Torus62 Limited (202512477)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy started on 2 May 2022, and the property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord completed drainage work outside the property in January 2023. It subsequently re-positioned the drain in September 2023. We previously determined a case for the resident on 16 April 2025 (202323921) which considered events relating to damp and mould/drainage up until 11 October 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs including:
   1. Pipework/drainage.
   2. Decoration.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to kitchen pipework/drainage.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to kitchen decoration.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs to the kitchen pipework/drainage

7. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its policy timescale. It was also poor in its communication with the resident.

Handling of repairs to the kitchen decoration

8. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its policy timescale. It was also poor in its communication with the resident.

Complaint handling

9. There was no evidence the landlord followed up with the surveyor, as it said it would, in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses.

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.

What we have not considered

The resident is seeking compensation for damage caused to his belongings including his washing machine(s), and further expenses incurred by being unable to use his washing machine properly. It is beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged belongings, and these matters are usually best suited to be dealt with via an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.

The resident also raised concerns and complaints about other issues with the property. These included with the living room window and other decorative repairs. However, there was no evidence this has been raised through the landlord’s full complaints process. As a result, the landlord has not had a proper opportunity to investigate and resolve them. Therefore, they will not be considered in this investigation.

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes pathways, external walls and drains. The resident is responsible for reporting repairs and insuring his personal possessions.
11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will keep its properties in good condition and comply with its statutory and contractual responsibilities. Responsive repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
    1. Emergency repairs, which affect the health, safety, or security of the resident, are completed within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs are completed within 20 calendar days and include jobs which do not cause a major inconvenience to a resident.
    3. Programme repairs include non-urgent jobs and are completed within 60 days of being reported.
12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also says:
    1. It will keep residents updated of any potential delays in completing repairs.
    2. It will not accept liability or responsibility for maintaining or replacing items installed by residents which may be damaged when carrying out repairs.
    3. Residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.

Kitchen pipework/drainage

13. The landlord’s repair log shows a surveyor visited on 9 October 2023 following damp and mould reports. The surveyor recommended to install “[ACO] drains to gable [wall side of the property] to run into drains. Run one part across paving to take waste pipe [of the washing machine].” The repair records are unclear as to whether a further inspection or work to install additional drainage was due to be completed on 26 October 2023. The contact records showed the resident called the previous day to say he would be out, so would leave the side gate open to allow access. However, the landlord marked the work order as no access. The landlord’s contact notes said the work order was re-raised for 30 October 2023, which was prompt. But there was no evidence of this in the repair records.
14. Internal notes showed an operative attended on 14 November 2023 and installed a soakaway to improve drainage, which was agreed with the surveyor. However, this was not the drainage the work order was raised for. The contact records show the resident called the landlord the same day and said:
    1. A drain needed to be fitted at the side [gable wall] of the property to accommodate the washing machine drainage.
    2. An operative had attended that day but the work [recommended by the surveyor] was not completed.

After the resident’s contact, the landlord emailed the surveyor promptly and asked him to contact the resident.

15. The resident called again on 2 January 2024 having not received contact from the surveyor. He said:
    1. There was no waste for the washing machine.
    2. The washing machine was “sticking out.”
    3. A soakaway had been put in for drainage, but the job had not been completed properly.

It was a failing that the resident had not been contacted in the previous 7 weeks. However, the evidence showed the landlord chased the surveyor again the same day, which was reasonable.

16. It was unclear whether the surveyor contacted the resident. However, another surveyor attended on 7 February 2024 in relation to unrelated issues. The second surveyor noted there was a “previous issue with washing machine and waste pipe going through rear wall. Could do with going through [the] gable [wall] but unsure if possible.” There was no evidence any repairs were raised, or any further action was taken. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the surveyor. It could then have either raised further repairs or manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the drainage work. There was no evidence any action was taken, which was a failing.
17. There was then no evidence of further contact for over 4 months when the resident reported:
    1. A blocked kitchen sink.
    2. Issues with the washing machine pipework.

The landlord raised repairs promptly the same day, which was reasonable. The resident called again 2 days later regarding the drainage issues affecting his kitchen. The landlord chased the surveyor that attended in February 2024 and said it would update the resident. However, there was no evidence the surveyor responded, or the resident was updated, which was a failing. 

