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

Torus62 Limited (202332989)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332989

Torus62 Limited

26 March 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant at the property between 2 September 2013 and 12 May 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house. The resident advised the landlord that she had vulnerabilities relating to her mental health throughout the course of the complaint.
  2. On 29 November 2022 the resident reported damp in the lounge of the property. On 11 January 2023 the landlord raised a repair job to hack off the plaster from the window and chimney walls in the lounge, tank the area, and then replaster.
  3. On 10 February 2023 the resident reported damp in the hallway and dining room of the property. The landlord raised a repair job to apply plaster developed to control dampness passing through, up to a height of 1500mm from the floor in the hallway.
  4. On 18 February 2023 the landlord raised a repair job for a bricklayer to repair the front chimney stack. The landlord told the resident that it would erect scaffolding on 27 June 2023 and complete the work on 28 June 2023.
  5. On 30 May 2023 a surveyor from the local authority attended the property and contacted the landlord about damp in the living room, hallway, and dining room. The landlord completed an anti-fungal wash to the living room, hallway, and dining room on 5 June 2023.
  6. The contractor did not erect the scaffolding on 28 June 2023 because it needed permission from the neighbouring private property. On 29 June 2023 the landlord inspected the property and raised another job to hack off the plaster from the window and chimney walls in the lounge, tank the area and then replaster.
  7. The resident called the landlord on 3, 7 and 26 July 2023. She said that she had waited in on 27 June 2023 because it had not told her that the work would not go ahead. She asked it for an update regarding permission from the neighbour to put up scaffolding. She said that the neighbouring property was empty and the owner lived elsewhere.
  8. A surveyor attended the property on 1 August 2023 to assess the damp. The landlord raised a repairs order to cap the chimney pots and repair the slate roof.
  9. The resident complained on 9 August 2023. She said that several surveyors had attended but no work had been completed. She said that she had stayed with her mother for 3 weeks because she “could not cope” with the state of the property.
  10. On 23 August 2023 the neighbour emailed the landlord and gave it permission to erect the scaffolding. The resident called the landlord 4 times on the same day. It noted that she was distressed and said that she could not have her grandchildren at the property and her furniture was displaced because of the damp and mould.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 September 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised that the original tanking repairs completed in the lounge had failed due to poor workmanship.
    2. It had raised another repair job to complete the work again.
    3. It had now progressed the party wall agreement with the neighbour and it would advise of a new appointment to complete the work in due course.
  12. On 18 September 2023 the landlord met with an environmental health officer at the property and agreed to hack off the plaster in the hall, stairs and landing again, and tank the walls. A contractor completed this on 29 September 2023. It also completed the tanking in the lounge on 11 October 2023.
  13. On 16 October 2023 the landlord noted that the tanking had not cured and was still wet. Therefore, it could not complete the plastering. Another surveyor attended to see where the damp was coming from and noted that the roof repair was still outstanding. The resident called the landlord on 16 and17 October 2023 to ask for an update about when the plasterers would return. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 19 October 2023. The landlord asked her if she would consider a decant to another property. The resident said that she was unsure due to her mental health.
  14. Internal emails dated 23 October 2023 discussed how to locate the neighbour. They also discussed the process of serving a notice on the property for a minimum of 2 months before work could commence.
  15. The landlord installed a dehumidifier at the property on Monday 30 October 2023. A surveyor attended on 10 November 2023 to install humidity control readers. On 17 November 2023 the repairs manager attended to assess the damp as it could not identify why the moisture readings were so high in the property. The landlord decided to seek guidance from a damp specialist to get recommendations to rectify the problem.
  16. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. It said:
    1. Despite hacking off the plaster in the lounge, tanking and replastering, the damp had returned.
    2. It had inspected this again on 29 June 2023 and raised a job to complete the same work again. However, it did not assign this to a contractor which caused a delay.
    3. It discovered that the tanking was not drying on 16 October 2023 so it would take further guidance from a damp specialist.
    4. Work began to replace the roof in November 2023 with an estimated completion date of 7 December 2023. However, there had been some minor delays due to frost. The chimney stack had been removed and recapped and the wall had been rebuilt in the roof space as part of these works.
    5. It upheld her complaint due to the poor communication and continuous delays. It apologised sincerely for this and offered £1350 compensation comprising:
      1. £300 for the delays.
      2. £250 for the poor communication.
      3. £300 for the poor workmanship identified.
      4. £500 for the severe impact of the ongoing issues.
  17. On 4 December 2023 the landlord instructed a contractor to conduct a specialist damp survey of the property. The contractor completed this on 12 December 2023 and identified multiple areas of concern.
  18. The resident agreed to move out of the property while the landlord completed the work. She later decided that she would remain in the decant property provided.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact of its handling of the damp on her mental health. We do not dispute this. However, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Damp and mould

