Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Torus62 Limited (202214715)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214715

Torus62 Limited

23 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a theft from his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and has resided in the property since May 1989. The property is a 2-bedroom flat above ground floor, in a purpose-built block. The landlord has informed this Service that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities within the household. The ‘contractor’ is a subsidiary of the landlord and managed the complaint to the end of the internal complaints process as it was responsible for repair and maintenance operatives.
  2. In his communication with the landlord the resident raised a number of other concerns relating to workmanship, staff conduct and communal areas. The complaint which was brought to the Ombudsman was regarding an alleged theft. For this reason, no other issues will be discussed in this report.
  3. On 25 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to speak to the Chief Executive Officer as he believed that contractors who had attended his property in March 2022 had stolen approximately £3500 from his kitchen. The CEO’s secretary responded to the resident to say that his office could not progress complaints but she had forwarded his complaint to the relevant team. The complaint was passed to the contractor and it responded to the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 31 August 2022. In this acknowledgement the landlord advised the resident to report the theft to the police, inform it of the crime reference number and stated that it would cooperate with any police investigation.
  4. The resident and contractor had a telephone discussion on 2 September 2022, where the resident stated that in order to resolve his complaint he would like additional checks when the contractor employs tradesmen, and a refund of the missing money. He contacted the contractor by email on 9 September 2022 to chase a response to the complaint and was informed that the timeline for a stage 1 complaint was 10 working days.
  5. As part of the complaint investigation, on 9 September 2022 the contractor took statements from an operative who attended the property. He stated that:
    1. They had been sent to the address to resolve a leak as it was “flooding” the property below.
    2. It took multiple visits to access the property
    3. He was unaware that money was present in the address
    4. He and the other operative were not separated during the visit and he did not see the other operative with any money.
    5. The property was “in disrepair” and cluttered so they had no option but to move some belongings to access leaks. There were numerous leaks on the waste pipes in the kitchen and bathroom, which were in poor condition.
    6. The front door was open on several occasions as they had to return to their van for parts.
  6. The resident contacted the contractor to chase a complaint response on 9 and 11 September 2022. In this communication he expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord would not provide him with the names of the operatives as he wished to do a police check on them. He was concerned at what he viewed as a lack of urgency and felt that the landlord was being deliberately evasive. He was unhappy with the contractor’s position that it would cooperate with the police, as he had already informed it that the police had decided not to investigate due to insufficient evidence.
  7. The contractor responded on 13 September 2022 to say that the investigation was ongoing, and then issued a stage 1 response on 14 September 2022. It stated that the complaint investigation found that there was no evidence to suggest that a theft had taken place. It also advised that, as some time had passed since the visit, it was not able to come to any other conclusion. It reiterated that it would not provide the names of the operatives due to GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) however confirmed that it does “robust” checks on all new employees. The resident responded to say he was disappointed that the contractor would not meet with him in person as he had been a resident for 19 years. He also stated that he would view a lack of action from the contractor and landlord as worse than the alleged theft.
  8. On 23 September 2022 the resident informed the contractor that he was unhappy with the complaint outcome and requested an escalation to stage 2 of the process. He said that he felt the landlord was making him out to be a liar, was being obstructive, and had provided “pitiful” customer service. He confirmed that he was seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience in addition to a refund of the missing money. Internal notes from 2 October 2022 show that the resident and contractor had an hour-long telephone call to discuss the issue. During this call the resident allegedly indicated that the gas company had also been in the property during the period in which he suspected the money had been stolen.
  9. The resident sent another email to the contractor on 10 October 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 outcome and listed several reasons including:
    1. He felt that the investigation should have been completed by a male with seniority over the operatives.
    2. The contractor refused to accept any supporting information from the other companies who had attended and who may have had involvement with the theft.
    3. The stage 1 response was “devoid of all detail” regarding the visit from the operatives.
    4. He had personally “interviewed” two operatives from the energy company separately, and he felt the response from the company was much better than that displayed by the contractor.
    5. He remained unhappy with the decision not to disclose the identities of the operatives.
    6. He was unhappy with the fact that several staff members who were handling his complaint went on annual leave prior to him receiving the complaint response.
    7. The money was well hidden, unless someone had the time to search around, and the operatives had spent 3 hours in his kitchen.
  10. The contractor issued a stage 2 complaint response on 23 October 2022 advising that the original decision was upheld. The letter indicated that a meeting took place between the head of maintenance and the resident on 17 October 2022, and the contractor apologised that the resident felt its response did not meet his expectations. The contractor confirmed the allegation that £2700 that was stolen from a large glass jar and a further £1200 to £1500 from a yoghurt pot in the kitchen. The contractor reiterated that it had found no evidence that its operatives were responsible for this loss of money and advised the resident to contact the police.
  11. Following this response there was a number of emails and phone calls between the contractor and the resident regarding this matter, and the contractor referred the case to the landlord on 22 November 2022 as it had exhausted its complaint process. On 22 December 2022 the resident received a letter from the police confirming they were unable to proceed with the theft complaint.
  12. Between December 2022 and March 2023, the resident and landlord had numerous discussions regarding the alleged theft and the other communal issues he had raised. The landlord arranged a meeting between the resident and its legal counsel on 7 March 2023. In preparation for this the resident provided the landlord with a list of issues he wished to discuss.
  13. A letter was sent from the landlord’s legal counsel to the resident on 23 March 2023 to summarise the complaint pathway and confirm the meeting outcomes which were:
    1. That there would be no further investigation into the allegation as it was satisfied that fair and due process had been followed.
    2. It does not undertake investigations like the police and the resident was advised to liaise with the police again should he wish to pursue it further. The landlord committed to cooperate fully with any police enquiries.
    3. It had reviewed the documents provided and could find no impropriety or basis for the allegations made.
  14. The resident remained unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is important to note that this Service cannot make a determination on whether an offence took place, or who was involved. This is because the allegations were that a crime had been committed, which was for the police to investigate. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the police decided not to pursue this matter, it is not for this Service to carry out an alternative investigation into an allegation of theft. We note that the resident has repeatedly explained what he considers to have happened, but the Ombudsman does not investigate reports of alleged crimes in the way that the police would and cannot conclusively say what happened in this case. 
  2. Where there has been a report of an alleged crime, the landlord’s role is to consider the information available to it, including any action taken by the police. The Ombudsman can consider complaints about how a landlord has responded to such a report. This report will therefore focus on how the landlord handled the original report of theft and the actions it took.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of theft

