Torus62 Limited (202318532)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318532

Torus62 Limited

4 April 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 report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including an assault by a neighbour and a dog attack.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant under an agreement dated October 2018. He lived in a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord was not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident at the time of the incident.
The resident reported harassment from his neighbour in March 2021, but stated he did not want the landlord to act.
On 17 May 2021, the police contacted the landlord to inform it that the resident had been seriously injured in a dog attack and stabbing 3 days earlier. The police said that the resident’s neighbour had been charged and could not return to their home address.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 28 June 2021 and requested a move. The landlord noted 3 appointment confirmations between 16 and 19 July 2023. On 20 July 2021, the resident asked for a callback as he was being discharged from hospital, and he wanted to discuss his move home. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 22 July 2021.
The landlord conducted a home visit to the resident’s temporary accommodation on 27 July 2021 and discussed housing options with the resident. The resident said he wanted to move to an area where the landlord did not have properties. He said he would stay with a family member until he could move to this area. In August 2021, he returned to the original property.
On 18 November 2021, the landlord recorded that the resident was not living at the property and that it had not received keys or notice. It issued a Notice to Quit on 19 November 2021. It took possession of the property on 21 December 2021 and noted that some of the resident’s belongings were still in the property.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 February 2024. He spoke to the landlord several times in March 2024 to clarify the complaint. The resident complained because he wanted:
1. an apology for the lack of communication from the landlord.
2. to know the reasons why he had lost his home.
3. to be compensated for loss of income following the serious incident.
4. to understand why his neighbour and animals were able to return to the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 March 2024, it summarised the serious incident on 14 May 2021. It said:
1. its records showed that the resident had wanted to move out of area. If the resident had wished to stay within its boundary area, then it could have assisted him with an exceptional let for relocation. It had visited him and assisted in completing an application form to move to the other area.
2. it could not take further action against the perpetrator whilst court proceedings were ongoing. It had issued a notice to seek possession following his former neighbour’s criminal conviction.
3. it wanted to reassure the resident that it had taken this case seriously and it was taking legal action against his former neighbour.
4. it could not offer loss of earnings compensation, but that the resident had the right to seek further advice.
5. it apologised for 2 complaint handling service failures and offered £150 compensation.
The resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the stage 1 response at several points between 31 March and 9 April 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 May 2024. It acknowledged that the resident was still dissatisfied, and that the resident felt the landlord was required to pay him £120,000 in loss of earnings or to provide a bridging loan in lieu of final compensation payment. The landlord said:
1. it had reviewed the stage 1 response and did not see that any information was inaccurate.
2. it did not believe it was liable to pay compensation and that this amount would not be reasonably expected without claim or court order.
3. it signposted the resident to legal advice.
4. the offer of £150 for complaint handling failures was still available.
The resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint on 5 November 2024. He said he was still unhappy with the response as he had received the wrong advice from the landlord, and it had not supported him to move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the assault and dog attack have had a significant impact on his physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it is not within this Service’s role to determine whether the ASB or landlord’s handling of this impacted the resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
The resident has raised concern that he has become homeless as a result of the landlord’s actions. The landlord has provided details that in November 2021 a Notice to Quit was served on the property. The resident also said he has been unable to work since the incident. The resident said he wanted compensation for loss of earnings because of this.
We are unable to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. If the resident wishes to challenge the validity of the Notice to Quit and the following proceedings, or pursue damages for losses, such as loss of earnings, he may wish to obtain independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) including an assault by a neighbour and a dog attack.

