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

Torus62 Limited (202320438)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320438

Torus62 Limited

9 December 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:
    1. Response to repair issues at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. She has lived at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house since 2017. She lives with her partner and children. The landlord’s records noted that one of the children has ADHD. During her complaint, the resident advised the landlord that her partner and one of children had ADHD and that she had acute anxiety. She advised that two of her sons were being tested for behavioural disorders.
  2. During 2023 the resident raised a number of repair issues at the property, as follows:
    1. Issues with the external doors that needed to be adjusted or were not closing properly – reported on 6 January and 22 March.
    2. Uneven paving and the height of the doorstep – reported on 19 March and 22 June.
    3. A request for a fence to be installed at the front of the property – made on 22 June and 31 July 2023.
    4. Issues with asbestos and plastering works – reported on 20 July and 11 August.
  3. The landlord responded to the 3 complaints made by the resident in respect of the matters and the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal procedures on 6 November 2023. The landlord advised this Service that all works had been completed by November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised the issue of the impact of the repair issues on the mental and physical health of the household. 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 a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
  2. For clarity, each of the repair issues which formed part of the complaints have been addressed separately below for clarity.

Request for the installation of a front fence

  1. The resident requested, on 22 June 2023, that the landlord install a fence at the front of the property as a safety measure for the household. She advised of a safeguarding concern in respect of a family member not living at the property. She also stated that people would walk near the window and look in, which was causing the household’s mental health to deteriorate. She stated that her partner and one of children had ADHD and that she had acute anxiety. She advised that two of her sons were being tested for behavioural disorders and were at risk of running out the door.
  2. The landlord responded to this request on 26 June 2023 and advised that the front of the property was open plan. As such, it would not install a fence. However, it advised that the resident could request permission to install a fence herself. The resident reiterated her request and stated that the landlord should install a fence due to “special circumstances”. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought more details on what the special circumstances were that the resident had referred to, or if they were in addition to the vulnerabilities of household members she had outlined at the time of her request. This would have been appropriate consideration for the landlord to have demonstrated it had made to show it had understood the resident’s concerns.
  3. In response to the resident’s dissatisfaction the landlord recorded a complaint. Within its stage 1 response (20 July 2023) it stated that its surveyor had inspected the property on 18 May 2023, during which the resident had requested a front fence. The surveyor had advised the resident at the time to obtain a recommendation letter from her social worker in order to progress her request. The landlord had subsequently visited the property and had discussed the resident’s request with the social worker (it is not clear when this occurred form the landlord’s records). The landlord stated it had not heard any further from the social worker, nor had the resident applied for permission to install a fence as it had advised her to do.
  4. Following the stage 1 response, the resident’s social worker wrote to the landlord on 31 July 2023 and provided its recommendation in support of the resident’s request for the installation of a front fence. Within its stage 2 response of 22 August 2023 the landlord confirmed that after speaking with the social worker, it had agreed to install a fence. It had added this to its planned works and said it would aim to complete this by 1 September 2024, or sooner.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that planned works are those that are non-urgent and can be combined to be delivered in a more efficient way. These works will be scheduled for a particular year, unless the works are considered a health and safety or vulnerability risk.
  6. This Service has not had sight of the supporting evidence from the social worker, however, the landlord was aware of the household vulnerabilities. It is also noted that the resident had reported issues with the external doors not closing property. In light of the safeguarding issues the landlord had been made aware of in respect of another family member, this should have prompted the landlord to prioritise the installation of the fence.
  7. As such it’s decision to class the fence installation as work planned for the following year was not reasonable and demonstrated a lack of consideration of the known vulnerabilities. However, it is noted that the landlord committed to try to install the fence sooner, and it did so on 2 November 2023. This was around 3 months after it had agreed to install the fence. Although the landlord carried out the works sooner than if it was planned works, the delay of 3 months in carrying out the fence installation did not demonstrate that the landlord had sufficiently considered the known vulnerabilities. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged that the works had not been  prioritised based on the vulnerabilities and the supporting evidence from the social worker. This was unreasonable and failed to demonstrate consideration of the individual circumstances of the household.

