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

Torus62 Limited (202229372)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229372

Torus62 Limited

21 March 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 void works and the condition of the property when the resident began their tenancy.

Background

  1. The landlord and resident have an assured tenancy agreement for a one-bedroom property. The landlord employs contractors to complete some repairs.
  2. The contractor completed a void inspection of the property on 7 November 2022. The inspection found a leak from the flat roof which was “possibly connected” to a window frame. The contractor recorded that remedial work had been completed but “had not solved the issue”. The inspection also identified damp and mould within the property, which the contractor recorded as requiring a “stain block”. The contractor requested that a dehumidifier be used to dry out the plaster and asked for decoration not to be done until it had been proven the flat roof had been “properly sealed”.
  3. The landlord issued work orders to the contractor responsible for repairs following the void inspection, on 8 November 2022. The resident moved into the property on 19 December 2022 and reported that the roof was still leaking on 20 December 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 to say that the property was uninhabitable, and the landlord had a duty of care. The resident requested “free rent” until the issues were resolved. In another email of the same date, the resident told the landlord they would no longer be making rent repayments until the problems were solved. The resident said they were unable to continue taking time off to be present for repairs to be completed. They also said that the landlord continued to send contractors to look at the issues, but the contractors kept saying that nothing could be done.  The resident said their bedroom was “unusable” and the entire property was constantly cold, even with the heating on.
  5. The landlord made a note of a call it had with the resident on 6 January 2023. The landlord recorded that it discussed the issues with the property and that a complaint had been raised. The landlord recorded another call note on 12 January 2023. The landlord recorded that the discussion had included the following points made by the resident:
    1. The property was in a “shocking condition”.
    2. Plaster had fallen off in the bedroom, which was unusable.
    3. The wall was “so wet” an electric socket had to be removed.
    4. Water was “pouring in” through windows.
    5. Window frames were “orange” due to water and rust.
    6. Window seals had failed, and it had become “very draughty”.
    7. There was damp and mould throughout the property.
    8. The previous tenant’s carpets had been left to hide the damp issues.
  6. The landlord recorded that the resident was on the verge of moving out of the property and returning the keys. It also recorded an internal note requesting a surveyor attend the resident’s property “as a matter of urgency”.
  7. The landlord’s record states that the roof issues, including beading and sealant, were completed on 16 January 2023.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2023, which summarised the complaint issues as a “leaking window and roof” and “unsatisfactory quality of a recently void property”. The landlord confirmed it was aware of the roof issues before the Christmas period in 2022. It said the contractor responsible for void work had “shutdown” at the time, so it arranged another contractor to “attend, assess and feed back”. The landlord said it completed a temporary repair of the roof and leak and had returned to complete the work and “make good” the temporary repair when the weather had improved. The landlord confirmed future appointment dates to repair the electric socket, window glazing and for a surveyor to attend. It apologised to the resident for the drop in standards and said it would be feeding back to the relevant teams.
  9. The contractor confirmed within internal communication on 3 February 2023 that all work raised during the void inspection and remedial roof/window repairs had been completed. The contractor said it had no further instructions for repairs from the landlord.
  10. During further internal communication on 7 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate their complaint. The landlord recorded that the resident had said they did not understand why there was so many outstanding repairs which should have been completed prior to moving in. The resident had also mentioned being unhappy with the amount of time off from work they had been having to take, to be present for contractors to complete repairs. The landlord recorded that the resident had requested compensation.
  11. The contractor completed an assessment of the condensation in some of the property’s windows on 14 February 2023.
  12. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 February 2023. The landlord said that repairs that had been reported were “unforeseen” and were not present at the time of the void survey or subsequent void repair phase. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s experience had been affected and summarised future scheduled appointments. The landlord apologised for the resident’s disappointment and offered £150 compensation. It also said it would be contacting the void manager with feedback.
  13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the delay to complete the repairs and having to take time off work and contacted the landlord on 23 February 2023. However, the landlord explained the complaint process had been exhausted.
  14. The landlord recorded that a “double glaze unit” was replaced on 5 April 2023. The landlord also recorded, during internal communications, that a rent adjustment was scheduled for 12 June 2023, which would “clear all outstanding arrears”.
  15. The landlord told the Ombudsman that all repairs were “completed and post inspected” all within “target dates”. The landlord acknowledged some repairs were directly due to water ingress and kitchen units were due to be replaced “within 6 months”.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has reported to the landlord that the issues that form the substance of their complaint have impacted on their mental health. The Ombudsman understands that this situation has been stressful for the resident, and we do not doubt their comments about the effect the issue has on their health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in their complaint. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health.
  2. The resident has raised issues which occurred after the landlord’s complaint process had been exhausted, such as boiler repairs and a leaking radiator. In accordance with paragraph 42a, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered issues which occurred after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in February 2023. Where there is evidence a repair was linked to the void process, the Ombudsman has considered it within this investigation. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of other repairs, they can raise a new complaint to the landlord. If they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to their new complaint, they may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
  3. The resident has mentioned to the Ombudsman and landlord that they have suffered a loss of earnings due to taking time off work to allow access for repairs. Generally, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment while repairs are carried out. While such works can cause inconvenience for a resident, occupancy agreements require residents to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. Therefore, it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides it is appropriate to order a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. For example, where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed, or the landlord continues to fail to permanently resolve the repair issue.

