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

Torus62 Limited (202310199)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310199

Torus62 Limited

8 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house and the tenancy commenced in January 2020. There are no vulnerabilities listed for the household but the resident’s correspondence to the landlord stated that her son has asthma.
  2. In February 2022 the landlord received the resident’s solicitor’s disrepair reports about the kitchen and high levels of moisture within the kitchen walls and units. A joint survey was carried out, as part of formal disrepair proceedings, in March 2022. This showed low levels of moisture and no damp, but there was damage to parts of the kitchen and water ingress from the taps, into the kitchen unit. Remedial works agreed between the party’s solicitors under the disrepair protocol were scheduled for June 2022 and completed in July 2022.
  3. Outside of these proceedings, on 27 June 2022, the resident made a new report directly to the landlord about a kitchen cupboard door hanging off the wall. An operative attended on 12 July 2022 and made safe the repair and recommended a new kitchen sink. They then reported that the resident sought the replacement of the entire kitchen unit, rather than further repairs.
  4. On the same day, the resident complained that, since January 2020 there had been numerous kitchen repair issues, including hanging doors and cupboards, which caused her children injuries. There had also been damp in the walls which was causing mould to build up and was affecting her son’s asthma. She had asked for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen but had received no response. She said she wanted a safe living environment for her family.
  5. A senior landlord surveyor attended on 26 July 2022 and established that the kitchen needed minor repairs to remain functional while waiting for the next renewal date which was assessed to be 2029/30. However, they suggested that the landlord could offer an earlier renewal as a pragmatic solution to the continued dispute and complete minor repairs in the meantime.
  6. Accordingly, in its stage 1 response of 27 July 2022, the landlord offered the resident the option to either allow minor remedial repairs to enable the kitchen to remain functional until replacement works at the scheduled time of 2029/30, or to carry out interim repairs to enable the kitchen to remain functional and then bring forward the replacement to the new year which was 2023. The resident agreed with the second option and interim repairs were completed on 28 July 2022.
  7. In March and April 2023 the resident chased the landlord about the kitchen renewal work. At the same time, the landlord liaised with its asset team and subsequently work orders were raised, on 4 May and 10 July 2023. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as an escalation of her original complaint on 26 April 2023. It provided a stage 2 response on 9 May 2023 in which it explained that the kitchen renewal was on its work program for 2023/24 but it was unable to give an exact timeframe on delivery.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey on 19 May 2023 in preparation for the replacement work, and exchanged correspondence with the resident from July 2023 about the kitchen design, requested alterations, and installation. All repairs and works to the kitchen were completed in October 2023 as per repair records. The landlord recorded positive feedback from the resident under its customer survey, and stated that no further issues were raised about the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The evidence indicates that the resident raised concerns about the kitchen from 2020 but no formal complaint was made until July 2022 (and brought to the Ombudsman following completion of the complaints process). As a result, these historic reports are not considered as part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with landlords, and bring them to this Service, within a reasonable period (usually 12 months) so that the issues can be investigated whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly consider them (reflected at paragraphs 42(b) and 42(c) of the Scheme).
  2. The evidence makes reference to the issues raised through the disrepair pre-action protocol between February and July 2022, as well as new concerns raised in February 2024 about mould in the bathroom. However, these matters did not form part of the complaint which exhausted the complaints process in May 2023, and is under investigation here. As a result, they are not considered further in this report. This is because the landlord must have the opportunity, through the operation of its complaints process, to investigate and resolve the issues internally before the Ombudsman intervenes (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). If the resident remains dissatisfied with other aspects of the landlord’s service delivery, she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard.
  3. The resident has reported that her children injured themselves on the kitchen cupboards. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the children’s injuries. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this matter further (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen

  1. The respective repairing responsibilities of the landlord and resident as per the Tenancy Agreement are undisputed. The landlord accepted its responsibilities on receiving reports about repairs to the kitchen. It is required to carry out repairs within 20 calendar days under its Responsive Repair and Maintenance Policy, and within a reasonable timescale as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. Following the resident’s reports on 27 June 2022 the landlord arranged repairs on 12 July 2022, within 15 calendar days and in line with the Responsive Repair and Maintenance Policy timescale of 20 calendar days. The landlord’s initial response was therefore appropriate.
  3. Following the resident’s dispute about the required scope of the works, the landlord took reasonable and resolution focused steps to engage with its suitably qualified expert for their assessment and advice on 26 July 2022. It arranged a surveyor’s assessment within 14 days of the dispute and followed up with prompt, clear and accurate communication to the resident the day after the survey.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord clearly explained the available options to the resident, in line with the advice it was given. It then carried out the remaining interim repairs, restoring the kitchen’s functionality, within 1 day of the action plan it had agreed with the resident. The landlord’s overall response times were reasonable and proportionate and its actions were based on the advice of its expert, which was appropriate. 
  5. The renewal work was not due until 2029/30 but the landlord was resolution focused and used its discretion to bring it forward, in partnership with the resident by taking account of her preference in its decision. Its decision was also in line with its objective under its Great Homes Strategy (Asset Management Strategy) of 2019 to 2024, which states that it will aim to adopt a proactive approach in modernising outdated assets. The landlord demonstrated proactive, reasonable and fair decision making, in line with its policies, the request of the resident, and the advice of its expert.
  6. The remaining dispute which was escalated in April 2023 was about the timescale of the renewal work. The landlord indicated that the work would be completed in 2023, and the evidence demonstrates that it was completed that year, as planned. The resident did not experience detriment as she was given the broad timescale with advice that the landlord could not provide specific details on the delivery time at the close of the complaint in May 2022. Therefore, there was no maladministration and no further action is required to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial repair reports within its published timescales under its Responsive Repair and Maintenance Policy. Following the dispute about the scope of the works it engaged with the advice of its suitably qualified expert and it was reasonable for it to rely on the advice of the surveyor and engage with the options they suggested. It demonstrated a resolution focused approach and managed the resident’s expectations about the timescale for the works, which were then duly completed within the period it set out.