Torus62 Limited (202523824)

Decision
Case ID	202523824
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Torus62 Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house with her 2 daughters and her grandmother. The grandmother and 1 daughter have additional needs. The resident asked the landlord for major adaptations to address the household’s medical and space needs. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she escalated her complaint to this Service.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major adaptations.
3. We have also investigated its complaint management.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major adaptations.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint management.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acted in line with the tenancy agreement and its Adaptations Policy when considering the resident’s requests. It assessed each request against the relevant criteria, explained its decision why the grandmother was not eligible for major adaptations, and set out the cost, suitability, and value‑for‑money issues linked to an extension. The evidence shows the landlord applied its policies consistently and made decisions it was entitled to make.
7. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its policy. It did not issue formal responses to the resident’s earlier complaints, did not evidence an agreed extension to its Stage 1 timescale and did not clearly address all points raised at Stage 1.

 

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider the clarity of its communication regarding overcrowding and occupancy permissions. The landlord should ensure future communications explain: The difference between recording someone as living in a property, granting permission for them to reside, and recognising them as a household member for the purpose of adaptation eligibility or tenancy amendments.
The landlord should clarify and publish guidance on how it assesses “permanent household members”. This should include the types of evidence it may request, how permanence is determined, and how this interacts with both tenancy permissions and adaptation eligibility.
The landlord should engage with the resident to assess whether any other viable housing options could meet the household’s needs, given the known scarcity of 4‑bedroom accommodation.
The landlord should conduct a review of the complaint handling in this case, focusing on: The lack of formal responses to the resident’s earlier complaints. The lack of evidence for the Stage 1 extension. The inaccurate explanation of the adaptations policy. The gaps in record keeping, including the missing Stage 2 escalation request. The review should identify the learning needed to ensure future complaint responses follow the policy, provide accurate information, and maintain complete records.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 April 2025	The resident contacted the landlord by telephone. She complained that the landlord had not agreed to her application for an extension to the property to meet the grandmother’s additional needs. She said: Adaptations had been recommended by the local authority, but the landlord had not agreed to them. The local authority had agreed to part fund the project. The landlord had installed handrails to assist her grandmother and its refusal to agree to the extension was inconsistent.
29 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would aim to respond by 13 May 2025.
28 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Minor adaptations were agreed to support the grandmother and for safety reasons. The process and criteria for major adaptations was different to that for minor adaptations. The landlord had refused permission for the grandmother to move in because her addition to the household would result in overcrowding. Major adaptations could only be made for tenants, not occupiers. The resident could apply for a house move or for separate accommodation for her grandmother.
2 July 2025	The resident raised a stage 2 complaint by telephone.
25 July 2025	The landlord telephoned the resident. It clarified the reason for the escalation to stage 2 was regarding the refusal of the extension on the property. It said it would investigate and provide its response.
30 July 2025	The landlord requested an extension to the deadline for its response to 19 August 2025.
18 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said: It could not consider a request for an adaptation for someone who was not registered on the tenancy or household for the property. The landlord had refused the resident’s request to add her grandmother as a household member on 22 September 2023 on grounds of overcrowding.  Even if her grandmother was an approved household member there was no guarantee the landlord would agree to a major adaptation. It would need to be considered by the adaptations panel, who would assess projected costs, value for money and practicality of the recommended works. If an adaptation were to be approved, it would be 3 or 4 years before work would start. Minor adaptations are carried out without the involvement of the Aids and Adaptations team and are available to all customers.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She said that she wanted the landlord to complete the extension that had been approved by the local authority.

 

What we have not considered and why

8. The resident has told this Service that she believes the landlord has discriminated against the household because of the household’s nationality or ethnic origin. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010 is for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaints.

 

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 the resident’s request for major adaptations.
Finding	No maladministration

9. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement states that only the current household members may live in the property, apart from any children born in the future. If the resident wants anyone else to live there, they must obtain the landlord’s written permission. The resident must not allow more than the permitted number of occupants to live in the home without written approval from the landlord.
10. The landlord’s Adaptations Policy states that tenants or anyone who is a permanent member of the household may be considered for an adaptation. It states that minor adaptations are non-structural alterations or additions which cost less than £1,000 and do not require assessment by an Occupational Therapist (OT).
11. The policy says that major adaptations require an OT assessment and are usually prioritised by date. Decisions consider household details, property suitability, cost, and alternative housing options. Requests may be refused for reasons such as property suitability, budget limits, or available alternative homes. Approved major adaptations require a disabled facilities grant, and the landlord will match fund up to £30,000, with a maximum adaptation cost of £60,000. A suitable alternative property may be offered instead of adapting the current home.
12. The resident told the landlord that her grandmother would move in during September 2023 and asked for her to be added to the household. The landlord refused the request because of the property size and concerns about overcrowding. The landlord’s records dated 25 September 2023 state that the resident’s grandmother moved in without permission.
13. The resident asked the landlord to provide an extension with a bedroom and bathroom for her grandmother. An OT later recommended minor adaptations and advised the landlord to discuss a possible extension with the resident. The landlord said it could not assist because the grandmother was not recognised as part of the household. The local authority approved partial funding for and requested major adaptations for the grandmother, but the landlord refused after an eligibility check, again citing that she was not an authorised occupant.
14. In May 2025 the landlord sent an internal email, explaining that it could not consider a major adaptation because the grandmother was not registered on the tenancy. The email also explained that an extension would exceed normal grant limits, need panel approval, and may not offer value for money. It also noted that major works of this type have long waiting times. These were valid policy‑based considerations, which the landlord explained to the resident in its Stage 2 response.
15. In discussion with this Service, the resident explained the difficulties encountered by the household because of the overcrowding. She told us that her daughter also has additional needs which requires her own bedroom. This Service empathises with the household’s circumstances and appreciates the challenges for different generations with substantial additional needs sharing a bedroom. We note that the resident has applied for rehousing and has been awarded maximum medical priority for a move to a 4-bedroom property.
16. While this context helps explain the household’s circumstances, it does not alter the landlord’s obligations, or the policy framework applied to the resident’s requests.
17. Overall, the landlord acted in line with the tenancy agreement and its Adaptations Policy. The landlord assessed the information provided, considered policy requirements, and consistently explained the reasons for its decision. For these reasons, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for major adaptations.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s Complaint Policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The investigating officer should contact the complainant to clarify the issues and issue a Stage 1 response within 10 working days or give a revised date if more time is needed. Stage 1 responses must be in writing and address every point raised. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the case moves to Stage 2, which is handled by a different and more senior officer. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
19. The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 18 April 2024 and 13 May 2024 to complain about its refusal of major adaptations. The landlord spoke to the resident on 24 April and appropriately gave information about minor adaptations, rehousing options, and the need to engage the local authority for major works. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord issued a formal complaint response, as required by the policy. The resident was not given the formal response or escalation information required by the policy, which delayed her access to the full complaints process.
20. The resident later raised a further complaint on 28 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and spoke with her on 22 May. It issued its Stage 1 response on 28 May, 20 working days after the complaint was made. The landlord told this Service that it applied a 10 day extension, but this Service has not seen evidence of an extension request. There is no indication that this short delay caused detriment to the resident.
21. The Stage 1 response provided an inaccurate explanation of the adaptations policy, stating that the landlord could not make major adaptations for occupants, only for tenants. It stated that it acknowledged that the grandmother was an occupant but not a tenant. However, the landlord’s policy states that anyone who is a permanent member of the household may be considered for an adaptation. This meant the resident did not receive a clear explanation of how the landlord applied the policy to the request.
22. The resident asked for her complaint to progress to Stage 2 on 2 July. The landlord’s evidence to this Service does not include a copy of this escalation request, which shows a shortcoming in its record keeping. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the Stage 2 complaint within policy timeframes.
23. Overall, the landlord did not meet the requirements of its Complaint Policy. It did not issue formal responses to the resident’s earlier complaints, did not evidence that it requested an extension for its stage 1 response, and did not address all points raised in the Stage 1 complaint. Its records provided to this Service also did not contain the resident’s Stage 2 escalation request. Although the landlord met the Stage 2 timeframes, these shortcomings show that it did not handle the complaint in full accordance with its policy.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Shortcomings in record keeping directly affected the landlord’s ability to demonstrate compliance with its Complaint Policy.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication showed strengths and weaknesses. It provided consistent explanations for its decisions, appropriately signposted the resident to rehousing options and to OT services and stayed in touch with the resident through the formal complaint process. However, it dd not clearly address the resident’s specific concerns about the distinction between minor adaptations (done for grandmother previously) and major adaptations being refused until its Stage 2 response. Communication must be clear, consistent, and responsive to the specific issues raised. Explanations should be tailored and should address contradictions or inconsistencies perceived by the resident.