Garden works

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies in properties. The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Uneven access pathways are considered to be potential hazards within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. On 19 March 2023 the resident reported that her children were tripping over uneven paving in the garden. It is not clear what works were carried out, however, the landlord marked this job raised in relation to the issue as complete on 3 April 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. It therefore acted in line with its policy in responding to this concern and carrying out the work.
  3. On 22 June 2023 the resident raised again that her concern that the garden path was a trip hazard. She also stated that the drop from the front door to the paving was “ridiculous”. The landlord raised jobs the following day to raise the level of the front garden and carry out a garden replacement.
  4. Despite raising these works in a timely manner, the works had not been carried out by the date of the landlord’s stage 1 response, a month later (20 July 2023). The landlord acknowledged this delay within the stage 1 response. It advised that a job to renew cement, install a drain and renew paving flags was projected to be completed by 2 August 2023. It also advised that the job to raise the front garden levels was projected to be completed by 22 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in the works being raised and upheld this aspect of complaint.
  5. The landlord held to the commitments made in its stage 1 response and the works to raise the front garden level were completed on 15 August 2023. This was earlier than the target date it had given of 22 August 2023.
  6. Within its stage 2 response of 22 August 2023, the landlord stated that it had raised works for the front path to include the filling in of the edgings around a manhole cover. It is not clear if this was additional work or a continuation of previous works. It advised that the target date for this was 13 September 2023. The landlord acted in accordance with the timeframe given and this work was marked as complete on 12 September 2023. This was also within the timeframe of its repairs policy.

External door replacement

  1. It is not clear when the resident raised an issue with the external doors, however, on 6 January 2023 the landlord raised a job to assess them. The landlord’s records show that this inspection was not carried out until 14 February 2023. Although the issue was not clear, under the HHSRS, insecure external doors can be potential hazards both to the safety of the occupants and the fabric of the building. As such, the landlord should have sought to inspect the doors to understand the issue at an earlier stage and the delay to do so was unreasonable.
  2. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job that same day to overhaul both external doors. It is not clear if works were carried out at the time of the inspection, however, on 22 March 2023 the resident reported that neither external doors would lock. Given the security implications involved, it is reasonable to assume the landlords to have treated the report as a priority, being aware that there were children at the property. The landlord’s records show it arranged for one of its surveyors to attend that day, however, the records show the repairs were not recorded as completed until 5 May 2023, over a month later. This Service has not been provided with evidence that temporary works to make the property secure had been carried out prior to the repairs in May 2023. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action in respect to the resident’s reports that she was unable to secure the property due to being unable to effectively lock her doors. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this failure or apologised for the impact of this on the resident.
  3. On 23 June 2023 a surveyor recommend that the external doors be replaced under a planned programme of replacement, due to them frequently dropping and requiring adjustment. This was appropriate given the frequency and nature of the issue being reported. It is not clear from the landlord’s records, when these works were completed, however the landlord has retrospectively advised this Service that it had completed these work in November 2023.
  4. Overall the landlord’s response to the issues with the external door did not demonstrate an appropriate level of urgency. It failed to show that it had appropriately considered the risk associated to the household of external doors frequently not closing properly.

