Torus62 Limited (202403924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403924

Torus62 Limited

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The resident and her son live in the property, which is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The evidence shows the landlord was aware the resident has a physical disability and was pregnant with her son during the time her complaint was raised.
On 17 December 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property for a routine home visit. The landlord’s records show it found damp and mould present in the kitchen and the bedroom. A surveyor attended the property on 17 January 2023 and raised repairs to tackle the damp and mould.
On 27 June 2023, the local authority forwarded a complaint from the resident, regarding repairs at her property, to the landlord. On 2 July 2023, the resident submitted an online form to the landlord and complained that the repairs to tackle her damp and mould at the property had not been completed. The resident sent another complaint via email to the local authority, and this was forwarded to the landlord on 19 July 2023.
Repairs to tackle the root cause of the damp and mould at the resident’s property were carried out by the landlord between July and August 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord again on the 8 November 2023. She said she still had damp and mould in her property.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 12 December 2023. It carried out a further inspection of the damp and mould and raised 2 further repairs to tackle the issues. It offered £300 compensation to the resident for the damage caused to her bedroom furniture.
On 8 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint during a phone call with the landlord. She said damp and mould was still present in her bedroom.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 April 2024 at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it said there had been “no further service failures”. A further inspection survey for the damp and mould was booked in for 26 April 2024.
The resident told this Service, on 28 November 2024, there was still damp and mould at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

The resident has told this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts. However, where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs

On 17 December 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property for a routine home visit. The landlord’s records noted:
1. There was damp and mould present in the kitchen and bedroom of the property.
2. The resident said her bed felt wet at times caused by the damp in the room.
3. There was a draught in the bedroom that appeared to be coming through the floor, the corners of the room and from around the sealant of the windows.
Following the visit the landlord arranged an appointment for a survey to be carried out. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states any reports relating to damp and mould will be inspected by a suitably qualified surveyor and “appropriate action” will be taken to remedy the cause and problem.
The landlord attended the property on 17 January 2023, around 19 working days later, to survey the damp and mould. The landlord’s records show the following repairs were raised at the appointment to tackle the issue:
1. Removal of plaster from the outer gable wall in the bedroom and installation of “damp-proof tanking”.
2. Installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
3. Replacement of the skirting boards in the bedroom.
4. Removal of the top kitchen units and plaster stripped from the kitchen wall.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, including breathing difficulties and asthma. The landlord arranged for a survey to be completed upon finding damp and mould at the property and in a reasonable timeframe. This was in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it will “keep in repair the structure and exterior” of its properties. This includes internal and external walls, windows, skirting boards and floors, “excluding decorative finish”.
The evidence shows the landlord classed the follow up repairs to tackle the damp and mould at the property as “programmed repairs”. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to complete programmed repairs within 60 days.
The landlord’s records log show it made 3 phone calls to the resident between the 3–10 March 2023 but recorded them as unanswered by the resident. It then sent a “contact letter” to the resident on 10 March 2023. The landlord also sent an email to the resident on 12 March 2023 asking her to call to book in the repairs. The records log shows the resident subsequently called the landlord on 15 March 2023. However, the repairs were not booked in during this call and she was advised she would receive a further call to arrange them. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to show it returned the call to the resident.
The landlord attended the property on 4 April 2023, but the repairs were not completed as it was unable to gain access to the property. The resident subsequently emailed the landlord. She said she had video footage from her doorbell of the landlord waiting outside her property for an hour in its vehicle and it did not attempt to attend the property on that date. This appointment was for the repairs work to the kitchen and in anticipation of which, the resident said she had cleared out this room.
The evidence provided shows the follow up works for the kitchen were completed on 29 June 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states for this type of repair it would aim for completion within 60 days. This meant there was around a 3–month delay for the follow up works to be completed in her kitchen.
The evidence provided shows the fitting of an extractor fan in the bathroom was completed at the property on 3 July 2023. This was also a delay for the resident of around 3–months.
The landlord’s records show the replacement of the skirting boards in the bedroom, removal of plaster and installation of damp proof tanking were completed at the property on 16 August 2023. This was a delay by the landlord of around 4 months.