We acknowledge that the resident said his life has been significantly impacted by the events that took place in 2021. The resident said he is still managing the effects of this in his day-to-day life.
It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) defines ASB as conduct:
1. that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or
3. capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlords ASB policy at the time set out its approach to preventing and tackling ASB. The landlord deals with reports of harassment, actual violence and the owning/keeping of animals that are uncontrolled through its ASB framework.
The landlords ASB policy stated it would:
1. deal with reported complaints promptly and keep complainants informed of relevant developments.
2. refer individuals to support services where necessary.
3. agree a realistic action plan with individuals and communicate with them on a regular basis.
4. consider risk assessment and risk measures.
5. practically support witnesses when enforcement was taking place (e.g. providing transport to court).
6. agree the provision of ongoing support and/or support referrals.
7. liaising with police when appropriate.
The landlord states it will keep personal data for 7 years if the individual has been involved in an incident or safeguarding concern.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) is available on our website. This further highlights the need for effective record keeping with recommendations which include:
1. a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support the wider business processes.
2. ensuring that the landlord can easily interrogate databases, and that data can be extracted when needed.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported harassment from his neighbour on 2 March 2021. He said he did not want action taken by the landlord, but he was reporting it for its information. The landlord closed the case and recorded the interaction. This was a reasonable action by the landlord.
On 17 May 2021, the police notified the landlord that the resident had been the victim of a serious assault, and he was in hospital. The landlord recorded this as an urgent ASB case via its information management system on 19 May 2021. It stated it would contact the resident, consider a risk assessment and risk measures and agree an action plan.
The landlord did not attempt to communicate with the resident to find out what his support needs were while he remained in hospital between 17 May and 22 July 2021. The landlord did not assess risk measures. This was not in line with its ASB policy and was not appropriate.
On 28 June 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and requested a move, as the perpetrator’s family were still living at the property. The landlord recorded 3 appointment confirmation notes on 16 and 19 July 2021. However, the landlord has not provided details of the appointments, including what actions it agreed with the resident. This was a record keeping failure.
On 20 July 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to discuss his discharge from hospital and his move home. The landlord recorded it would call him back urgently and then took the following actions:
1. Attempted to contact the resident on 22 July 2021.
2. Visited the resident at his mother’s address on 27 July 2021.
During the home visit:
1. the resident said he wanted to move to another area. The landlord explained that it could not offer him a transfer to this area as it did not have properties there.
2. the landlord explained that it could not pursue legal action against his former neighbour until the criminal case concluded.
The landlord has said that it would have been able to offer an exceptional let or direct move to another property within its boundary area. However, as the resident was clear he wanted to move to another area, it supported the resident to fill out a housing application for the new area. The resident told the landlord he would continue to stay with family. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy and were appropriate.
On 4 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and told them he had returned to the property. He said the property was covered in blood and his furniture was damaged. The resident was upset and the landlord asked what help he wanted. The resident said there was nothing he wanted and ended the phone call.
Although the resident ended the contact, the landlord was aware the resident had returned to the property and that the police had advised him not to. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up the conversation with the resident or assessed what resources were available to him if he wished to access these.
The landlord was aware that the resident had recently been discharged from a considerable period in hospital. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider how his current situation may have made him more vulnerable. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will refer individuals to support services where necessary. That it did not do so was not in line with its ASB policy.
On 11 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to ask for funding for new furniture as his was covered in blood from the incident. The full case note was not available to this investigation, but the landlord advised him to approach the other area council or look for grant funding. The landlord also sent a follow up email with further information and signposting. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
This Service has only seen limited information from when the resident left his property in mid-2021. The landlord marked that the resident had possibly abandoned his property in Autumn 2021 and issued a Notice to Quit on 19 November 2021. It took possession of the property on 21 December 2021 and noted that some of the resident’s belongings remained.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will keep complainants informed of relevant developments and communicate with them on a regular basis. The landlord has not provided evidence that it attempted to communicate with the resident between 11 August 2021 and 19 November 2021. This was not reasonable and was not in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to maintain accurate records relating to the resident’s reports of ASB, as identified in this investigation.
2. delayed in communicating with the resident about the ASB between 17 May and 22 July 2021.
3. failed to consider any risk measures or a risk assessment, in line with its ASB policy.
4. failed to communicate with the resident between 11 August and 19 November 2021, in line with its ASB policy.
There were several independent service failings around communication and record keeping which accumulated over a period of time. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings, put things right, or learn from outcomes in its complaint responses. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
The resident has explained the distress he experienced after the ASB incident, and that the landlord’s lack of communication made this worse.
This Service wants to encourage landlords to review cases, but when looking at the outcome of this investigation, the review will not be considered as it is outside the scope of the ICP. It is noted that some of the failures were identified by the landlord after the case and the landlord has since stated it has made the following changes to its processes and procedures, including:
1. completing risk assessments on all ASB cases since December 2023.
2. reviewed its ASB policy and created an ASB dashboard to monitor the progress of current ASB cases. This has ensured contact is maintained between the landlord and resident.
3. staff training on record keeping.
4. staff training on the importance of using professional curiosity to recognise vulnerabilities and signpost appropriately.
The landlord did not offer any financial redress to the resident in its complaint responses for the above failures. Having considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its handling of his reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like. The Code and further guidance are available on our website.
The Code states that at the completion of each stage of the complaints process, the landlord should write to the resident advising a number of details:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The outcome of the complaint.
3. The reasons for any decisions made.
4. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
5. Details of any outstanding actions.
6. Details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It should also name any learning to ensure failings are not repeated.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 March 2024. This was 21 working days after the resident first submitted his complaint. In its stage 1 response it apologised for complaint handling service failures and acknowledged it had not logged his complaint on 29 February 2024. It recognised that the resident had to make further contact on 6, 14 and 15 March 2024. It offered £150 compensation for these service failures.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had agreed to automatically escalate the response to stage 2. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the response 5 times between 31 March and 9 April 2024. On 19 April 2024, the landlord apologised for the late response and confirmed it had escalated the response to stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024. This was 26 working days after the resident had escalated. The landlord did not apologise for this delay and this was a failing.
In summary, there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation was in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord has taken steps to put things right. The Ombudsman considers this did amount to reasonable redress. If not already paid, it is recommended the landlord reoffers the £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour including an assault by a neighbour and a dog attack.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in the report above.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

If not already paid, it is recommended the landlord reoffers the £150 compensation for its complaints handling failures.