Torus62 Limited (202329651)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329651

Torus62 Limited

30 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Electrical works and electrical inspections at the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has had 2 heart attacks and cancer.
3. On 27 July 2022, the landlord failed to attend an appointment for an electrical service that it had made with the resident. A contractor later attended on 14 October 2022. They stated that the property needed a new consumer unit.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 January 2023. He said a contractor arrived that morning to relocate rather than replace the consumer unit, as previously agreed. Additionally, the contractor said he needed to do a full electrical inspection before undertaking works, which the resident declined. He said the contractor engaged in a verbal altercation and left the property.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 16 October 2023. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint and for the miscommunication about the electrical works. It explained that a safety check is a prerequisite for the renewal of the consumer unit and as a landlord, it has a legal duty to complete several safety checks. It noted that the operative who attended on 14 October 2022 failed to complete the electrical safety check as instructed and was subject to a disciplinary hearing. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
6. The resident responded on 1 November 2023. He said electrical inspections were not legally mandatory for social housing tenants. He wanted more information from the landlord about the sections of housing law it was relying on to attempt to gain access to his home.
7. On 16 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated its position and provided more information about its electrical safety policy. It recognised that the resident had experienced an unacceptable delay with complaint handling and there were communication failings. It also said that the £100 it had previously offered had now been issued via cheque.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. He said he has a right to quiet enjoyment of his home and felt harassed by the landlord’s attempts to gain access. To resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to not cause further disruption.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

9. The resident was concerned about the impact the matter had on his mental health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because parties appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, his concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
10. In his communications with this Service, the resident said he wants us to investigate the landlord’s attempts to access his property over the last 10 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for us to conduct a thorough investigation and make informed decisions.
11. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment focuses on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint in January 2023.
12. We recognise that following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident expressed concerns over the landlord’s more recent attempts to arrange improvements to his property. These matters did not form part of his initial complaint in January 2023. Therefore, we cannot investigate them within this case. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Electrical works and inspection

13. The landlord’s electrical safety policy (published June 2023) sets out it will undertake suitable and sufficient EICRs (Electrical Installation Condition Reports) to all properties containing a Fixed Electrical Installation which it is responsible for at intervals not exceeding 5 years.
14. The resident told the landlord and this Service that he felt harassed by the landlord’s attempts to access the property to complete an electrical inspection. He says he has the right to the quiet enjoyment of his property and in his opinion as an electrician, he believes there are no electrical hazards within the property.
15. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The dwelling must be fit for human habitation and remain fit for human habitation for the duration of the tenancy. It explains a landlord may, at reasonable times of the day, on giving 24 hours’ notice to the occupier, enter the premises for the purpose of viewing its condition and state of repair.
16. We reviewed records of communication between the landlord and resident requesting access for electrical work. We have also taken into consideration the degree and intensity of its requests along with the resident’s circumstances and preference to be left alone. In this case, we have found the landlord’s communication to have been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It provided a clear explanation of why it needed to access the property and that his safety is its top priority. While the resident has strong views on the subject, the landlord has a duty to ensure the property remains habitable during the tenancy and is free from hazards. Further, it is an example of good asset management for a landlord to conduct electrical inspections to ensure the safety and longevity of its housing stock.
17. It is not disputed that the landlord’s contractors failed to attend an electrical appointment on 27 July 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 September 2022 to apologise and provide an explanation. The tone of the letter was apologetic and appropriate in the circumstances. Within the letter, the tenancy liaison officer (TLO) told the resident they would personally attend the next appointment with the electrical engineer. However, they failed to do so. The resident said the landlord never told him why the TLO did not attend as promised. It is understandable that he felt frustrated and let-down at the broken commitment. It is clear this further impacted the landlord/resident relationship and the resident’s trust in the landlord. Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to identify the reason the TLO failed to attend. We are aware the resident will be disappointed that we are unable to provide an answer about this.
18. The Ombudsman finds the landlord did provide an explanation concerning the appointment in October 2022, where the operative did not follow procedure. It also appropriately disclosed the internal measure it was taking to address this conduct, being that this individual was subject to a disciplinary hearing. It identified and apologised for the service failure, which was appropriate. We recognise the landlord was only able to share limited information with the resident about its internal disciplinary proceedings, nonetheless it was transparent with its position.
19. The resident informed the landlord that the operative who attended in January 2023 was unprofessional and had a poor attitude. In our view, the landlord acted reasonably in its response by taking the resident’s report seriously and escalating it to the line manager of the staff member involved. The landlord informed the resident that due to a lack of evidence; it was unable to conclude this aspect of his complaint, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint concerning miscommunication about the electrical appointments and safety check. It offered £100 compensation; however, this redress was also partially for the landlord’s complaint handling failures, addressed below. It is therefore surmised that £50 of the £100 awarded was for the miscommunication. Considering the evidence available, this sum is not sufficient to remedy the failings identified and the impact on the resident.
21. The landlord failed to offer suitable redress to recognise the missed repair appointment, the failure of the TLO to honour their commitment, the miscommunication concerning the appointments and the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Our guidance suggests an award in the range from £100 for failings which adversely affected a resident. After considering the cumulative failures and the actions of all parties, the Ombudsman is minded that £150 is an appropriate remedy. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50.

The associated complaint

22. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
23. The resident initially complained on 4 January 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 199 working days later. Following further correspondence from the resident, it issued its stage 2 response 23 working days later, on 16 November 2023. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept this case open for an unreasonable duration at stage 1 of the complaint.
24. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
25. The complaint response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. The Code states that, when responding to a complaint, the “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate.” A landlord should follow its proposed remedy through to completion.
26. In this case, the landlord recognised and apologised for the shortcomings in its complaint handling and offered compensation of £100. It also explained the next steps concerning the outstanding electrical inspection. The Ombudsman notes that the redress was to reflect the shortcomings identified, not just its complaint handling provision. While the landlord did not provide a breakdown of its offer, the Ombudsman considers that £50 of this was for the complaint handling delay. Considering the evidence available, this sum is sufficient and in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there has been a service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s offer of redress to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of electrical works and electrical inspections at the property.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is to recognise the missed repair appointment, the failure of the TLO to honour their commitment, the miscommunication concerning the electrical appointments, and the overall distress and inconvenience. This sum replaces the landlord’s initial offer for the substantive issue.

Recommendations

30. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the remaining £50 previously offered for its handling of the complaint. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
31. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to explore what support it can offer regarding moving his furniture and personal items to enable access to the electrical sockets.