On 8 November 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she still had damp and mould in her property. The resident said she was due to have a baby in 3 months’ time and she was worried her child would become unwell. She also requested the flooring in her bedroom be looked at as a cause of the damp and mould.
Following the resident raising her complaint, the landlord attended the property on 5 December 2023. It noted at the visit the humidity readings were “above average”.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 12 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and said it had raised further repairs to tackle the damp and mould, including:
1. Installation of a humidity-controlled extractor fan in the bedroom to be completed by 8 January 2024.
2. Insulation to be fitted into the eaves of the loft space to be completed by 23 January 2024.
The landlord apologised to the resident and upheld her complaint. It said it could see she had “ongoing damp and mould issues” at her property. The landlord said it could appreciate the distress it had caused the resident as she was due to give birth. It said it trusted the 2 further repairs raised would “resolve” the matters. It offered the resident £300 in compensation for “damage” to her furniture caused by the damp and mould.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 correctly identified the complaint issue. It took steps to try to “put things right” for the resident by arranging further repairs to try to tackle the root cause of the damp and mould.
However, there were delays to completion of all the follow up works that had been raised at the survey inspection. The landlord failed to recognise the repair delays in its stage 1 response. The evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord had attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions. This was in order to book the repairs in within the timeframe stated in the repairs policy. However, it also shows the resident attempted to contact the landlord and no evidence has been provided to show this was followed up promptly. There was also disputed attendance on another visit. The landlord did not investigate the delay, and this lack of investigation caused distress to the resident.
The landlord offered £300 compensation to the resident in recognition of damage caused to her bedroom furniture. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states “compensation may be considered where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress or detriment”, for example the “cost of replacing damaged property”. The landlord’s offer of compensation to replace furniture was in line with its policy and therefore an appropriate action by the landlord.
On 6 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to chase up the 2 repairs raised as part of its stage 1 response as these had not been completed. The resident said she was “due to give birth this month” and wanted the work completed before the baby arrived.
The landlord’s repair records show it fitted an extractor fan in the resident’s bedroom on 12 February 2024. This was around 25 working days after the date set out in its stage 1 response. The delay in completing this repair caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s records show on 26 February 2024 the resident requested a second inspection of the bedroom to check for rising damp. The landlord booked in an inspection for 43 working days later. It said it classified the inspection as a programmed repair as it had completed a survey of the property 2 months previously. The timescales set out by the landlord appeared to be in line with those expected for routine surveys. However, its decision did not appear to consider the risk associated with the issue being unresolved for 14 months prior. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not seek to expediate the survey in line with a higher priority classification.
On 8 March 2024, the evidence shows the resident requested to escalate her complaint during a phone call with the landlord. She said there was still damp and mould present in her bedroom.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 April 2024 at stage 2 of its internal complaints process and made the following comments:
1. The installation of the humidity-controlled extractor fan was completed. The landlord said there was no indication of rising damp in the bedroom.
2. A “fungi wash” had been completed on the bedroom ceiling of the property.
3. A surveyor assessment of the bedroom floor noted that although the “flooring was dry”, 2 floor tiles had lifted under the laminate flooring. It was noted this could be a cause of the damp and mould.
4. The landlord said an appointment for a second inspection survey had been booked for 26 April 2024.
5. All repairs that had been raised as part of the stage 1 complaint had been completed.
The landlord’s response at stage 2 upheld its previous compensation offer and said there had been “no further service failures”. The 2 further repairs picked up at stage 2 of the complaints process had been completed. However, the landlord failed to recognise the delay that had occurred with fitting the extractor fan in the bedroom. The repair had not taken place by the date set out in the stage 2 reply and the resident had to chase this repair with the landlord. The landlord’s failure to complete the repair by the date given and its failure to acknowledge this delay in its stage 2 response was inappropriate.
On 30 August 2024, the evidence shows the landlord attended and repaired the damaged bedroom floor tiles. The resident told this Service on 17 September 2024 she is still experiencing damp and mould at the property.
