Torus62 Limited (202511814)

Background

1. The property is a first floor flat within a block of 8 flats. The resident has health conditions and disabilities. The resident’s mother stays over at the property to care for the resident at least 3 nights per week. She raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf about the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation and associated repairs, the boiler installation and boiler repairs, antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour and subletting by a neighbour. She requested for her son to be moved to a 2-bedroom property due to his current home being unsafe. For this report, we will refer to the resident and his mother as ‘the resident,’ unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
   2. The boiler installation and boiler repairs.
   3. Reports of ASB from a neighbour.
   4. Reports of the neighbour subletting their property.
   5. A request to be re-housed.
   6. The related complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from the neighbour to be outside of our jurisdiction.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs.
   2. The boiler installation and boiler repairs.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of the neighbour subletting their property.
   2. A request to be re-housed.
6. We found no mal in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:

     Reports of ASB from a neighbour

1. This is outside of jurisdiction because this has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

    Reports of a rat infestation and associated repairs

2. The landlord took some action to address the infestation and provide repairs but failed to monitor the situation or ensure all necessary repairs were completed.

    Boiler installation and boiler repairs

3. The landlord did not install the boiler correctly and there were delays in addressing repairs needed to the boiler, one of which remained outstanding at the date of its final response.

   Reports of a neighbour submitting their property

4. The landlord unnecessarily disclosed details of its investigation and inappropriately asked the resident to prove another resident’s subletting.

    A request to be re-housed

5. The landlord appropriately offered a temporary stay in a hotel and then to permanently re-house the resident, however, there were some failings while handling this request.

   Related complaint

6. The landlord extended the stage 1 and 2 complaint deadlines but adhered to requirements under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) when doing so.

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.

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.

8. The landlord’s neighbourhood policy says the landlord will address infestations (including rats) in the communal areas. This policy also states that where an infestation occurs in a resident’s home because of a structural defect, it will repair the defect and arrange for treatment of the infestation.
9. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was working proactively to eradicate the pest issue reported by the resident.
10. The landlord’s records confirm that prior to the resident’s 18 November 2024 report, he reported a rat infestation on 3 occasions during the previous 12 months and on one other occasion a year earlier in November 2022. On each occasion the landlord raised jobs with its pest team to treat the infestation in accordance with its neighbourhood policy.
11. The resident’s 18 November 2024 report of an ongoing rat infestation shows that the landlord’s previous attempts to address the issue had not effectively resolved the pest problem. On this occasion the resident also reported a total loss of power and no heating or hot water. This was due to rats chewing through cables in the loft. He sent the landlord a video recording of rats in his living room at this time.
12. The landlord’s electrician attended within the 4-hour timescale for emergency repairs stated in its responsive repairs and maintenance policy. It reconnected the electricity throughout, apart from the bathroom fan which the resident was told could not be rewired until the infestation had cleared (considered further below under boiler repairs). The landlord also arranged for its pest control team to attend the next day.
13. These actions were appropriate. However, given the history of pest reports, the severity of the infestation and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was important at this stage that the landlord took decisive action to ensure the rat issue was permanently resolved. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have closely monitored the situation until this was achieved.
14. The pest contractor who visited the next day recommended the holes around the cables in both meter cupboards either side of the property were filled. This was to stop rats gaining entry here and following the electric cables that ran through the cavity wall and into the loft. They also recommended removal of rubbish in the next door neighbour’s garden and check if adjoining properties in the block were experiencing the same issue. The landlord acknowledged it failed to action the garden waste removal recommendation at this time. Although it raised a job with its subcontractor to repair the meter boxes, it is evident this work was not completed. There is also no evidence of the landlord contacting nearby residents to find out if they were experiencing the same problem. Had it done so, the landlord may have identified a need to co-ordinate pest treatments in other properties in the block.
15. The landlord’s failure to follow up on recommendations or track the progress of the repair to the meter boxes, was unreasonable. This is evidence of its not following its repair and maintenance policy which says it will tailor services to meet individual needs. It is evident that during this timeframe, the infestation worsened with the resident reporting a bad smell within the property associated with the infestation.
16. After further rat reports received from the resident in January 2025, the landlord arranged for garden waste to be cleared. This was appropriate however this job was not completed until 21 February 2025. The 3-month delay in actioning this was unreasonable.  It also arranged further pest control visits for 6 and 19 February 2025. These pest reports recommended clearing loft insulation and applying tracking dust to identify access points, repairing a hole in the kitchen cupboard, and conducting a drain survey on the neighbouring property.
17. The landlord raised these jobs and the drain survey was completed on 26 March 2025, (no issues found) and the loft clearance completed by 22 April 2025 (although we have not seen details of the work undertaken). It also repaired the kitchen cupboard, but it is not clear from its records when this job was completed.
18. However, due to ongoing reports, the pest contractors returned on 1 and 7 May 2025. They identified that the previous repair to the kitchen cupboard consisting of foaming in the gaps, had been “chewed through”. The pest control report recommended removing the kitchen cupboard to ensure gaps at the back were fully sealed. This report noted the original recommendation to seal holes in the meter boxes had not been completed.
19. The landlord raised a job to address holes in the kitchen with a target date of 19 May 2025 and confirmed this in its final complaint response. However, it did not clarify the status of repair to the meter cupboards. Internal communications indicate the job was re-raised on 8 May 2025 but the corresponding repair record is marked as “issued in error,” indicating the work was not completed. The landlord’s failure to confirm if it had repaired the meter boxes in its final response was unhelpful.
20. In summary, the landlord arranged pest control visits and completed some recommended repairs, including repairing the kitchen cupboard. However, there were delays in tasks like rubbish clearance, and it failed to complete all recommended repairs or monitor the situation effectively. Consequently, the infestation remained unresolved at the time of its final complaint response, issued 6 months after the initial report in November 2024. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
21. It is clear from the evidence we have seen that since the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to report a rat infestation and that the holes in the meter cupboards have not been filled. He also said works to the loft were not done correctly as no tracking dust was used to identify or fill gaps in the loft that rats were accessing, as per the recommendation. The resident repeated these concerns to us and told us he was staying at his mother’s house 4 days a week due to the rat infestation. On 23 October 2025, the landlord told us that it would arrange additional pest control visits and closely monitor the situation. This is a positive step, but the landlord’s failure to treat the issue with sufficient urgency consistently during the timeframe reviewed, is a failing.
22. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged some failings and delays in getting the repairs carried out and offered £500 in compensation. Although this went some way to putting right the failings we have identified, as the rat issue remains unresolved some 7 months after its final complaint response, the redress offered is insufficient to resolve the complaint. This is evidence of maladministration.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £900 (including the £500 offered) based on:
    1. £600 for distress and inconvenience
    2. £300 for time and trouble.
24. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where failings had had a significant and emotional impact on the resident.
25. We have also ordered the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident to address the rat infestation.

