Torus62 Limited (202302978)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302978

Torus62 Limited

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a fault to the shower.
2. The resident’s concerns about the level of service received during a telephone call with the landlord’s staff.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started on 25 January 2016. The property is described as a 2-bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord obligations

The landlord agrees to repair and maintain the structure of the property, and all installations (for supply of water and for sanitation) it has provided under the tenancy agreement. Its responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that it will aim to complete:
1. Emergency repairs (affecting the safety or basic security of the property or potentially affecting the health of the household) will be attended within 4 to 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs within 20 calendar days. These are repairs that can wait without causing a major inconvenience to the resident. Appointments will be offered for these repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy (effective October 2022) notes that it listens to feedback from residents that would assist in taking action to improve its services.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy notes that it will offer an apology and an explanation for any service failure and put right what has gone wrong. It may also make financial payments in instances where a resident has been caused frustration or distress due to a service failure.

Summary of events

The resident requested a repair to his bathroom shower on 13 December 2022. The landlord’s records noted that the shower waste was blocked. It noted the target date for completion of the repairs as 25 January 2023.
The landlord noted on 14 December 2022 that the drain in the wet room needed to be secured.
The landlord scheduled an appointment to attend on 15 December 2022. It also noted that materials had been ordered.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 16 December 2022. He said the wrong operative turned up for the repair on 14 December 2022. He complained that this caused an inconvenience, as he had to wait for a plumber all day on 15 December 2022.
The landlord noted on 4 January 2023 that it needed to renew the waste. It booked an appointment for the works for 6 January 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 4 January 2023. It said:
1. Its investigations found that the repair was incorrectly raised despite his clear explanation of the issue being reported.
2. It had addressed this directly with the staff in question.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2023. He said he had previously informed the landlord in a telephone call on 23 December 2022 that he was unavailable for the appointment scheduled for 6 January 2023. The landlord noted that it could not corroborate this from its records, but it rescheduled the repairs for 1 February 2023. The resident also asked for an update on his stage 1 complaint.
The following events occurred on 24 January 2023:
1. A manager contacted the resident to request more information about the telephone call on 23 December 2022 to enable them to trace the call. They noted that he was not willing to provide the information.
2. The resident made a complaint against the manager that contacted him. He said they did not handle the call in a professional manner.
The manager provided a summary of the call to the relevant team on 25 January 2023. They said:
1. They telephoned the resident to discuss their concerns about a missed appointment attended on 6 January 2023.
2. The resident said he received a call from the landlord on 23 December 2022, regarding the appointment but he rescheduled it as he was not going to be available.
3. They asked for the times, dates and numbers which called him but he advised that the landlord should have this information.
4. They searched their records but they could not find any calls made to the resident on 23 December 2022. They informed the resident, and he subsequently ended the call.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint (complaint about call handling) on 8 February 2023. It said:
1. From their recent telephone call the outstanding concerns were about the repairs process and the conduct of the staff who contacted him on 24 January.
2. The telephone call was not recorded so it was unable to uphold the complaint as there was no evidence. It was sorry for any poor service experienced.
3. It had since stated that every call made to residents must be on a recorded line.
4. As he had expressed during their telephone call that he was unhappy with the response, it would escalate his complaints to the next stage of its complaints process as requested.
The landlord noted on 8 February 2023 that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2. It said the resident remained dissatisfied for the following reasons:
1. The resident said he had not received the stage 1 response letter.
2. The appointment missed on 6 January 2023 could have been avoided as he informed the landlord that it was not a suitable date.
3. An operative showed up at a later date, but they did not have the required part and only carried out temporary repairs.
4. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s investigation of his complaint against its staff. He was not happy that the call on 24 January 2023 was not recorded.
The landlord noted the following in its internal communication on 10 February 2023:
1. It had spoken to the resident, and he expressed some frustration, but his desired outcome remained unclear.
2. The resident said he was happy for the repairs to be left as it was. However, the landlord should attend to complete the repairs properly if the problem reoccurred due to the missing part.
3. The landlord noted that if the repair failed, the resident’s shower waste and vinyl flooring would be replaced.
In an internal email dated 13 February 2023, the landlord decided that both complaints would be better dealt with in the same response. It also noted that the resident should be contacted to establish his desired outcome from the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 March 2023. It said:
1. It had arranged for a copy of the stage 1 complaint response to be sent to him by email.
2. It had noted his request to have his vinyl floor and shower waste replaced if the repair failed.
3. It reiterated its previous response regarding his complaint against its staff.
4. It was sorry that the resident received a negative experience in trying to get repairs resolved at his property.
5. Following their discussion the resident had advised that he would like a further investigation to determine why there was a missing part. It would investigate the matter and provide an update as soon as possible.
6. It would like to offer him £50 for the distress, delays and inconvenience caused.