  1. The landlord’s position that an in-depth investigation would need to be completed by the police was reasonable. The responsibility of the landlord in this case was to take the resident’s complaint seriously, make appropriate enquiries in line with its policies and to support any criminal investigation. The resident’s communication with the landlord implies that he was requesting the landlord to complete an investigation with similar detail and impact of a criminal investigation however this was out of the scope of the landlord’s responsibilities.
  2. This Service understands that the resident felt strongly about recovering his lost money and wanted to be compensated for the loss. However, this kind of redress may not be provided by a landlord even if theft was proven by way of a criminal investigation, as the courts would be best placed to order appropriate compensation. In this case, the landlord carried out appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns and did not identify any failings in its service.  It was therefore under no obligation to offer any discretionary compensation or reimbursement.
  3. The landlord interviewed the contractors who had visited the resident’s property, who gave their account of the visit and denied any wrongdoing. Without the input of a third party or additional evidence and taking into account the time that had passed, it would not be possible for the landlord to reach a firm conclusion on what took place at this visit. Where there is an allegation that a crime has been committed, the landlord should cooperate with a police investigation and it offered to do so in this case. Whilst the police did not pursue this matter, there is no evidence that this was due to any action or failure to act by the landlord.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s position that it would not disclose the surnames of the contractors. In its responses to the resident and to this Service it stated that withholding that information was compliant with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). GDPR is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in and outside of the European Union. Under GDPR, personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, which are determined at the time of the collection of the personal data, and not be further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.
  5. The resident was correct in his belief that contractors had their name printed on work identification cards, however the purpose of this practice was to reassure residents that legitimate employees are entering their home. In this case, the resident had expressed to the landlord that he required the full name of the contractors as he wished to investigate them and determine if they had a criminal history. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate to withhold this information from the resident as the landlord also had a duty to safeguard its staff which includes contractors and subcontractors, and ensure their personal data is being used legitimately. GDPR issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), and if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has handled data in this case, he may wish to contact the ICO for guidance.
  6. This Service understands that the resident felt strongly about recovering his lost money and wanted to be compensated for the loss. However, this kind of redress may not be provided by a landlord even if theft was proven by way of a criminal investigation, as the courts would be best placed to order appropriate compensation. In this case, the landlord carried out appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns and did not identify any failings in its service.  It was therefore under no obligation to offer any discretionary compensation or reimbursement.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegation of theft. Based on the evidence provided it took the resident’s complaint seriously and investigated the allegations, however it could not complete a more in-depth investigation as it did not have the authority to do so. It offered to support any police investigation, obtained advice from its legal team, and had several face to face meetings with the resident regarding his concerns. Overall, its actions were proportionate to the issues that had been raised, taking into account the information available to it, the time that had passed since the alleged incident and the decision of the police not to pursue the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a theft from his property.