What we did not investigate

26. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal, or other procedure. In this case, the complaint regarding the resident’s accident being caused by a leak that the landlord failed to rectify, is better dealt with by the landlord under its insurance policy or by the courts. This is in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure which states alleged incident that might give rise to a claim against its public liability insurance must be referred to its insurers. The landlord appropriately provided the resident with details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers. This also applies to the complaint about damage caused to his belongings due to the leak.

What we did investigate

27. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the installations for space heating and heating water in repair and proper working order. This includes boilers and pipes.
28. The resident’s complaint concerned 2 boiler issues:
    1. A leak from the extractor fan caused by a condensate pipe being incorrectly fitted during installation.
    2. Damage to the flexible hose in the loft from rats chewing through it.
29. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the leak due to an error during the boiler installation and said it was fixed on 4 December 2025. However, the resident reported the leak from mid-November 2024, and the landlord’s records show it raised a job to address this on 20 November 2024 with a 4-hour target which is line with its timescale for emergency repairs. While the resident said someone attended but could not fix the leak, the landlord’s records indicate this appointment was cancelled by the resident. Therefore, due to conflicting evidence, we cannot determine exactly what happened. However, based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord missed an opportunity to promptly resolve the leak after installation, which was a failing.
30. In relation to the flexible hose (in the loft) from the condense pump, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it found this had been damaged by rats during a visit on 31 January 2025. It said the hose could not be replaced until the pest issue had been resolved however its operative provided a temporary repair. Although the landlord’s approach here was reasonable, it is evident this issue was first identified during the visit on 19 November 2025 (affecting the extractor fan). This indicates it took the landlord more than 2 months to provide the temporary repair on 31 January 2025. This was a failing and outside of its 20-calendar day timescale for routine repairs.
31. Although it scheduled the permanent repairs for 4 and 20 March 2025, both jobs are marked as “no access” with no further details. There is no evidence to show the landlord has since completed or attempted to complete this repair. The landlord also failed to provide a position on the status of this repair in the final response. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord and was unreasonable.
32. In summary, the landlord did not install the boiler properly then failed to rectify a boiler leak at earliest opportunity. It also delayed in providing a temporary repair to pipework damaged by rodents in the loft. Furthermore, in its final response, the landlord did not give a position on the outstanding permanent repair needed to the hose. These failings amount to maladministration by the landlord.
33. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer redress in relation to these specific failings. In the circumstances, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 for these failings made up of:
    1. £300 for distress and inconvenience
    2. £150 for time and trouble
34. We have also included an order for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange to carry out the outstanding repair to the boiler pipework in the loft.