Asbestos and plaster works

  1. The landlord’s asbestos surveyor attended the property on 11 July 2023 to inspect the property prior to kitchen and bathroom upgrades taking place. Whilst at the property, the surveyor noted damage to the landing and stair wall, where the resident or her partner had attempted to remove the textured coating. As such it raised a job on 20 July 2023 to make good these areas. It also raised a job on 4 August 2023 to skim the rear bedroom ceiling.
  2. On 11 August 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated that the landlord had not made her aware of the presence of asbestos at the property in 2018. The resident stated that as her and her partner were unaware of the presence of asbestos, they had removed some of the textured wall covering themselves. Since carrying out this work, her partner had suffered health issues, which they attributed to exposure to asbestos.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s asbestos manager visited the property on 23 August 2023. The landlord provided paper copies of the last two survey reports at the property from August 2018 and July 2023. These outlined that there was asbestos in the property that was assessed as being a low risk if undisturbed.
  4. Following the visit the landlord raised a job to replaster the hall and to assess the plaster in the toilet, following damage during asbestos removal. It is not clear from the landlord’s records if this damage was caused by the resident or the landlord during works. On 14 September 2023 it raised a job to hack off blown plaster in the toilet and replaster.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 29 September 2023. It advised that all new tenancies were issued with a home finder pack/report which contained details of any asbestos in the property. It advised that, as stated in the tenancy agreement, the resident was required to obtain written permission from the landlord before undertaking any works in the property. It had not given such permission for the resident to remove the textured wall and ceiling finishes. It explained that had the resident sought permission, it would have advised of the presence of any asbestos containing material in the property. This was in line with the requirement of the landlord to alert a resident to the presence of asbestos if it believed there was a risk of it being disturbed.
  6. The resident stated that the landlord had given her verbal permission to carry out the works. The landlord noted that the resident’s account could not be evidenced, as the staff member the resident stated had given verbal permission, had left the landlord’s employment around 4 years prior. The landlord advised that without evidence of written permission, then its position was that the required written permission had not been granted.
  7. On the basis that the tenancy agreement expressly outlines the process and permissions required for tenants to undertake works at the landlord’s properties, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded that it had not given permission to the resident for the works to be undertaken. This is because there is no evidence the resident requested or was provided permission in writing from the landlord.
  8. The landlord carried out the removal of the affected area on 8 August 2023. At the resident’s request, it also removed additional areas of textured coating as part of the works.
  9. The landlord acknowledged that the works had not gone ahead as planned, as only one operative had attended instead of two. It also noted that there had been a delay in its communications and as such, the resident had not been notified when the work would be completed. It apologised for the length of time the resident had to wait for the works to be completed and the disruption caused by this.
  10. Within its stage 2 response (6 November 2023) the landlord explained that it was not required to issue asbestos reports to residents. The landlord explained The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 apply in commercial premises and the common areas of shared domestic buildings. The regulations state that the landlord has a “duty to manage” and if a contractor is working within a property, it must provide them with an asbestos register to ensure they can complete the works safely. This regulation does not apply to tenants. Although the landlord’s interpretation of the regulations was appropriate, it could have also explained its position in respect of tenants, namely that it does not have to proactively inform tenants about the presence of asbestos, unless the tenant was likely to be exposed to it, for example via planned works. (It is noted that the landlord advised that it had informed the resident as such in August 2018 and July 2023.)
  11. The landlord explained that in 2020, it had changed its working practices to ensure that asbestos surveys were undertaken on all void (empty awaiting let) properties, and the incoming tenant was provided a copy of this report. It had also voluntary chosen to aim to re-inspect every property every 5 years to ensure any asbestos was in a safe condition. Its records showed that it had sent the resident an application to request permission to undertake works in December 2018, however the resident had not returned this. As such, it reiterated that it had not given written permission.
  12. It is clear that the issue with the asbestos caused the resident concern. However the landlord’s interpretation of the relevant regulations and the requirement in the tenancy agreement were appropriate. Taken together these are clear that a resident is required to let the landlord know if they want to undertake works themselves. Following this, the landlord would consider if such works may present a risk of exposure to asbestos. If so, it would be required to inform the resident of this. The landlord noted the resident’s representation within her complaint from 11 August 2023 about the impact of asbestos exposure to the health of the household. It appropriately signposted her to how to make a personal injury claim in respect of this.
  13. In respect of the plastering works, the landlord advised that it had arranged for the rear bedroom ceiling to be plastered on 9 and 10 November 2023. It acknowledged that the plastering had taken too long to be completed and that it had not kept the resident informed of the progress. The landlord’s recognition of its failure and how it impacted the resident was appropriate. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation to acknowledge this failure will be assessed in the conclusion below.