18. The landlord’s contractor visited on 2 July 2024 for the sink and pipework repairs, in line with policy. However, it was unclear exactly what work was completed. Follow-on work was raised the next day to assess if an ACO drain was required for the washing machine wastewater. The first surveyor had already recommended this in October 2023, almost 9 months earlier. A third surveyor visited on 30 August 2024, over 8 weeks later and noted the “washing machine outlet fall [was] wrong.”
19. The landlord attended on 27 September 2024 for repairs including the washing machine outlet fall. Notes showed further time was required so it attended again on 2 October 2024 and completed repairs to the washing machine pipework. While it was positive repairs were completed, this was almost 3.5 months after the resident had raised the issue on 19 June 2024. This was a lengthy delay and outside the landlord’s 20 calendar day timeframe for a routine repair.
20. Despite the repairs, the resident called the next day and asked to speak to the surveyor that attended on 30 August 2024. He said he still had issues with the kitchen sink filling up when using the washing machine. The evidence showed the landlord requested the surveyor call the resident promptly the same day. After no contact, the resident chased again a week later and said the drain was not functional. There was no evidence to confirm any action was taken until the resident called and reported a leak under the kitchen sink on 30 December 2024, 4 months later. During the call the resident said the surveyor “had agreed to have the emptying pipe from the washing machine to go through the wall directly into the grid outside”. It was unclear exactly when this was agreed, however the surveyor raised a work order for the “washing machine outlet fit through wall to gulley” the same day. This was 4 months after the resident requested to speak to the surveyor, which was a lengthy delay.
21. It was positive the landlord attended to complete the work on 29 January 2025, in line with its routine repair policy. Temporary repairs were completed so the resident could use his washing machine. However, later that day the resident called the landlord and said the job was not completed as its operative did not have the correct tools. This caused the resident inconvenience. The resident also chased decorative work (addressed below) on the same call. The landlord chased the surveyor the same day who responded in relation to the decorative work. But the surveyor did not mention the pipework, which was a failing. The landlord chased the surveyor a second time later that day. This provided a second opportunity to raise a follow-on repair for the pipework to address the washing machine drainage. But there was no evidence of a surveyor response, or repair being raised, which were failings.
22. After no updates, the resident chased again on 20 February 2025. Again, the landlord emailed the surveyor promptly. However, there was no evidence of a response or the resident being kept updated. This was a failing and ultimately led to the formal complaint being raised. Following the complaint, the surveyor raised a work order the same day, which was prompt. However, it should not have taken a formal complaint for the work order for the kitchen pipework to be raised.
23. The repair raised on 11 March 2025 and issued to the contractor said, “gable fit back inlet gulley non functional.” This was issued to a landlord sub-contractor on 17 March 2025. The work order was marked completed on 31 March 2025. However, it was unclear exactly what work, if any, was carried out. There was also no evidence the landlord followed up with the sub-contractor following the visit, which contributed to further delays. In a call to the resident on 8 April 2025 on the day of the stage 1 response, the resident said the sub-contractor had visited but he had heard nothing since. It was positive the landlord acknowledged the repair delays in its stage 1 response. It also tried to put things right for the resident and said it would liaise with the surveyor. However, there was no evidence it did so. This led the resident to chase again on 23 April 2025 and escalate the complaint to stage 2, which caused further inconvenience.
24. The repair log showed the landlord emailed the surveyor on 8 May 2025 after further contact from the resident. This was almost 2 weeks after the complaint escalation which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord chased the surveyor on 23 May 2025 having had no response. The surveyor raised a repair to “run [washing machine] pipes into new drains” 3 days later. Contractors attended on 10 June 2025, in line with policy, but did not have a core drill so could not complete the work. This was the second time a lack of clarity in the repair raised by the surveyor caused delays. The contractors attended a week later and drilled a hole for the washing machine pipes.
25. On 25 June 2025 the resident reported the kitchen sink was gurgling and a bad smell. The landlord then used its stage 2 response to try and put things right. It acted reasonably and offering further compensation and said it would liaise with its surveyor in relation to the drain. The landlord attended on 27 June 2025 for the sink, in line with policy. The operative raised follow-on work for the washing machine pipework for 30 June 2025 which was completed on 3 July 2025.
26. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing. The evidence showed:
    1. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. From November 2023 to February 2025, the resident chased on at least 8 occasions before ultimately having to raise a formal complaint.
    2. There were issues with the landlord’s surveyors. There was no evidence the surveyors responded to requests for further information in:
       1. November 2023, January and February 2024, August 2024, February 2025.
       2. The landlord also said it would liaise with surveyors in both stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. While it may have done so, there was no evidence pf a surveyor response.
       3. There were delays with surveyors attending in August 2024.
       4. There were delays with surveyors raising work orders in February 2024, around August 2024, and February 2025.
       5. There were issues caused by the lack of clarity in the surveyors work orders raised in January, March and May 2025.
    3. There was little to no action between:
       1. 30 October 2023 and 13 November 2023 – 2 weeks
       2. 14 November 2023 and 2 January 2024 – 7 weeks
       3. 7 February 2024 and 19 June 2024 – 19 weeks
       4. 3 July 2024 and 30 August 2024 – 8 weeks
       5. 30 August 2024 and 27 September 2024 – 4 weeks
       6. 2 October 2024 and 30 December 2024 – 13 weeks
       7. 29 January 2025 and 11 March 2025 – 6 weeks
       8. 8 April 2025 and 8 May 2025 – 4 weeks