Summary of events after the complaints process had been exhausted

The landlord updated the resident regarding the missing part on 10 May 2023. It said parts were sometimes ordered by operatives from external merchants, so it was unable to determine what happened to the missing part.
The resident reported a drainage issue to the landlord on 15 May 2023. He said water was not flowing properly. The landlord scheduled an appointment to attend on 24 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s report of a fault to the shower

According to the landlord’s repairs policy the resident’s report about the drainage issue with the shower is classed as a routine repair. This means that it would aim to complete such repairs within 20 calendar days (excluding Sundays and bank holidays). The landlord promptly attended the property on 14 December 2022, to investigate the resident’s report about the fault to the shower. However, it mistakenly sent out the wrong operative which led to the resident’s complaint. It realised its error and sent out a plumber to the property on 15 December 2022, and they ordered the necessary materials for the repairs. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord acted appropriately and within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It recovered from its initial error and revisited the property within 2 days of the initial report from the resident to investigate the fault reported.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that when a repair is reported, residents will receive an acknowledgement by text (providing an up-to-date current contact telephone number is held) identifying the job number, the repair classification and an appointment or target date for completion. It further notes that residents will be requested to confirm their preferred method of communication, so that the most effective method is selected. Where possible, residents will receive a call or text prior to any appointment to confirm access arrangements.
Despite the provisions set out within its policy, the landlord has not provided evidence that it confirmed the resident’s appointment either by email, text, or phone call. It has also not evidenced that it confirmed the expected date for completion with the resident as this would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. Although its repairs log shows the appointment was booked, it did not clearly state if and how this was communicated to the resident. This is not appropriate. We have seen from the evidence that this later created some confusion and it led to a dispute between the landlord and the resident about the dates of the appointment. The resident complained that he rescheduled the appointment when the landlord contacted him on 23 December 2022 to confirm the appointment. The landlord’s response was that it could not find any records of the call being made.
Failure to confirm actions taken regarding the appointment scheduled for 6 January 2023, contributed to the delay in completing the works. The landlord informed this Service that the case was closed due to no access, and this meant that the works had to be rescheduled for 1 February 2023. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
The landlord was able to complete the repair on 1 February 2023, although this was more than 40 calendar days after the repair was reported. It noted the resident’s concern about a missing part and assured him it would return to carry out further repairs if the problem reoccurred. It explained to this Service that it was able to find a workaround solution even though a part was missing. The Ombudsman notes from the repairs log that the resident reported an issue with the shower drain on 15 May 2023. Whilst the repairs log does not show what actions took place thereafter, the landlord informed this Service that it returned to the property and cleared the blockage. It said the resident had not reported any further concerns about the shower since its last visit.
In its response to the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged there were mistakes made in its handling of the matter and it had taken steps to put things right. It said it had spoken to the advisor who initially handled his repair request to ensure the same error did not occur. The landlord also explained to this Service that it had since introduced new working procedures which would prevent the cancellation of a repair following access issues. It said it recognises that cancelling jobs can lead to works being missed and significant resident frustration. It said it redefined its contact processes in July 2023 and it no longer cancelled any works, without clear supporting documentation of appointments and physical evidence of no access.
The landlord said it had seen a significant and positive impact on how it manages works, attempts and record access attempts. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience, in accordance with its compensation policy. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it was unable to show that it had followed its policy in how it communicated appointments to the resident. Communications concerning the appointment scheduled for 6 January 2023 remain unclear from the evidence. The landlord also missed an opportunity to clarify this when it responded to the resident’s complaint. This would have caused the resident some frustration and uncertainty. It is for this reason that the Ombudsman finds service failure in its handling of the resident’s report of a fault to the shower.

The resident’s concerns about the level of service received during a telephone call with the landlord’s staff.

The evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s complaint against its staff seriously. It interviewed the manager in question, and it attempted to obtain information from the resident that would assist in tracing the call. The landlord advised that it received two different accounts of what occurred during the call. It said it was unable to substantiate the resident’s complaint as the call made by its staff was not recorded. Given the circumstances the landlord’s response was reasonable.
Although the landlord was unable to uphold the complaint, it learned from the resident’s experience, and put measures in place to ensure that all future calls to residents should be on a recorded line. Based on the above, there is no evidence of maladministration in how the matter was dealt with.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a fault to the shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint against its staff.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged it initially sent the wrong operative to investigate the fault with the shower. It realised its mistake and promptly resolved it by sending a plumber. However, it is unclear from the evidence if it confirmed the appointment for future works appointment with the resident, and this led to further delays as the repair was cancelled.
There was some learning from this, as the landlord decided that works would no longer be automatically cancelled following no access. This said, it missed an opportunity to clarify how it confirmed the appointment with the resident or learn from any errors made.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £50 (in addition to the £50 previously offered if it has not already been paid to the resident) for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. Reiterate the importance of adhering to its repairs policy to the relevant staff, to ensure that they confirm appointments with residents as noted in its policy.