Gas escape

  1. On 10 August 2023 the landlord raised a job with an emergency 1 hour response time following a report of a smell of gas in the property. The landlord’s attendance at the property was in line with its emergency repairs response target for a gas contractor to attend the same day. The landlord noted that the contractor had been unable to locate the source of the leak and so the gas had been capped.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 12 August 2023 that the gas leak had felt like the “last straw”. The landlord’s records are not clear on the date, however, the resident submitted a complaint and stated that she believed the gas leak had been ongoing since works to the flooring in the property had been carried out in March 2023, a period of 5 months.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the damaged gas pipe at stage 1 on 25 August 2023. The landlord apologised for any frustration or inconvenience caused by a lack of care by its operative and advised that it had referred the matter to its sub-contractor team. It also advised that it would feedback the resident’s concern, that the contractor’s apology was not genuine, to the relevant team. This Service has not had sight of the correspondence in respect of the residents concern about this.
  4. The landlord responded to a complaint (about asbestos) at stage 1 on 29 September 2023. Within this response, the landlord addressed the gas leak again. It stated that works to the flooring had been carried out on 30 March 2023. On 10 August 2023 the gas contractor had found that the gas pipe had been pierced by a nail. This was repaired and the gas reinstated. The landlord stated that its gas contractor had advised that the gas leak would not have been occurring since March 2023 without having been detected. The landlord reiterated this within its stage 2 response (6 November 2023).
  5. Whilst is it noted by this Service that the resident believed the gas pipe had been leaking since March 2023, this was not supported by the finding of the gas contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the finding of its specialist contractor in determining that the damage and gas leak had not been present since March 2023. In responding to the gas leak, the landlord acted in a timely manner and within its timeframe for an emergency repair.

Conclusion

  1. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  2. During its internal complaints procedure, the landlord offered £50 compensation for delays in competing works to the garden path. In addition, it offered a total of £500 compensation in respect of the plastering works, made up as follows:
    1. £200 for repair delays.
    2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £100 for its poor communication.
  3. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation in respect of its handling of repairs issues to £550. This is within the range that the Ombudsman would expect where there have been failures which adversely affected a resident.
  4. The landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of the garden path and the plastering works were reasonable, however, the landlord failed to acknowledge all of its failures or take steps to put these additional failures right for the resident. The additional failures identified by this Service were the delay in carrying out the fence installation and the landlord’s failures to appropriately consider the risk associated with the external doors not closing properly. As such this amounts to maladministration. This Service had ordered additional compensation as follows:
    1. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures to sufficiently consider the vulnerabilities in installing the front fencing.
    2. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures to appropriately consider the risk associated to the household of external doors frequently not closing properly.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. It additional time is required it will keep the resident informed.
  2. The resident submitted complaint A in respect of the landlord’s decision not to install garden fencing on 22 June 2023. The landlord responded to this at stage 1 on 20 July 2023. This was 20 working days after the resident had submitted the complaint, double the stated timeframe. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay nor did it offer an apology or explanation for this.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 August 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 22 August 2023. This was within its complaints timeframe. It however again failed to acknowledge that there had been a delay at stage 1.
  4. The resident submitted another complaint (complaint B) on 11 August 2023 about the asbestos and plastering works. She submitted a further complaint (complaint C) in respect of the gas pipe being damaged, although the date of this complaint is not clear. The landlord responded to complaint C, at stage 1 on 25 August 2024. It apologised for the resident’s experience with damage having been caused and advised that this would be fed back to the relevant department.
  5. It subsequently responded to complaint B at stage 1 on 29 September 2023. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about the gas escape within this response. This complaint response was 35 working days after the resident had summitted the complaint, which was over the 10 working day response timeframe. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay.
  6. It is not clear when the resident escalated complaint B, although the landlord responded at stage 2 on 6 November 2023. Within this response, it combined all of the issues from complaints A, B and C. It advised that it had done so to address all matters together and with the resident’s agreement. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to try to reduce the confusion caused by multiple complaints, with somewhat overlapping issues, this meant that it addressed the issue of the fence again at stage 2. It is noted, however, that this second stage 2 response in respect of this was a reiteration of its previous finding at stage 2.
  7. The landlord’s lack of acknowledgement for its delays in responding to complaints, its lack of apology or explanation for this amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, this Service had ordered £150 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  8. It is noted by the Ombudsman that this Service ordered the landlord to undertake a senior management review in May 2024 (case reference 202302368) in respect of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints and all communication with residents. As this was carried out by the landlord, no further order to review its complaint handling practices will be made in this case. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair issues in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay £1000 compensation directly to the resident. The compensation ordered by this Service is made up as follows:
      1. £550 previously offered by the landlord to the resident during the internal complaints procedure. If this has already been paid, it does not need to be paid again.
      2. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures to sufficiently consider the vulnerabilities when installing the front fencing.
      3. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures to appropriately consider the risk associated to the household of the external doors frequently not closing properly.
      4. £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Update the record of the household vulnerabilities to ensure this is up to date.