Torus62 Limited (202226734)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226734

Torus62 Limited

15 April 2025

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 response to the resident’s:
   1. Request for a new rear fence.
   2. Report of a leaking tap.
   3. Concerns about staff conduct including allegations of acting maliciously.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement that started on 2 December 2013. The resident is a tenant of the housing association. The property is described as a 1-bedroom end of terrace bungalow.
4. The resident has an anti-social personality disorder. The landlord provides enhanced housing management support.
5. The landlord opened an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case on 15 September 2022 following reports from the resident. The resident said a neighbour had made negative comments about him to a new neighbour. The landlord spoke to the neighbour who denied the allegations made by the resident.
6. In January 2023, the resident requested the landlord act regarding harassment he said he had experienced for the past 9 to 12 years from 6 neighbours. The resident also complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
7. On 26 April 2023, the resident called to report the kitchen tap was dripping. A plumber attended on 15 May 2023 to carry out the repair.
8. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 May 2023. He said:
   1. The plumber and the painter left together. The plumber said he would return after lunch with the taps, but did not return.
   2. The landlord should resolve the leaking tap and agree the installation of a garden fence.
   3. The estate services officer contributed to the malicious gossip he had experienced.
9. The resident went on to say his preferred outcome was for the repair operatives and landlord staff to be sacked.
10. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 7 June 2023. It said:
    1. It would arrange another appointment for the tap repair.
    2. It would not install a new rear fence. However, the resident could request permission to install his own fence on the property boundary.
    3. It had reviewed the previous incidents and complaints the resident made and concluded its staff worked appropriately with the resident. It also did not have evidence to justify taking disciplinary action against any of its employees.
11. On 22 June 2023, an operative attended and fitted new tap glands to the kitchen taps.
12. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 June 2023. The resident’s escalation request was not provided to this Service.
13. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 14 September 2023. It said:
    1. The repair to the kitchen taps was completed on 22 June 2023 with new tap glands fitted.
    2. It repeated it would not install a rear garden fence if an existing boundary existed. However, the resident could request permission to do so.
    3. It had reviewed its records and could not evidence staff misconduct or malicious behaviour had occurred.
14. After the complaint process ended, on 7 March 2024, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord about staff conduct and ASB. The landlord’s complaint response said it had previously responded to complaints about ASB in 2021, 2022 and undertaken ASB investigations. It did not have evidence to suggest the resident’s neighbours were causing ASB and had addressed this issue in its complaint response on 7 June 2023.
15. A ‘staying home’ review in June 2024 recorded that the resident had apologised for his complaint about the landlord’s staff. The resident acknowledged he had an infection, things had weighed on his mind and over the past years he had felt overwhelmed. During the conversation, the resident also said he felt betrayed and let down by staff members. He felt his requests for help and support were ignored and that services were acting against him.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

16. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
17. Paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon.
18. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace the rear garden fence. On 27 August 2024, we determined a complaint (under reference 202003450) regarding the resident’s concerns about overgrowth from an adjoining property from May 2022 to its final complaint response  on 13 July 2022. The determination considered the resident’s request for the installation of a rear garden fence and the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision in May 2023 not to agree to this.
19. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint regarding the request for a new rear fence is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of our investigation

20. It is noted the resident has raised concerns about ASB by his neighbours and members of the landlord’s staff over a long period of time. While the resident may have raised concerns during the past 9 years, there is no evidence that complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and/or have been referred to this Service.
21. The landlord told us that the resident complained in October 2022 about ASB and the conduct of its staff. After speaking to a member of staff, the resident agreed to withdraw the complaint. As we have no evidence that the complaint completed the landlord’s complaint process, that matter cannot be considered by us. This investigation will look at the matters that were considered through the complaint made to the landlord in May 2023 up to its final complaint response in September 2023.
22. After the complaint process ended, on 7 March 2024, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. The resident is also currently progressing a complaint about ASB that he made to the landlord in March 2025. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns after September 2023 may be considered in the landlord’s investigation of his newly made complaints. If the resident remains dissatisfied once he has received, the landlord’s final complaint response, he may escalate that complaint to us.
23. The resident told us his preferred outcome was for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to end the employment of its staff. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to do this as we cannot consider complaints regarding the employment of the landlord’s staff, including decisions about the ending of employment. Also, we cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against its staff members. The investigation will instead look at whether the landlord responded appropriately and fairly to the resident’s allegation of misconduct by its staff.

