Torus62 Limited (202306875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306875

Torus62 Limited

28 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the communal hallway;
2. associated complaint.

Background

The resident’s assured tenancy from the landlord began in February 2023 under the ‘rent to buy scheme’. The property was a 2-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a new build development. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident noticed a leak in the fourth floor communal hallway of his building in January 2023. He was in regular contact with the landlord about the issue from the start of his tenancy and made his complaint to it on 25 February 2023. His key points were:
1. He stated that the leak included human waste and that the hallway “absolutely stinks”. He said that the landlord had told him that it had a plan in place and would update him but that the issue was getting worse each day.
2. He said that this happened when the landlord increased his rent, despite the fact he had only recently moved in. He asked for his February 2023 rent to be refunded and a decrease in future rent.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 March 2023. Its covering email emphasised that it was clean water that had leaked in the hallway and stated that its separate team would call him about his rent increase. Its stage 1 response explained the actions it had taken and that the leak had been resolved. It said that it would not refund the resident’s rent, as the leak had not directly affected his property.
The resident continued to report to the landlord that the hallway leak was worsening. On 24 March 2023, he asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. In April 2023, the resident noted to the landlord that the building’s developer had gone into administration. On 24 May 2023, he complained to the landlord about the lack of progress in the hallway and the difficulties that he had had escalating his complaint. He told it that he would contact the Ombudsman.
On 2 August 2023, we asked the landlord to issue the resident a stage 2 response, which it did on 15 August 2023. The key points were:
1. It explained why it had not escalated his complaint in March 2023. It accepted that it had been a service failing to not escalate his complaint on 24 May 2023. It apologised and offered him £100 compensation for this.
2. It stated that, after the developer went into administration in April 2023, non-emergency repairs were paused to avoid invalidating the building warranty during the administration process.
3. It said that, in June 2023, following the appointment of a new contractor, works had been done on the fourth and sixth floors affected by the leaks (it later told us that the leaks were unrelated and separate to those it had addressed in its stage 1 response).
4. It stated that its inspection on 10 August 2023 had confirmed that no damp or mould was found in the communal hallway, and that the carpet was stained but dry.
5. It advised that a specialist survey would be done in September 2023 to ensure that the source of the leaks has been dealt with. It said it would replace the hallway carpet once it was confident that this was the case.
6. It stated that it had carried out the communal works as soon as it had been able to, and that the resident’s property had been unaffected. It declined to offer him further compensation on this basis.
The landlord’s specialist surveys in September 2023 identified potential building defects and were updated until June 2024. In November 2023, the resident told the landlord that the hallway leaks were returning. In February 2024, the landlord registered a National Housing Building Council (NHBC) claim. The resident ended his tenancy in August 2024. The NHBC accepted the landlord’s claim in November 2024. The landlord told us that trial works were due to begin in March 2025. It said that it aimed to complete the main works by early 2026, subject to Building Safety Regulator approval.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. He told us that, following his complaint, the leak, damp, and mould issues had started to affect his en-suite bathroom, which the landlord had treated. He said that he was seeking a partial rent refund, and compensation for his time and trouble.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint about the communal hallway leaks was made to the landlord in February 2023. The landlord undertook the main works to address the leaks in June 2023. On 10 August 2023, the landlord’s inspection found that the hallway was dry. The resident concluded its complaint process 5 days later. During September and October 2023, the resident corresponded with us.
On 1 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that “the leaks are coming back in the hallway, which will soon lead to more smell and mould outside my door”. On 18 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that the leaks were affecting his en-suite bathroom. The landlord’s records stated that it wiped off and treated a small patch of mould in the resident’s bathroom in December 2023.
What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
It is acknowledged that the resident’s reports to the landlord from November 2023, appeared to be a repeat of some of the communal issues he had raised in his complaint that had concluded 3 months earlier. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord has investigated or responded to his reports from that time via its complaint process, including those associated with his bathroom. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports from November 2023 are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation to consider in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. As such, the following assessments are focused on matters up to September 2023.