Void works and property condition

  1. The landlord has indicated that some repairs, such as the damage to window sealants, were directly linked to the resident’s roof issues. Had the landlord permanently repaired the roof, it is likely to have prevented other repairs from being reported. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered the leaking roof to have been the resident’s substantive complaint. While this report has focussed on the leaking roof and damp and mould, the other associated repair issues have also been considered when determining the outcome.
  2. The landlord’s empty homes maintenance policy provides an overview of the work done within properties to ensure they are suitable for letting. The policy is clear in setting out the fixtures and fittings which are checked during the void process. Those relevant to this case include:
    1. Walls and ceilings will be checked for signs of damp and identified damp will be investigated, the cause diagnosed and rectified.
    2. All windows will be inspected to ensure they are in working order. Any failed units will be replaced. If a window is beyond repair, it will be replaced.
    3. All electrical systems will be fully tested, and an appropriate certificate provided.
    4. Roof is to be “structurally sound” and “free from leaks”.
  3. The void inspection of the resident’s property identified a leak from the flat roof, and evidence of damp and mould in November 2022. The landlord was then obligated to arrange for the permanent repair of those issues, as per the empty homes maintenance policy. The available evidence shows the property was “returned” to the landlord on 16 December 2022 and recorded as being ready for letting. When a property is returned and considered to be in a lettable condition, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to have completed or scheduled to complete any repairs identified during the inspection. Where an outstanding repair is scheduled, the landlord should inform the resident of what it plans to do and when it plans to complete the work.
  4. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that remedial roof work was completed during the void works period. However, it has also explained that the repair “failed” while the property remained empty. The landlord has demonstrated that it was aware the condition of the roof required more work before it was permanently repaired, however, it allowed the resident to move into the property. While the Ombudsman understands a resident can move into a property with some minor repairs outstanding, such as replacement window handles, it was unreasonable of the landlord to allow the resident to move in with an outstanding roof leak. This was a clear indication that the property was not of a lettable standard and demonstrated a failure to follow the requirements of the landlord’s empty homes policy. This resulted in the resident reporting the issue a day after their tenancy had commenced.
  5. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions to address the damp and mould. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance outlines that damp and mould are potential hazards, and as such, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take prompt action to address the issue. The void inspection, completed prior to the resident moving into the property, showed the existence of damp. The recommended actions were to use a stain block and dehumidifier to dry out the plaster. This showed the landlord had been aware of the damp and mould issues within the property but failed to reinspect the issues after the void findings and, therefore, permanently treat the issue. This resulted in the resident later reporting damp and mould, the extent of which was so severe that they said their bedroom was unusable as of 3 January 2023.
  6. The repair log shows that the landlord arranged for a mould treatment to be applied, which it recorded as being completed on 20 February 2023. The landlord also arranged subsequent damp and mould surveys, which identified further issues. The repair log shows there were no further reports of damp and mould after 3 March 2023. While this suggests the issue may have been resolved, it does not account for the landlord’s failure to address the issues prior to the resident moving in. This meant the resident was left to move into and live in a property affected by damp and mould, which the landlord had been aware of.
  7. The landlord’s failures to follow its empty homes policy meant the resident moved into a property that did not meet an appropriate lettable standard. While the available evidence, such as the repair log, shows the landlord had been taking action, those actions were not taken soon enough. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, living in a property while it had been in a state of disrepair and having to report issues almost immediately after their tenancy began.