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in good repair.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days and programmed repairs within 60 days of reporting. It says that a programmed repair is likely to be complex such as a structural repair.
  3. The resident reported issues with damp in her lounge in November 2022. She lived with this issue for over a year and it was still not resolved when the landlord moved her to another property. This was an unacceptable delay. The landlord’s failure to adhere to its policy and resolve the damp issue in a timely manner caused her considerable distress and inconvenience. She explained that she had to move in with a relative for 3 weeks, could not have her grandchildren at the property, and that her furniture was displaced due to the damp and mould. This would have additional effects on her considering the vulnerabilities she advised it she had.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it:
    1. Has trained surveyors who understand the components in its properties that may cause damp.
    2. Will keep homes free of damp and mould while keeping customers safe.
    3. Will consider whether there is an issue with the fabric of the property that is causing the damp and mould issues.
  5. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of damp in the lounge was to hack off the plaster, tank, and replaster the area. We have seen no evidence that it considered whether there was an underlying issue with the property that was causing the problem. Even when this work failed to resolve the damp, it completed the same work again without ensuring that it had rectified the underlying cause. This failure to follow its policy caused the resident distress and inconvenience because this work caused considerable disturbance. Therefore, completing it twice before rectifying the root cause of the issue was not productive and added unnecessary distress.
  6. Two months after the initial report of damp in the lounge the landlord raised a job to repair the chimney of the property. It is not clear if this was because it thought that this was the cause of the damp in the lounge. However, the specialist damp report conducted over a year later confirmed that it was one of the contributing factors. It arranged an appointment to complete this work a further 3 months later. However, it did not attend this appointment because it decided that it would need permission from the neighbour to erect scaffolding. The resident said that she did not know that the landlord had cancelled the appointment which caused her further inconvenience because she waited in for the contractor to arrive.
  7. It is unclear when the landlord discovered that it needed permission from the neighbour. However, it should have identified this when it inspected and ordered the job. Its failure to do so caused a further 3-month delay.
  8. There is evidence that the neighbour gave the landlord permission to erect scaffolding on 23 August 2023. However, despite this there was a further lengthy delay in it repairing the chimney. There is evidence that it took advice about serving a notice on the neighbouring property in October but it is unclear why when they had already given permission. The chimney was finally repaired when the roof was replaced in November 2023. This was 9 months after the landlord originally raised the job.
  9. The resident called the landlord numerous times for an update on the chimney repair. She spoke to the landlord’s customer service team who noted how distressed she was. There is evidence that the customer service team emailed the relevant staff members to ask them to contact the resident. However, we have seen no evidence that this happened. This cost the resident considerable time and trouble and it was clear that it also caused her further distress.
  10. The landlord’s self-assessment against our Spotlight report on damp and mould says that it will complete mould washes within 2-5 days of a report of damp and mould. We have not seen evidence to support that it did this. A mould wash was completed on 5 June 2023, nearly 7 months after the issue was first reported. There was also a delay in it offering a dehumidifier. Both these measures may have helped the resident’s living conditions but we have seen no evidence that the landlord offered them at an earlier date.
  11. The landlord did not commission a specialist damp survey until over a year after the first report of damp. This survey identified several causes for the ongoing damp. Had the survey been completed sooner the resident would have been better informed of the level of work that was required to resolve the issue. When the landlord told her what the outcome of the survey was, she decided to decant to another property. However, this was after the distress of living in a property with high moisture readings for over a year. This distress could have been alleviated sooner had the survey to identify the root cause of the issue been completed at an earlier date.
  12. The damp issues in the lounge, dining room, and hallway were not resolved for many months. This was caused by a failure to identify the root cause of the issue, a failure to identify that permission was needed from the neighbour, and a failure to act in a timely manner when permission was received. This meant that the resident lived in unsatisfactory conditions for over a year causing her considerable distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s communication was poor which cost the resident considerable time and trouble.
  13. However, the landlord offered to decant the resident and ultimately did so. It also apologised and offered £1,350 compensation to reflect its poor communication, the long delays, and the impact the ongoing issues had on her. Considering the circumstances of the case we consider this to be an offer of reasonable redress which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have made a recommendation for it to pay this sum of compensation if it has not already done so. We also recommend that it considers the findings of this case as part of the review it is undertaking of its policies and procedures relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould (as ordered within case 202330484).

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will contact the complainant within 2 working days of the complaint being logged. It says that it will respond in full within 10 working days but if this is not possible it will agree an extension with the resident. It says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
  2. The landlord took 22 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and 32 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. It did not agree an extension with the resident. We have also seen no evidence that it acknowledged that it had received the complaint.
  3. This failure to follow its own procedure and the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  4. The landlord did not address this failing in its complaints responses and attempt to put things right. Therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience this caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failures in its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident for the service failure identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £1,350 compensation that it offered to the resident at stage 2 of the complaints process if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should consider the findings of this case as part of the review it is undertaking of its policies and procedures relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould (as ordered within case 202330484).