Communal hallway leaks

The landlord’s compensation policy at the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint stated that it may offer compensation “in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken to get the issue resolved”. The policy was updated following his stage 1 complaint but before it was escalated to stage 2. The revised policy stated that compensation may be paid “in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue”.
The resident reported the hallway leak on 23 January 2023, which was the week before he moved into his property. The resident described the person that he had reported it to as “the sales guy”. The landlord referred to the person in its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 March 2023. However, it was unclear from the information we have seen whether they were an employee of the landlord or the developer. The landlord’s email to the resident at the time of its stage 1 response said that the person had “reported it immediately to the contractors”.
The information provided to us by the landlord did not specify whether the contractors involved in the resident’s initial reports were its own, or the developer’s. However, its regular contacts with the resident through February 2023 referred to its difficulties getting information from ‘the contractors’. The resident’s complaint to the landlord later in the month stated that its “aftercare team have tried but no progress”.
Furthermore, the initial repairs records that the landlord provided to us were limited, and did not appear to reflect the actions of its own repairs team or contractors. The contractors may therefore have been the developer’s, who would have had responsibility for building defects at that time.
The resident reported the leaks directly to the landlord when he moved into his property at the beginning of February 2023. The landlord and the resident exchanged emails most days for the remainder of the month. The landlord’s responses to the resident were in the main timely and empathetic but were also limited in the information that they provided to him. It was often only able to advise him that it was waiting on the contractor, and at times appeared reliant on him to provide it with progress updates. This would have caused time, trouble, and frustration to the resident, who reported that the leak was worsening, smelt bad, and was getting closer to his property.
The landlord provided us its ‘leak tracker’ repair record. The record stated that a “communal leak” had been reported by the resident’s neighbour on 1 February 2023. It stated that a communal leak was reported by the resident the following day. The record of the neighbour’s report appeared to have been updated but it was unclear when. The update noted that the water was coming from the shower of a different neighbour and that someone was attending on 2 March 2023. It did not confirm if this attendance went ahead or when works were completed. However, the final ‘leak tracker’ entry on 6 March 2023 noted that a contractor had “dried the carpet out” and it now needed to be cleaned.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds was published in September 2020. Its recommendations to landlords included “during the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer. Landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf.”
It is acknowledged that landlords will generally have less authority or control dealing with developers than they would with their own contractors. However, it would be expected that the landlord would have processes in place to monitor the developer’s actions following the resident’s report. The developer went into administration one month after the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord’s uncertain contacts with the resident, and limited records, have failed to demonstrate that it had appropriate processes in place to deal with the developer up to that point.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. It stated that the contractor had been investigating the leaks since the resident first reported them in January 2023. It said that the contractor had initially thought that the leak was from the washing machine of a neighbouring property and that it had been waiting on the manufacturer (washing machines were provided to residents with ‘rent to buy’ tenancies and would have been under warranty at that time). It said that it later became apparent that the leak was from the shower of a different neighbour, which had now been resealed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it would not refund the resident the one month’s rent that he had requested. It explained that it would only consider a rent refund if his home had been uninhabitable but that the leak had not directly affected his property.
This may have been a reasonable response to the resident’s rent refund request. However, he had spent the previous 5 weeks in near daily contact with the landlord, providing it photographs and updates of the worsening communal issues. While it had not directly affected the inside of his property, he had described the smell and general unpleasantness of the hallway just outside of it. His time, trouble, and distress would have been added to by the fact that he had only recently moved into his new property and would have been trying to settle in.
Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident acknowledged that the time that it had taken the contractor to locate the leak had been “unacceptable”. Its policy at that time stated that it may offer compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in getting an issue resolved. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to show it considered offering the resident compensation in line with its policy.
The resident’s frustration would have been further added to by the worsening leak issues, despite the landlord’s assurance that they had been resolved. It is acknowledged that neither the landlord nor resident would have known at that time that the leaks were unrelated to the shower issue that had been addressed. He continued to report the matter to the landlord from the day it issued its stage 1 response through the rest of March 2023. As it had the previous month, the landlord continued to respond to him in a timely manner. However, its responses again included little detail of any actions being taken, which would have been frustrating for him.
On 24 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He stated that the damp and mouldy hallway was worsening, despite the works that had been started. The landlord did not provide us with any record of works from this time until the end of its complaint process in August 2023. The later timeline that it provided to us stated that, during March 2023, the developer had been reviewing the issue and awaiting materials.
