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

Torus62 Limited (202427099)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427099

Torus62 Limited

20 May 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:
    1. Asbestos found in the garden at the property;
    2. Debris and items in the garden;
    3. Reports of issues with the fence in the garden;
    4. The resident’s reports of rats in the garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under a tenancy agreement beginning in 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom mid terrace house with a garden. The resident lives at the property with her 3 young children.
  2. The resident reported rats in the garden in November 2023. The landlord said it appointed an external pest control contractor who attended in January 2024. It added, no further reports of pests were made after successful treatment. Also in November 2023, the resident reported asbestos in the garden. The landlord commissioned an inspection the next day and identified chrysotile asbestos. In January 2024, the landlord identified the garden fence as being in an “extremely poor condition”.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint in March 2024. She said there had been asbestos buried in her garden since moving in which was a health and safety risk. She said her children could not play outside due to this and other debris in the garden. Further, she said the fencing was in a poor condition and dangerous. She said she wanted these works to be completed.
  4. The landlord responded in April 2024. It said the works to complete the asbestos removal were finished on 19 April 2024. Further, that a surveyor had attended with a view to making good the garden after these works and an appointment had been made for waste removal on 22 April 2024. Finally, that the fence would also be assessed on this date. The landlord said it was satisfied there had not been failings in its handling of these issues. It said it recognised she was still waiting for the removal of waste and items from the garden.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint in August 2024. She said there was still rubbish in the garden and concrete slabs leaning against the property which were dangerous. Further, she said there was glass in the soil and nails protruding from the fence. She added the rubbish and carpet previously removed from the garden had been left next to the property and was now attracting rats. Finally, she said the asbestos had been removed, but nothing else had been done. She said she just wanted a safe garden for her children to play in.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 18 September 2024. In summary it said:
    1. It identified the fence was in a poor condition and needed replacing in January 2024. It had placed the job on a cyclical planned maintenance programme and would contact her with an appointment. The fence to the other side had been replaced.
    2. The asbestos in the garden reported in January 2024 had now been removed.
    3. Works had been carried out in the garden in April 2024. This was due to “an old garage shed” hidden in the garden. The asbestos had been removed, but not the remaining concrete. Other rubbish had been removed on 30 August 2024.
    4. A further site visit would be booked to reassess the garden following the rubbish removal.
    5. The complaint was partially upheld as there had been delays in the works to remove the asbestos and the repairs to the fence. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience and offered £200 compensation, comprising £100 for the delays and £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2024. She said some “bits had been done here and there” but the works had not been completed and they still presented a risk to her children. She said she wanted a revised compensation offer and for the work to be completed. The resident updated this Service again in May 2025. She said new fences had been installed, but the ground remained full of debris, making it unsuitable for new turf. She added she wanted the garden fixed.

Assessment and findings

Asbestos

  1. The landlord’s asbestos management policy says it ‘has the duty to manage asbestos in: all non-domestic buildings; the communal areas of domestic buildings, e.g., halls, stairwells, lift shafts, service ducts, roof spaces etc; and although the duty to manage does not currently affect all other domestic properties (such as houses and flats) [it] wishes to adopt best practice to safeguard tenants, visitors, operatives, and other occupiers within the housing stock, and will undertake surveys on such properties as work dictates’.
  2. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is ‘not responsible for repairing or maintaining any freestanding structures including sheds outbuildings and garages that are not an integral part of the building containing your home’.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete the job within 24 hours; routine repairs within 20 calendar days; and programmed or planned repairs within 60 days of reporting.
  4. It was not disputed the resident initially raised concerns about asbestos in her garden after builders warned her of the risk in November 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging for an inspection to be carried out on 30 November 2023. Following the inspection the contractor raised concerns around access issues and removal methods, however asbestos abatement works were scheduled in February 2024 for March 2024. The landlord had an obligation to ensure that the removal of the asbestos was carried out safely and that the resident and its contractors were adequately protected. Therefore, while this delay was frustrating for the resident the landlord was entitled to ensure that an appropriate plan was in place before starting the work.
  5. The landlord’s records show that its contractor caused delays to the asbestos removal works as they were determining how best to approach the work. This included whether they would be able to use heavy machinery to complete excavation in the garden or whether they would have to carry out the work manually. It was evident this delay was distressing for the resident and it led to her raising a formal complaint. The removal of the asbestos was recorded as complete on 19 April 2024. While it was reasonable for the landlord to assume responsibility for the removal of asbestos, as per its asbestos policy, the work was completed approximately three months outside of its policy timeframe. This was not appropriate. Ultimately, while the contractor caused this delay, this remained the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it met its repair obligations.
  6. Overall, the landlord showed a resolution focused approach by working with the resident to remove asbestos found in the garden. The landlord acknowledged the delay in removing the asbestos in its final response. It apologised to the resident an acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It offered £200 compensation comprising £100 for the delay and £100 for distress and inconvenience. In consideration of the delay of approximately 3 months and the distress caused to the resident the compensation offered was proportionate to the landlord’s failings in the circumstances. Therefore, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos at the property.

