Torus62 Limited (202514173)

Decision
Case ID	202514173
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 February 2026

Background

On 21 July 2023 the resident submitted a Right to Buy (RTB) application to purchase their home. The landlord rejected the application because the resident’s tenancy agreement made them ineligible, and the landlord identified that there was an error with the resident’s tenancy type. The resident said they submitted a second RTB application in October 2024, but the landlord said it had no evidence that this was received. On 21 November 2024 the government reduced the discounts available under the RTB process going forward. The resident argued they should be entitled to the higher discount because they had submitted an application in October 2024.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of a Right to Buy application.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a right to buy application.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaints handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision to handle the RTB application in line with current government processes was fair and reasonable as it received an application on 20 January 2025.
There were delays in the landlord acknowledging that the complaint had been escalated. However, the landlord made up for this failing by apologising and offering compensation. The landlord handled the rest of the complaint process in line with its policy timescales.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord is to pay the previously offered compensation of £25 if it is yet to do so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 September 2024	The resident submitted their first complaint to the landlord. They were unhappy that the landlord had not responded to their appeal against the decision to reject their July 2023 RTB application. In response to this complaint, the landlord apologised that the resident had been placed on an incorrect tenancy agreement. It said this had been corrected and offered the resident £100 in compensation.
4 February 2025	The resident submitted a second complaint to the landlord, they said: They wished to buy the home. Their first RTB application was rejected due to an issue with their tenancy agreement. Once the tenancy issue had been rectified, they submitted a second RTB application in October 2024. They said they posted the application to the landlord, but they could not recall which office they sent it to. The landlord had told them it had not received this application. The landlord said because it had not received the application in October 2024, they were not eligible for the enhanced discounts available at this time. They felt that a member of staff who was dealing with the matter had spoken to them in a rude manner.
26 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: It had reviewed postage records from two local offices, and it could not find any evidence that it had received the resident’s October 2024 application. It had received another RTB application from the resident on 20 January 2025. It would progress this application in line with the latest government discount rules. It apologised that the actions of its member of staff had upset the resident.
10 March 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they were dissatisfied that their application was being processed under the updated rules, which significantly reduced the discounts they were eligible for.
19 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, it said: The resident said their most recent application was a photocopy of the October 2024 form and asked for it to be processed under the earlier legislation. The landlord said it could not do this because it processes RTB applications based on the date they are received. It had checked its postage records and, as the resident had no proof of postage, it had found no evidence that the resident had sent an RTB application in October 2024. As a result, it was bound by government rules and could not apply the previous discounts. The resident said they felt it had not been supportive through the RTB process. In response, it highlighted information available on its website around the RTB process, and government information. It apologised for delays the resident experienced at stage 2, and it offered £25 in compensation.
3 July 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us as they felt it was unfair that their RTB application was proceeding under the current rules as this meant their ability to be able to be able to buy their home was affected due to the increased costs.

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.

Scope of investigation

Our role is to consider how a landlord manages issues during its assessment of a complaint. We cannot assess issues that were not raised in the complaint brought to us, which in this case is the 4 February 2025 complaint. Additionally, we do not assess the landlord’s handling of complaints which have not been through stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The resident’s concerns about the time taken to respond to their appeal and the tenancy issue were considered under a separate complaint made in September 2024, which the landlord addressed via a stage 1 response. As that complaint was not brought to us and it did not proceed through the full complaints procedure, we will not assess those issues in this investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a right to buy application.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s right to buy (RTB) policy sets out the circumstances in which residents may qualify to buy or acquire their home. It says the landlord will respond to applications in line with statutory and regulatory requirements.
Government guidance says that when a resident applies to buy their property, they must send an RTB application to their landlord. The landlord must respond within 4 weeks and, if it agrees to the sale, issue an offer within 8 weeks. On 21 November 2024 changes were introduced to the discounts available under the RTB scheme. Before this date, applicants were eligible for a discount of either 70% of the property’s value or £136,400, whichever was lower. For applications made after 21 November 2024, the maximum discount reduced to 70% of the property’s value or £26,000, whichever is lower.
The resident said that after their tenancy agreement was corrected, they submitted a new RTB application in October 2024 via post. The resident was unsure when the application was posted, which office it was sent to, and they did not have proof of postage. The landlord said it had reviewed its post records for the 2 offices local to the resident, but it had not identified any record of receiving the application. We asked the landlord to provide any evidence to suggest the resident had enquired about, or chased the progress of, this application around this time. It could not find any such records.
The resident has said that the application the landlord received on 20 January 2025 was a photocopy of the application they sent to the landlord in October 2024. They felt this meant it should have been handled in line with the enhanced discounts available in October 2024. The resident explained the circumstances in a covering letter, and their signature on the application is dated 9 September 2024. However, the covering letter and the signature are not independent evidence that the application was submitted, or received, before 21 November 2024. Therefore, we find the landlord’s decision to progress the application in line with the date it was received, 20 January 2025, to be reasonable.
The resident told us they felt it was unfair that their attempts to buy the property had been affected by the increased costs, given the landlord’s earlier failure to place them on the correct tenancy agreement following their father’s passing. While we understand the resident’s concerns, we are unable to consider the tenancy issue as it was addressed through a previous complaint, which was not referred to us. Although we recognise the detriment the resident has experienced, we consider that the landlord has acted in line with the relevant government processes and legislation. The landlord is bound to act in line with legislation and government guidance, therefore, we consider its actions to be appropriate.
In their complaint the resident said a member of the landlord’s staff had been rude to them during a phone call. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised that the resident had been upset following this call. This apology was appropriate and showed the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s experience.
The resident told us they have found discussing this issue with the landlord challenging. They said when they discuss this issue over the phone the landlord often cites legislation and policies in a way they find confusing and unsympathetic to their circumstances. Whilst we are satisfied that the landlord acted fairly and in line with the legislation, we consider this an area where the landlord could adapt its approach to better meet the resident’s needs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot meet either deadline, it is required to contact the resident within the relevant timeframe and request a 10 working day extension.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. It requested an extension on 18 February 2025 and issued its stage 1 response 8 working days later. The landlord’s handling of this stage of the complaint was appropriate and met its policy timescales.
The resident escalated their complaint on 10 March 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this 33 working days later. This was not in line with its complaints policy. The landlord contacted the resident by phone to apologise for the delay and repeated this apology in its stage 2 response, where it also offered £25 in compensation.
We found the landlord provided reasonable redress as it apologised to the resident and offered appropriate compensation. The delay at stage 2 appeared to be an isolated issue, as the other stages of the complaint process were completed in line with the landlord’s policies.

Learning

Aside from the matters outlined in paragraph 16 in relation to the landlord’s communication, we have not identified any additional learning in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. There were no concerns identified in respect of its record keeping in this case.