35. In the referral to the Ombudsman, the resident told us he was experiencing threatening and intimidating behaviour from an individual subletting the neighbouring property. There is no evidence of this type of behaviour being reported to the landlord at the time the resident made the stage 1 and 2 complaints or that he included it within his complaint.
36. We can see however that the resident later (from 9 May 2025 onwards) reported threatening and intimidating behaviour from this individual to the landlord. Therefore, as this concern has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, we have not considered this element of the complaint in this investigation.
37. We have however included a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about the allegations and deal with these in line with its ASB policy.

38. Subletting the whole of the property amounts to a breach of the tenancy agreement. Therefore, on receiving a report of one of its residents subletting a property, the landlord would usually want to investigate. However, due to data protection laws, we would not expect it to share details of any investigation with the resident.
39. In the resident’s case, when he reported subletting by the next-door neighbour, the landlord explained in its complaint responses what steps it had taken to investigate the allegation. This included raising the allegation with the neighbour who it said confirmed a friend was staying him for the time being as he had nowhere to live. In its final response, the landlord said it had found “no issues”. It also asked the resident to provide proof of the subletting.
40. While the steps described by the landlord may have been reasonable to investigate the allegation, it did not need to share this information. Also, in requesting proof from the resident of any subletting by the neighbour the landlord risked giving the impression it was placing responsibility on the resident to prove any subletting. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, in its response, the landlord referred to the resident’s earlier reply to this request that he would not get involved. This was inappropriate, as it implied the resident was at fault.
41. These issues amount to service failure by the landlord when handling the reports of the neighbour subletting their property.  We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failing which the landlord has not acknowledged.

42. On 19 November 2024, an operative who attended the property alerted the landlord to the resident’s poor mental health due to the impact of the rat infestation. Its neighbourhood officer contacted the resident the same day and offered a temporary move. Although this action was positive, there is no evidence of landlord considering any unmet support needs or if a safeguarding referral may be needed, as required by its vulnerability and reasonable adjustments policy. This was a failing.
43. On 12 December 2024, the landlord offered the resident a hotel stay under its temporary decant procedure, but only after the resident chased updates on 3 and 9 December 2024. Given the landlord was aware of the resident’s poor mental health, this delay was unreasonable.
44. The resident declined the stay in a hotel option as unsuitable due to his mother regularly staying overnight to care for him. The landlord then agreed to apply for permanent re-housing under its exceptional lets policy. This policy states there are some circumstances where, through urgent or significant need, the landlord should consider an exceptional let. This action was solution focused, however, despite receiving medical evidence from the resident to support a 2-bedroom ‘exceptional let’, the landlord initially declined his application. It told him however it would proceed with re-housing through its choice-based lettings system and would submit supporting medical evidence to ensure he was placed in the correct band for his health needs.
45. While this action was appropriate, following his complaint, the landlord reviewed its decision and due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, approved an exceptional let on 27 March 2025. It immediately offered a 2-bedroom flat, which the resident declined due to concerns about rats within this block also. The landlord offered another flat a few weeks later but the resident rejected this as unsuitable. He requested a 2-bedroom house to suit his needs, which the landlord explained was not feasible due to high demand for this type of property by families. Given the landlord’s limited resources, its position was reasonable. The landlord reiterated its offer of a stay in hotel in both complaint responses, which was appropriate.
46. Therefore, the landlord has demonstrated that overall, it took reasonable steps to re-house the resident. However, due to an initial delay in offering the resident a temporary move and a failure to consider if additional support was required due to the resident’s mental health, this amounts to an overall finding of service failure.
47. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failing which the landlord has not acknowledged. We also recommend the landlord continue in its efforts to re-house the resident to a property that meets his needs.

48. The Code 1 April 2024 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. These timescales are reflected in the landlord’s own complaint policy.
49. The landlord acknowledged the 17 January 2025 stage 1 complaint within the 5 working day timescale, on 23 January 2025. This was in line with its policy.
50. It provided its stage 1 complaint response 20 working days later, on 19 February 2025. Although this was outside of the 10-working day timescale, it wrote to the resident on 5 February 2025 explaining it was extending the deadline by 10 working days. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords to extend deadlines by 10 working days.
51. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s 18 March 2025 escalation on 24 March 2025 which was within the 5 working day timescale. It provided its final complaint response 40 working days later on 21 May 2025. While this was outside the 20-working timescale, it wrote to the resident on 23 April 2025 and 8 May 2025 explaining it was extending the deadline by a further 10 working days each time due to the complexity of the case. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords to extend deadlines by 20 working days as long it explains the reason for this and provides our contact details, which the landlord did. There was no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. We identified an issue with the landlord’s repair records. The majority do not detail the repairs provided and only state the repair raised. This makes it difficult to establish the outcome of repair visits and exactly what work was undertaken.

Communication

53. We identified an issue with the landlord’s communication. There were often delays in its communication with the resident and instances it did not make clear to him its position on repairs. There was also no evidence of its communication with the resident when scheduling repair appointments.
54. The landlord should consider what lessons it can learn from this case and how it will improve its record keeping and communication going forward.