The landlord’s timeline stated that the developer entered administration the following month, which the resident referred to in his enquiry to it on 11 April 2023. Its timeline summarised its efforts to find an alternative specialist to “review water ingress issue” during April 2023, and its engagement with one in May 2023. It is acknowledged that the situation with the developer would have delayed the landlord’s handling of the matter and was outside of its control. Nevertheless, it has failed to evidence that it kept the resident appropriately informed during this period.
On 24 May 2023, the resident expressed his frustration with the lack of progress in the hallway and the landlord’s failure to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s complaint handling has been separately assessed below. However, it was unreasonable that it again failed to escalate his complaint or otherwise update him.
As above, the landlord did not provide us with any record of the works from the time in the resident’s building in June 2023. Its later timeline summarised various works associated with the capture and removal of water, treatment of damp and mould, and to address the smell, but did not state when in June 2023 this took place.
Nonetheless, it appears the works would have been in the second half of the month, as the resident asked it for an update on its intentions for the hallway leak on 12 June 2023. The landlord responded in a timely manner and agreed to call the resident. Its email to him later the same day confirmed that the call had taken place but did not state what had been advised by it to him.
In July 2023, the landlord formally appointed the specialist engineering consultancy that it had engaged with in May 2023. On 10 August 2023, the landlord’s director, who subsequently issued the resident its stage 2 response, inspected the communal hallway of the resident’s floor. Photographs of the hallway were taken at the inspection and later provided to us. The landlord included the photographs with its stage 2 response to the resident to support its view that “no damp or mould is apparent”, and that the carpets were stained but dry.
On 15 August 2023, following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It appropriately summarised the events above and the difficulties caused by the developer going into administration. It committed to carrying out the specialist survey the following month, which it has evidenced that it did.
As it had at stage 1, the landlord’s stage 2 response declined the resident’s request to be compensated on the basis that the leak had been in a communal area and had not directly affected his property. It acknowledged that this had still been inconvenient to the resident but stated that it had “clear compensation levels that can be offered to customers and we are unable to offer compensation for the inconvenience caused”.
This contradicted the landlord’s own policy, which had been updated 2 months earlier, and stated that it may offer compensation “in recognition of the inconvenience caused…”. As such, the landlord’s stated position regarding compensation to the resident was again neither reasonable nor in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the communal hallway. The landlord is ordered to issue a further apology to the resident and pay him £250 compensation. This amount considers that the issues were near to, but not inside the resident’s property, and that some of the delays were beyond the landlord’s control. It is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policies and practices in relation to its record keeping and responding to reports of repairs and damp and mould. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider orders so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it operated a 2-stage process. It said that, if a complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, “it will be progressed to stage 2”. It said that residents had 28 days from it issuing its stage 1 response to request that their complaint be escalated to stage 2. It further stated that “it is not necessary for the complainant to provide us with additional information in support of their case…”
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 24 March 2023, which was 14 days after the landlord had issued its stage 1 response. The landlord responded to the resident 4 days later. It said that it would escalate his complaint once he had provided it “with a couple of paragraphs on why you would like to take this to a stage 2”. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with its own policy regarding either escalating a complaint when a resident remained dissatisfied or not requiring additional information to be provided.
The resident continued to express his dissatisfaction to the landlord over the following weeks. This included on 24 May 2023, when he specifically referred to his difficulties in getting the landlord to escalate his complaint. As the landlord later acknowledged, it was a failing that it was only our intervention in August 2023 that prompted it to move his complaint to stage 2. This meant that it took the landlord over 18 weeks to escalate his complaint from when he had first asked it to do so. The landlord’s failings would have added to his time, trouble, and distress, and failed to demonstrate to him that it took his complaint seriously.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023. It appropriately apologised for its failure to escalate his complaint in May 2023, and offered him £100 compensation. However, it further explained that it had not escalated his complaint in March 2023 because he had not responded to its request for additional information. In doing so, it failed to recognise its failure to act in line with its own policy, as described above. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident did not reflect the extent of its complaint handling failures and was not proportionate to his time, trouble, and distress.
The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation, inclusive of the £100 that it offered to him. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a detriment to the resident that the landlord has made some attempt to put right, but its “offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation”.
The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its procedures for recording complaints. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the communal hallway;
2. associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £500 total compensation made up of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the communal leak issues.
  2. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
  3. This amount includes the landlord’s own compensation award of £100 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £500).
3. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord must evidence its compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.