Debris and items in the garden

  1. The tenancy agreement says the resident ‘will keep any garden or yard that is part of your home clean and tidy clear of rubbish and well maintained’. Further that the resident is ‘responsible for maintaining any garden shed or similar item in your home’. Finally, that the resident would pay the cost of any work set out under the above sections that the landlord carries out at the resident’s request.
  2. In November 2023 the landlord undertook works at the property to remove remnants of a garage that were buried in the garden. These works were halted when the contractor discovered the asbestos issue addressed above. As a result, the removal of building material and debris from the garden was suspended until the asbestos works were completed. This was reasonable. While it was inconvenient for the resident to have items debris and rubbish in her garden the landlord was entitled to take a safety-first approach and to ensure the site was safe for the removal of this debris by first removing the asbestos.
  3. Following the removal of the asbestos on 19 April 2024, the landlord said it arranged an inspection of the property. The surveyor inspected the property on 22 April 2024. This was a reasonable timeframe for the follow up inspection. The surveyor raised concerns over the health and safety risk to the resident’s children as a result of “waste piles” in the garden. There was no evidence seen to show what the waste piles comprised, however, the resident indicated there was glass, concrete and used carpet present. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to approach the issue under the timeframe for routine repairs of 20 days, from 19 April 2024.
  4. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a works order on 28 May 2024 for returfing and rotovating the garden. It is reasonable to conclude this would have included the removal of the “waste piles”. This had a target date of 7 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this target was not met and there was no evidence seen to show the landlord treated the works as planned or cyclical. Therefore, even where the landlord met the target date of 7 July 2024 it would still have been outside of its policy time frame by approximately 1 month. This was not appropriate.  
  5. The landlord’s repair records show its contractor attended and removed the waste piles on 30 August 2024. This included broken concrete and glass in the soil. However, it did not include the removal of concrete panels which were left at the property following the works to the garage parts in the garden. While the landlord removed the debris from the garden this came over 2 months outside of its policy timeframe which was not appropriate. This was frustrating for the resident. Her frustration was compounded by the fact that the concrete slabs were left at the property and not removed with the other items. This was particularly frustrating as she felt her use of the garden and her children safety in doing so it was impacted by the debris on the property and including the concrete slabs.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in removing the waste piles from the property when issuing its final complaint response in September 2024. While it was reasonable for it to do so and to apologise for the delay it did not offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its handling of this issue. While it was entitled to wait for the asbestos removal before completing the removal of the remaining debris in the garden, once the asbestos had been removed there were still unreasonable delays in completing the remaining work. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of removal of items and debris from the garden. Consequently, further compensation, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, has been ordered below to account for the impact to the resident.

