at least 3 occasions between the date of the stock survey in July 2023 and the landlord’s final complaint response on 29 January 2025. The evidence demonstrates that over the course of this period, the landlord responded to almost all the resident’s reports of a leak within its repair targets. It inspected and either completed minor repairs where necessary, or it found no evidence of problems.
- The resident has reported that the level of disruption caused by the number of repair requests and the frequency of appointments was significant. It is reasonable to expect with complicated issues such as roofing, it can sometimes take several visits for a landlord to establish the cause of an issue. Additionally, it was reasonable and in line with its repair policy for the landlord to schedule major works such as replacing a roof in a property to manage their budget. However, it is not reasonable for the resident to be in the position to have to regularly report a leak in her roof during rainfall for several years, with no real clarity over timelines for roof replacement or an assurance that the root cause of issues has been fixed.
- In the stage 2 complaint response it was positive that the landlord acknowledged some procedural delays and tried to put things right for the resident by way of apology and compensation. In line with its repair policy, it also raised a further inspection in response to a report made by the resident on 9 January 2025.
- The resident contacted the landlord again in March and May 2025 about ongoing problems with the roof. She said she was fed up of having to re-report issues each year. The landlord attended in response to these reports to inspect and complete repairs. However, it failed to offer the resident any explanation about why the repairs it completed had not put the issue right for any sustained period of time or reassurance that any further repairs would permanently put things right.
- The landlord completed another stock survey in July which found no repairs were needed to the roof. However, the resident contacted the landlord a week after the inspection to advise there was a recurrence of water ingress. She stated the landlord attended around November 2025, but the roof continued to leak during heavy rain. Ongoing leaks after the stage 2 response weaken the landlord’s claim that repairs were effective.
- It is reasonable to conclude that need for further repairs after the stage 2 response because of ongoing leaks, shows an enduring issue with the functionality of the roof. The persistent leak into the property is an indication the landlord needs to take an in-depth approach to put the matter right.
- The failure to provide a lasting solution and the need for repeated call outs and repair appointments across a number of years leads to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repair. Although it maintained regular communication and committed to temporary roof repairs, the landlord failed to proactively monitor the effectiveness of those repairs. It also did not consider the long-term impact on the resident of repeatedly raising the same issue. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance to put things right for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide a lasting and meaningful solution.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction and sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
- It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
- It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
- It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
- The landlord delayed its stage 1 complaint by 5 working days. However, the impact of the delay was limited because the landlord kept the resident informed, provided legitimate reasons for the length of time taken to respond and adhered to an amended timescale deadline.
- At stage 2 the landlord took 13 working days longer than outlined in the Code to issue its response. The impact of the delay was mitigated by the landlord’s communication about the need for an extension. The landlord failed to provide the resident with the contact details of the Ombudsman in conjunction with the extension request as was required by the Code.
- In summary, there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Although it took steps to mitigate the impact on the resident, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the impact of the delay in the stage 2 complaint response. These failures lead to a determination of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to provide compensation for the inconvenience caused in line with our remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord kept appropriate records about its contact with the resident and the decisions it made in this case. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
Communication
- We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.