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

Torus62 Limited (202310616)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310616

Torus62 Limited

30 October 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould and issues with her flooring.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3-bed property.
  2. The landlord is a housing association. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  3. Between 2018 and 2020 the resident reported to the landlord several times that she had damp and mould which was causing issues with her living room and hallway flooring. On 25 October 2019 the landlord inspected the resident’s living room flooring and concluded that condensation from the ground beneath the flooring was causing the floorboards and joists to get wet and rot. It said the wooden flooring would need to be replaced with concrete.
  4. On 8 February 2022 the landlord carried out a damp and condensation survey. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 April 2022 to discuss her moving into a decant property whilst it carried out the works to replace the flooring.
  5. On 10 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said her house had been damp for 28 years due to the large gap under her living room floor. The landlord had told her it would replace the flooring, and it had found her a decant property whilst the work was carried out. However, she had been chasing updates and no one was getting back to her.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2022. The landlord said its contractor had cancelled the works to replace the flooring due to 3 failed access attempts. It said its contractor would be in contact with the resident to book the works in.
  7. On 1 November 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the living room floor as the resident reported there was standing water under the living room floorboards. The surveyor recommended that the hallway and living room flooring was replaced with concrete.
  8. On 24 March 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she was told the works would be completed within 8 weeks; however, she had been in the decant property for 6 weeks, and the works to replace the flooring had not started.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It said it did not uphold the complaint as it had worked with the resident to complete the works, it had offered a temporary decant to insure there was limited disruption, and there was a legitimate delay due to variations to the works needed. It said the works were due to be completed within the new target date of the end of May 2023.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure

  1. The landlord visited the property with the resident on 13 June 2023. The resident highlighted several issues with the poor quality of the works. The landlord arranged for outstanding and additional works to make good the poor-quality workmanship on 12 and 13 August 2023. The resident moved back into her property on 18 August 2023.
  2. On 20 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it had reviewed its stage 2 complaint response dated 10 May 2023. It acknowledged there had been an unacceptable delay in the works being completed, which had caused the resident distress and anxiety. It offered the resident £3100 compensation, which was broken down as:
    1. £500 for the delay in repairs.
    2. £500 for the stress and anxiety caused.
    3. £200 for the broadband connection charges in the decant property.
    4. £350 for the electricity used to undertake the works.
    5. £1550 for the cost of relaying a new floor covering.
  3. The landlord carried out a final inspection of the property on 21 February 2024. The landlord found that the temporary boxing in of the radiator pipes when the new flooring was laid had never been removed and her front door was hard to open and close due to floor screed being dropped onto the threshold and never cleaned off. The resident said she had arranged for a tiler to tile over the boxing, and the landlord cleaned the door on 31 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint she said she had been waiting since 2018 for the landlord to resolve the damp under her living room floor. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. This investigation has therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs from February 2022 to the end of its complaint’s procedure in May 2023. This is because before February 2022 there was no evidence the resident raised concerns about the damp and mould or flooring since August 2020.
  2. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould and issues with her flooring