The evidence shows the landlord took steps to resolve the damp and mould at the resident’s property. It surveyed the property, and it raised repairs to tackle the root cause of the issues. There were delays in completing the repairs raised at stage 1 and at stage 2 of the complaints process. The issues with damp and mould were on going for around 18 months. The delays to conduct repairs throughout the complaint process were not acknowledged by the landlord.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by it put things right. We also consider if it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case the landlord offered £300 compensation to replace damaged bedroom furniture. While this went someway to putting things right for the resident, it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused during the lengthy delays to repairs. Furthermore, the resident reports that she is still living with damp and mould 2 years later. This has caused and continues to cause the resident a great deal of distress and inconvenience, especially now there is a young child living in the property. The landlord has failed to recognise the delays and the impact on the resident. Therefore, its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was unreasonable.
Given this, the level of compensation offered does not fully put right the impact of the landlord’s failings. An order is made for the landlord to pay compensation of £600 in addition to the amount it had previously offered for damage caused to the resident’s property. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, where a failure by a landlord has adversely affected a resident and it has failed to acknowledge these failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The evidence provided by the landlord shows the resident attempted to raise a complaint to it through the local authority on 2 occasions. The local authority forwarded the first complaint email from the resident to the landlord on 27 June 2023. They said a complaint had been received and it asked the landlord to “investigate accordingly”. The landlord failed to record the complaint.
On 2 July 2023, the evidence also shows the resident submitted an online form to the landlord. The resident said she was unhappy the repairs to her property had not been completed. She also said she had raised a complaint previously, but the landlord had not followed it up. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to show it responded to the resident following her communication with it.
The local authority sent a further email to the landlord on 19 July 2023. The local authority said the resident was not happy as the damp and mould in her bedroom had not been resolved. They asked the landlord to investigate the complaint accordingly. Again, no evidence has been provided to show the landlord took action following the information from the local authority.
Paragraph 1.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 states that a complaint must be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. Paragraph 1.6 also states a complaint “submitted via a third party or representative must still be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy”. The landlord failed to act on expressions of dissatisfaction by the resident sent directly to them and via the local authority. This lack of action was a breach of the Code and inappropriate of the landlord.
The resident further complained to the landlord on 8 November 2023. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 12 December 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states at stage 1 it will respond to a resident’s complaint within 10 working days. From the date of her first expression of dissatisfaction, there was a delay of around 5 months until the resident received a response at stage 1. In the landlord’s response it did not acknowledge the delay. The lack of acknowledgement by the landlord for the delay will have also caused inconvenience to the resident and ultimately prolonged the length of time the resident had to wait for the issues to be resolved.
On 8 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint during a phone call with the landlord. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 17 April 2024. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states at stage 2 it will respond to a resident within 20 working days and if there are likely to be delays it will communicate this to the resident. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to show it communicated any delay with the resident. There was a delay of around 7 working days for the landlord to respond at stage 2. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it did not acknowledge the delay, and this was an inappropriate breach of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord failed to record the resident’s complaint until 5 months after it was first made, despite multiple submissions by the resident and by a third party on her behalf. This resulted in the resident effectively being denied access to the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord also delayed responding to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 of its internal complaints process. Although the delay to its stage 2 response was minimal, its overall delays totalled 5 months which was a significant failing. The landlord did not acknowledge its own complaint handling failures in both responses and did not offer any redress to the resident for its errors in complaint handling.
These failures, and the failure to acknowledge the delays, amounts to maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the associated complaint. An order for £200 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling will be made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
The landlord to pay the resident £1100 in compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs at the property.
2. £300 awarded previously by the landlord for damage caused to the resident’s property. The landlord may deduct this amount from the total compensation award if already paid.
3. £200 for its handling of the associated complaint.
4. The compensation balance must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
The landlord should arrange an independent survey for the damp and mould at the property. Independence within the process is necessary to promote trust between the resident and the landlord and provide reassurance for the resident on the appropriate future course of action. This is also necessary to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively resolve the damp and mould issues that have been present in her property.
The landlord should produce a schedule of works resulting from the survey together with timescales for associated works. A copy should be provided to both the resident and this Service.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance on the above orders within 6 weeks.