Assessment

Report of a leaking tap

24. Once the landlord has notice of a repair for which it is responsible, the repair should be completed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s responsive repairs & maintenance policy sets out that routine repairs should be completed within 20 days. The landlord acted in line with its policy as it took 19 days to repair the leak to the kitchen tap from 26 April 2023 to 15 May 2023.
25. Following the resident’s further report that the leak to the kitchen tap was unresolved, the landlord was obliged to investigate his concerns. The landlord is responsible for the action of its contractors. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact its repair partner to obtain information regarding the concerns raised by the resident. It was also appropriate to arrange a further appointment to check the leak had been resolved.
26. The responsive repairs and maintenance policy says that repairs will be arranged by appointment and should occur within 20 working days. The follow-on appointment was arranged for 22 June 2023.
27. Where possible, repairs should be carried out at the first opportunity. It is accepted it can be difficult to trace the source of a leak. The second operative who attended in June 2023 assessed that the taps did not require replacement but that the tap glands did. The resident experienced minor inconvenience as it took almost 2 months to resolve the kitchen tap leak.
28. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the first operative who he said gave the impression he was returning to replace the kitchen taps but did not. The landlord failed to demonstrate it investigated and answered this specific concern through the complaints process. Instead, it adopted a narrow approach focusing on the tap repair rather than the customer service aspect of the operative’s actions. Had the landlord given reasons for the operative not returning to the resident’s property, this may have reassured the resident and shown it had taken his concerns seriously.
29. Ultimately, landlords should carry out works in line with its published timescales and records should reflect the outcome of repairs undertaken. There was a minor delay in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen tap repair. It also did not consider the communication failures the resident brought to its attention through his complaint.

Concerns about staff conduct including allegations of acting maliciously

30. The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and said this had been ongoing for some years. This investigation will consider the issues raised during the complaint process. The landlord has a contractual arrangement with its staff and we cannot order it to take disciplinary action. The contract between the landlord and its staff sets out steps to be taken if there is a breach of employment terms.
31. The landlord told us it had received a complaint from the resident about its staff in October 2022. However, that complaint was withdrawn by the resident and he later advised that his medication impacted his relationship with his neighbours. It was agreed that a case review would take place and an “independent advocate” would support the resident at the meeting. It was apparently agreed that the complaint would progress following the meeting if the resident required this. There is no further information regarding this and no evidence that a complaint was pursued.
32. There was a gap of a least 7 months before the resident made a complaint to the landlord in May 2023. The resident complained that the landlord’s staff had conspired with his neighbours to bully him and engaged in malicious gossip. Considering the gap between reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a new report of ASB and dissatisfaction with its staff conduct.
33. It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct a review of the information it held. The landlord concluded it had not identified any staff misconduct so it would not start disciplinary action. In reaching its decision, the landlord said it had considered the contact between its staff and the resident. The evidence provided to us does not show any evidence of unprofessional behaviour or improper conduct by the landlord’s staff. This supports the landlord’s decision not to take disciplinary action against its staff.
34. The landlord explained to the resident why it could not take action following his reports of noise disturbance from his neighbour. The resident had described a banging noise when the neighbour’s son visited. The records do not say which neighbour the noise reports related to. Nevertheless, noise monitoring equipment was offered to the resident – this was declined. The landlord checked the resident had the noise app installed. The records of the interaction between the landlord’s staff and the resident do not evidence malicious behaviour or collusion with the resident’s neighbours as described by the resident.
35. In summary, it is acknowledged that the resident has expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s staff for some time. The resident has not provided specific examples of inappropriate behaviour by its staff. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate and conclude that it did not find any evidence of behaviour that required it to take disciplinary action.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

36. The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will respond within 10 working days at the first stage of its complaint procedure and within 20 working days at its final stage.
37. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 May 2023. The landlord responded just outside its published time limits of 10 working days on 7 June 2023 (this was 12 working days later).
38. The landlord told us that the resident escalated his complaint on 30 June 2023. The landlord did not provide us with the resident’s escalation request. This is of concern as it has not been possible to establish the resident’s specific points of dissatisfaction.
39. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 14 September 2023 – this was almost 2 months later. This significantly exceeded the timescales in its complaint policy. Landlords should request an extension with the resident if they cannot meet their complaint timescales and provide a revised timescale. There is no evidence the landlord did so. This was unreasonable.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new rear fence is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leaking tap.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct including allegations of acting maliciously.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

44. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation, broken down as:
       1. £50 for the inconvenience caused by its failings in the handling of the report of a leaking tap. .
       2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
45. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.