  1. The resident had been reporting damp and mould and issues with her flooring for several years. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of these issues from February 2022. The landlord records show it carried out a damp and mould survey on 2 February 2022. However, it is unclear what prompted the landlord to carry out the survey at this time as there was no record of any communication with the resident prior to this.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 10 October 2022. On 18 October 2022 the landlord records show internal emails were sent stating it had no record of who carried out the damp and mould survey or the outcome of this survey. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. This was a significant failing which caused delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould and carrying out its repairing obligations.
  3. The landlord carried out another survey on 1 November 2022, 9 months later. The surveyor recommended that the landlord replaced the living room and hallway flooring with concrete. Although the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s actions prior to February 2022, the evidence makes it clear that the landlord was aware the resident had on-going damp and mould issues for several years prior to this, and it had known the flooring needed replacing since October 2019. There was no evidence the landlord was proactive in resolving the damp and mould and the flooring issues considering it was aware the resident had been living with these issues for a significant amount of time. This was not customer focused.
  4. The evidence shows a decant was first discussed with the resident in April 2022. The resident was told in May 2022 that the landlord had found her a possible property, however, no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to show it updated the resident or gave her an estimated timescale on when it would be available. The landlord’s records state that the resident delayed moving into the decant property in December 2022 due to her health. The resident chased an update on the decant on 25 January 2023. The landlord apologised for the delays and said this was due to staff absences. A landlord is expected to manage its staff absences to ensure it does not directly impact its residents.
  5. The resident moved into the decant property on 9 February 2023. The Ombudsman recognises that part of the delay was due to the resident wanting to remain in the area due to her support needs, which significantly limited the landlord’s ability to find suitable accommodation. The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the decant. The landlord acted reasonably by assisting the resident with the removal of her belongings and paying the removal costs, it fitted a carpet on the stairs in the decant property, and agreed to disconnect and reconnect her washing machine so she could take this with her. The resident told the landlord the repairs and residing in the decant property was affecting her mental health. No evidence was provided that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until February 2024, when it offered to signpost to mental health services. The landlord acted inappropriately by not considering if the resident needed any support or sign posting to support agencies to assist her to effectively navigate the repairs and the decant.
  6. The landlord completed the works to the property at the end of May 2023 in line with the timescale it provided in its stage 2 complaint response. However, this was outside its target timescale of 60 days for programmed works as stated in its responsive repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response there were legitimate delays due to a variation in the works needed. The evidence shows the landlord instructed a contractor to carry out the flooring works on 20 March 2023, this was after the resident had been decanted and works had started on the property. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to fully investigate the issues reported, and make a plan of works to avoid having to seek variations for works and potential delays.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a specialist contractor to carry out the flooring works, however, the contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord should avoid leaving external contractors to communicate with residents directly. It was responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying her if delays were expected. The landlord failed to do this and on 14 November 2022 told the resident the contractor would contact her to arrange the works. There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. The evidence showed the landlord was not fully aware of all issues and the onus was put on the resident to report these and chase updates. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  8. On 13 June 2023 the landlord inspected the completed works and identified that the works had not been carried out to an acceptable standard. The landlord agreed to complete the required works to resolve the poor workmanship. However, it failed to provide the resident with an estimated timescale which resulted in her chasing an update 7 times between July and August 2023. The works were signed off on 15 August 2023 and the resident moved back into her property on 18 August 2023. The landlord carried out a final inspection on 21 February 2024 and identified there were still outstanding issues with the property. These were resolved in March 2024. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to be pro-active in resolving the poor-quality workmanship, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and left her living with the outstanding issues for over 6 months.
  9. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2023 and acknowledged its failures in handling the repairs. While it was positive the landlord revisited the complaint after the repairs were completed, and the level of compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, it is a concern the award was made after the landlord became aware the Ombudsman was investigating this case. It remains unclear if the landlord would have taken steps to acknowledge its failures or offer additional compensation had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman. Considering the landlord failed to acknowledge any failings or offer redress during its complaints process, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
  10. In summary there were delays in the landlord investigating and completing the repairs. Although there were some delays in the resident being offered a decant property due to staff absences, the delay due to availability of suitable accommodation and the resident’s health was outside of the landlord’s control. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities at times but failed to offer appropriate support and signposting. The landlord failed to recognise any of its failings within its complaints process. It was only when it reviewed the complaint that the landlord showed learning and offered the resident £3100 compensation for the delay in the repairs being carried out.
  11. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and issues with her flooring.
  12. Since this complaint the landlord has implemented some key service improvements, which include a new repairs and maintenance contract, training, and a no access protocol for its contractors. This is a positive step to the landlord improving its response to reports of repairs. For this reason no orders will be made about this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It states it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 October 2022. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to contact the resident about her complaint on 17 October 2022, this was outside its target response timescale of 2 working days. There was no evidence the landlord sent an acknowledgment of the complaint in writing. This led to the resident chasing an update on 19 October 2022. The landlord told the resident it would send its response by the end of the week, however, it failed to do this. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022. Its response was vague and unsympathetic to the resident’s situation. It failed to say whether it had upheld the complaint and failed to give timescales for the actions it said it was going to take. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 March 2023. The landlord’s records show an internal email was sent asking for someone to contact the resident within its 2-working day timescale. The evidence provided does not show this happened. The landlord failed to provide an acknowledgement in writing and therefore the resident was left not knowing when she would receive a response.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2023. This was outside its target timescale of 20 working days. The landlord failed to discuss the complaint with the resident before issuing its response. On 6 April 2023 the resident raised concerns about the suitability of the decant property and her affordability of the heating costs. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to investigate all the complaint issues the resident raised.
  6. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint and the escalation request in writing. It failed to issue its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within its agreed and target timescales. There was evidence of poor communication which resulted in the landlord failing to investigate all the complaint issues raised. The landlord failed to acknowledge or offer redress for its complaint handling failures within its complaints procedure and when it reviewed the complaint on 20 September 2023.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and issues with her flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A senior member of staff should do this.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers are accurately recording its communication and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.