This totalled to be a period of around 14.5 months. This was unreasonable.

27. Overall, the landlords over reliance on surveyors to manage and co-ordinate repairs has led to delays in this case. There was no evidence the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. And there were multiple instances of communication failures between parties, and no one taking responsibility for the repairs. The landlord has offered a total of £400 compensation across its complaint responses. While it had made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord should pay the resident a further £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a significant period.

28. The resident called the landlord to chase decorative work on 6 January 2025 following kitchen pipework repairs. The landlord contacted its surveyor, that had visited on 30 August 2024, promptly the same day. After no response the resident chased again on 29 January 2025. There was no evidence any decorative repairs were raised until 11 March 2025 following the complaint. The repair logs showed a repair to “mist coat wall where damp was repaired in kitchen” was raised but cancelled the same day. This was re-raised on 8 April 2025 with an appointment booked for 30 April 2025. However, unfortunately, the resident was in hospital, so the appointment had to be rescheduled. It was unclear what happened to the decorative repair the landlord said it raised in its stage 1 complaint response.
29. The repair records showed an operative visited on 20 June 2025 and completed some plastering work. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had arranged for its complaints surveyor to inspect the decorative issues. The landlord’s contractor visited on 3 July 2025 and completed decorative kitchen repairs. It was unclear whether the decorative work should have been raised following the surveyor’s visit in August 2024. However, the landlord missed 2 opportunities to raise decorative work on 6 and 29 January 2025. There were then further delays due to an error with the repair raised on 11 March 2025 following the complaint. It was unfortunate the resident was in hospital when the landlord tried to complete decorative work on 30 April 2025. After that, it was a further 2 months before the work was completed.
30. Overall, it should not have taken over 6 months for the decorative work to the kitchen to be completed. The landlord failed to monitor the repairs. The landlord’s compensation was not enough to put things right. An order for a further £250 compensation is made.

31. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
    3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
32. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days after it was raised in line with policy. The stage 1 response was sent on 8 April 2025, 18 working days later. However, we acknowledge the landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2025 and said it needed to extend the target date due to the need for further information in line with the Code.
33. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 44 working days after the complaint escalation. However, we acknowledge the landlord emailed the resident on 29 May 2025 to extend the complaint by a further 10 working days. And again, on 12 June 2025.
34. There was no evidence the landlord followed up the repairs or liaised with the surveyor as it said it would in both complaint responses, which was a failing. Given there were delays with both complaint responses, and there was no evidence the landlord followed up, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. An order of £100 compensation is made to put things right.  

Learning

Knowledge & information management (record keeping)

35. As mentioned in the report, the wording of several repairs raised by surveyors was unclear and lacked sufficient detail to enable operatives and sub-contractors to complete repairs. There were also some gaps in the repair records with no evidence of the drainage work order re-raised for 30 October 2023.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The evidence showed he regularly had to chase updates to progress the repairs.