Torus62 Limited (202504045)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202504045 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Torus62 Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
29 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. She requested it erected a higher fence at her property due to this. She complained about how the landlord handled this request.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for fencing following reports of ASB.
- Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing following reports of ASB.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing following reports of ASB
- There were significant delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for higher fencing. It provided conflicting information in its letters and did not complete an inspection by the date stated in its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy.
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 28 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 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 any of the £150 it previously offered from the total amount if it can evidence this has been paid. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Specific order
The information the landlord relied upon when reaching its decision about the resident’s fencing request was unclear. This is because we have not seen copies of the inspection reports. Additionally, the resident has told us the ASB issues continue. She also said she does not understand the reasoning behind the landlord’s decision.
What the landlord must do
The landlord must write to the resident about her ongoing concerns relating to the ASB and fencing. It must set out its position on her fencing request and what steps it could take, if any, to mitigate her concerns. It must reference its policies and procedures and any previous inspection reports when setting out its position.
It must provide a copy of this letter to us and the resident by the due date. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
Letters sent to the resident appear to have included standard text around raising repairs to the landlord’s contractor. We recommend the landlord reviews its letters to ensure it is providing the correct information to residents. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
8 April 2024 |
The resident said she had not received an update about her fence request. She said she had received a letter stating she was on a fencing programme which would be completed by March 2024 because of ASB. She wanted to complain to get this resolved. |
|
30 April 2024 |
The landlord asked the resident if she would like to provide any additional information. It extended the target date for the stage 1 response to 15 May 2024 to allow her time to respond. |
|
15 May 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged a surveyor attended on 15 August 2023, but no further action was taken, and it did not update her. It offered £150 compensation made up of £100 for delays and £50 for inconvenience due to the lack of updates. It said a surveyor would assess the fencing by 13 June 2024, as it needed to be reassessed due to the length of time since the last assessment. |
|
25 September 2024 |
The resident said the landlord had not raised a job for her fence despite receiving a letter confirming this and her neighbours getting new fencing. She said she did not have any privacy, people dumped rubbish in her garden and her personal belongings kept getting stolen. She said she felt unsafe and it was unfair her neighbours had fencing but she was left in the same situation. |
|
13 November 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy with the surveyor’s response about her fencing. |
|
19 November 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It said it aimed to provide a response by 17 December 2024. |
|
2 January 2025 |
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its senior surveyor reviewed the images provided. It said it could not erect a 6-foot fence at the rear boundary of the property, or erect fencing on top of the boundary wall as this did not align with its repairs policy. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action and the reasoning provided by the surveyor. She wanted the landlord to erect a higher fence, like her neighbours, to mitigate ASB from neighbours and passers-by. She said this would improve her safety and privacy. |
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 the resident’s request for fencing following reports of ASB |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- On 2 June 2023 the resident reported a neighbour was dealing drugs and playing loud music into the early hours of the morning. She said visitors were shouting, the property was full of people taking drugs and they had physically threatened her. She said she did not feel safe. The landlord kept in regular contact with the resident until 17 October 2023 when the neighbour moved out. She reported further drug dealing and noise during this time.
- On 28 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord if it could erect a fence because people sat on her boundary wall, left rubbish behind and made her feel unsafe using her garden. The landlord raised a job for a surveyor, who completed an inspection on 15 August 2023. It has not provided a report from this. Following the inspection, it wrote to her stating it had sent an email “to advise fencing required on top of existing low level boundary wall due to ASB”. The letter also said it had sent follow on works to its contractor who would contact her with an appointment. However, it did not do this. This would have likely caused the resident some confusion given its position it would complete further works.
- The landlord took no further action about the issue. The resident continued to report ASB in August 2023 and January 2024 as another neighbour’s dog was fouling in her garden. On 29 February 2024 the resident said she had received a letter advising her fencing would be installed by March 2024, but she had not heard anything further. She requested an update. We have seen no evidence of this letter. However, the landlord did not update the resident as she had requested.
- The resident requested an update again on 12 and 26 March and 8 April 2024. The landlord failed to provide one. On 12 April 2024 the landlord told her it had sent her queries to the relevant team for a response. It upheld her complaint at stage 1 due to its lack of action and updates and offered compensation for this. It said a surveyor would assess the fencing by 13 June 2024. However, this assessment did not happen until 22 August 2024.