Fencing at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says ‘as a landlord, we are responsible for keeping the structure and outside of our homes in a good state of repair, including…fences, gates, and external walls which are our responsibility to maintain’.
  2. The landlords repair records show the resident reported issues with the fence on 15 January 2024. She said the fences were unsafe and had protruding screws and sharp edges which were hazardous to her children. The repair records further show the landlord inspected the fences on 26 January 2024 and made them safe. This was reasonable and the work was carried out in accordance with the landlord’s policy time frame for repairs.
  3. The inspection on 26 January 2024 revealed every panel of the fence in the garden was in “an extremely poor condition and will require full replacing”. It was not disputed that the landlord did not raise any repairs at this point. This was not appropriate and was distressing for the resident who made a further report on 4 April 2024. The landlord said its surveyor attended again on 22 April 2024. The surveyor said the fencing works had been added to a cyclical programme which typically follow a set time frame for completion. However, there was no evidence seen to show the landlord notified the resident of this until 20 June 2024. It is not clear why it delayed in updating the resident however this delay was not reasonable, and it compounded the resident’s distress.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 10 July 2024 as she felt works had not been carried out to make the fence safe or to replace it. In the landlord’s final response on 18 September 2024, it relied on the position that the fence replacement was part of a cyclical programme. While it was reasonable for the landlord to place this work under a cyclical programme, it did not provide any timeframe for the completion of this work. The landlord’s policy says it will complete cyclical works within 60 days of reporting. However, at the time of issuing its final response it had already exceeded its policy timeframe by approximately 1 month. This was not appropriate.
  5. Overall, the landlord showed they responded to initial reports within a reasonable timeframe. Further it took steps to make part of the fencing safe. It also showed that it replaced a section of fencing in the rear garden. However, the resident remained concerned about a separate section of fencing which the landlord had previously determined as needing replacement in January 2024.
  6. The landlord placed the fence replacement on its cyclical works programme. While it was entitled to do this, it did not apply its policy time frame when carrying out the works and ultimately the works were completed in January 2025. This was one year after the initial report and approximately 10 months outside of its policy timeframe. This was not appropriate and evidently distressing for the resident particularly as she was concerned for the safety of her children. Overall, the landlord did not stick to his policy timeframe in relation to the fencing repair. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Compensation to reflect this has been ordered below.

Pest infestation

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is “not responsible for infestations including infestations of birds rodents and insects unless it is due to our failure to comply with our repairing obligations”.
  2. While the tenancy agreement did not oblige the landlord to deal with pests or infestations at the property, following the resident’s initial reports of rats in the garden in November 2023 the landlord acted reasonably by appointing a pest control expert to attend the property. Following treatment, no follow up reports of rats at the property were made by the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the treatment successful and for it to not arrange any follow up visit.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint in August 2024. She said there were rats sighted in the garden and that they had been seen in the waste piles of rubbish and debris left by the landlord in the garden. As addressed above the landlord did not remove the waste in the garden in a reasonable time. Therefore, it was obliged to ensure that it investigated the reports of a rat sighting or infestation at the property, given that it was suggested that the issue was due to its oversight. However, there was no evidence seen to show the landlord took any steps to investigate the new reports from the resident. While the resident did not make any subsequent reports or any reports following the removal of the debris from the garden, the landlord should have taken steps to investigate her reports of rats at the property. Its failure to do so constituted maladministration in its handling of this issue. Compensation for the impact on the resdient has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Debris and items in the garden.
    2. Repairs and replacement of the fencing.
    3. The resident’s reports of rats in the garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of asbestos found in the garden at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay £1,050 compensation direct to the resident less any amount already paid. The amounts awarded are based on the benchmarks referred to in Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where such determinations are made. The compensation comprises:
    1. £200 offered in its final response.
    2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlords handling of debris and items in the garden.
    3. £350 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the fence repair and replacement.
    4. £200 For distress and inconvenience caused to the resident’s the result of the landlord’s handling of reports of rats at the property.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must formally apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to appoint an independent surveyor to inspect the garden. The instruction to the surveyor should be for them to assess works required, including the removal of any remaining debris and items in the garden, and highlight any safety issues presented by the current condition of the garden. The landlord must then complete any works recommended to bring the garden to a standard which allows the resident to meet her garden maintenance obligations, within a further six weeks thereafter.
  4. Within the timeframes stated in the above orders the landlord is to provide evidence of compliance of these orders to this Service.