  8. While the failure to appropriately handle the void repairs was clear, the Ombudsman must also consider the landlord’s attempts to put things right. The landlord offered £150 at stage 2 of the complaint process, for the resident’s disappointment, and indicated an intention to provide feedback to the relevant area/team. The landlord’s willingness to offer compensation was an action in line with its compensation policy, which states an offer may be appropriate where “avoidable inconvenience, distress or detriment” has occurred. The policy does not provide specific amounts. Therefore, the Ombudsman has also considered its remedies guidance to assist in determining whether the landlord’s offer was fair and proportionate to the impact of the failings.
  9. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that an award may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made and acknowledged an error, or errors, which adversely affected the resident. However, the landlord’s offer as a resolution was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, the available evidence demonstrates the landlord’s awareness of issues, such as the leaking roof and damp and mould, and its failure to implement permanent repairs. The landlord identified the resident’s disappointment during the complaint process. However, the solution it offered fell short of being proportionate to the impact of moving into a property in a state of disrepair. The resident then had to wait for those repairs to be completed.
  10. When considering the landlord’s offer and actions to put things right, the remedies guidance, and the impact of failings identified in this investigation, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300.
  11. The Ombudsman has also considered whether compensation based on rent to reflect loss of enjoyment of the property is appropriate. The resident told the landlord they were unable to make full use of their property, specifically the bedroom, due to the outstanding issues including damp and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy states payments may be applicable for “home loss” or “disturbance”. The policy does not provide a breakdown of apportionment. Therefore, the Ombudsman has decided 20% is appropriate for the loss of the bedroom, given it is a one-bedroom property.
  12. The Ombudsman has found that the 20% apportionment should apply for 8 weeks. The number of weeks has been calculated by considering the period between the resident informing the landlord their bedroom was “unusable”, on 3 January 2023, and the repair log showing that bedroom repairs were completed on 3 March 2023. The calculation is based on the basic weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £76.56. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £122.49, in addition to the compensation ordered earlier in this report.
  13. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord agreed a rent adjustment for the resident, which it said cleared all outstanding arrears. This was discussed and agreed after the completion of the complaint process. While the agreed resolution between the landlord and resident is welcomed by the Ombudsman, this was standalone and outside of the complaint process. Therefore, the agreed rent adjustment has not affected the compensation awarded to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment or determination in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of void works and the condition of the property when the resident began their tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for failing to appropriately address issues identified during the void process.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £122.49 compensation as an amount based on rent, for the resident’s loss of use of their bedroom for an 8-week period.
  3. The above amounts are in addition to the compensation already offered and the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord is also ordered to complete an inspection of the resident’s property to identify any outstanding repairs. This inspection should include determining whether damp and mould is present within the property. The inspection should be completed within 28 days of this report. A copy of the inspection must be shared with the Ombudsman and resident. If the inspection identifies any repairs or recommended actions, the landlord must discuss and agree a schedule of work with the resident. A copy of the schedule of work must be shared with the Ombudsman and resident. The identified repairs and/or recommendations must be completed within 28 days of the inspection.