- The landlord sent a letter to the resident following this assessment. It said it had emailed photographs and information from the visit to its senior surveyor who had passed them to the complaints team. The letter said it had raised follow on works and had sent these to its contractor, who would contact her with a scheduled appointment. However, there is no evidence it did this. This likely caused confusion for the resident given her request for updates about the fencing and the letters she had received.
- The landlord’s records show it lost the inspection photographs and information. The landlord asked the resident to email the surveyor’s notes, photographs and a brief description of the issue on 25 September 2024. It is unclear whether she provided the surveyor’s notes, although she did provide photographs of her garden.
- Following this the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident. On 30 October 2024 it told her its senior surveyor was unsure whether the wall would cope with a fence added to it. Additionally, it said it would not prevent ASB as the wall could be used to climb over the fence and was not in keeping with the estate.The resident said it was not just about ASB, as she had no privacy when sat in her living room. She felt she had been left off the fencing programme her neighbours had benefitted from. She asked the landlord to go back to its senior surveyor for a response.
- The landlord did not provide a response to the resident until 13 November 2024 when it told her it could not erect a 6-foot fence. It said it would affect neighbouring properties’ right to light, create a blind spot around the corner and potentially cause further ASB.
- Under the tenancy agreement the landlord did not have to improve the fencing at the resident’s property which included increasing its height. It only had to repair the existing boundary wall or fence if damaged. However, the delay in providing this response was unreasonable. The information the landlord relied upon when reaching this decision was unclear, because it said it lost the surveyor’s inspection notes which would have provided further information. However, its records indicate its senior surveyor used the photographs provided by the resident to make their decision.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord did not increase the compensation offered at stage 1. It failed to acknowledge the further delays in providing a response to the resident.There was a delay of almost 16 months from when the resident first requested fencing to the landlord providing a response.The resident contacted the landlord for an update on several occasions. She told it she did not feel secure in her property, had no privacy and felt she had been treated differently to her neighbours. She told it her belongings had been stolen.
- Our compensation guidance allows for awards where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation in line with our finding of maladministration for any distress or inconvenience caused by the failures set out in our assessment.
- The resident has told us there are ongoing issues with dog fouling and ASB. She is also unclear about how the fencing would affect her neighbour’s right to light given they had fences installed in similar circumstances to hers. We have therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident about her ongoing concerns and set out its position with reference to its policies, procedures and any previous inspection reports.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the resident’s complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- At the time of the resident’s initial complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy that aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) introduced in April 2022. It updated its complaint policy in September 2024 to be compliant with the Code published in April 2024.
- The landlord did not raise a complaint when the resident contacted it on 8 April 2024. It initially said it would chase a response and would escalate to a complaint if needed. On 12 April 2024 it said if it did not receive a response by 16 April 2024, it would raise a complaint. It contacted the resident on 17 April 2024 to tell her it had raised a complaint. The resident said she wanted to complain. The delay in raising this did not align with the landlord’s complaint policy to log a complaint when a resident requested this.
- The landlord informed the resident it had extended the response time within 10 working days of contacting her. It then provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of this. This aligned with the timescales in its complaint policy to provide a stage 1 response and for any extension not to exceed 10 working days without good reason.
- The resident explained her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of action on 25 September 2024. The landlord did not escalate her complaint. This did not align with its complaint policy to treat a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation within 5 working days of her requesting this. This aligned with its complaint policy. However, it failed to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days as required by its complaint policy. This added to the delay caused by the landlord not escalating the resident’s complaint.
- There was a delay of over 3 months from when the resident explained her dissatisfaction to the landlord providing its stage 2 response. The landlord did not identify any complaint handling failures in its complaint responses. Our compensation guidance allows for payments of up to £100 where a complaint response was delayed by more than several days. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation in line with this.
Learning
- The landlord acknowledged some failings in its complaint responses. However, it did not provide information on any learning identified. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify learning points to address internally in these responses.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord has not provided a report from the first surveyor’s assessment regarding the resident’s fencing request. Its records show it lost the information from the second surveyor’s assessment. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
Communication
- The landlord failed to update the resident despite her requesting this on several occasions. It provided conflicting information in letters to the resident. We have made a recommendation around this.