Torus62 Limited (202122355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122355

Torus62 Limited

16 May 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about repairs.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy for the property, a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a two-storey block. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
3. Earlier repairs completed by the landlord resulted in damage to the walls and skirting boards in the hallway of the property. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 October 2021, stating that the landlord’s contractor had attended on 1 October 2021 to repair the ‘skirting and boxing’, but that this remained unfinished, with the contractor also having accidentally cut through the TV aerial cable. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 23 October 2021 acknowledged that the correct process to arrange the follow up work when its phone systems were down had not been followed; but said that the repairs had now been done to the skirting and aerial.
4. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 4 November 2021 as, in her view, the repairs remained incomplete. The landlord advised that laminate beading to the flooring was not its responsibility. However, a post inspection on 12 November 2021 identified further works to rub down walls were required; the landlord also agreed to replace the beading.
5. The landlord’s stage two response of 3 December 2021 said its contractors had not received confirmation from the resident to attend the day before as it had arranged, so had rescheduled for 6 December 2021, with works to be completed on 10 December 2021. Compensation of £150 was offered for the inconvenience caused by the delay in the repair being finished. The resident provided her bank details on 20 December 2021 for the compensation to be paid, which due to the holiday period was not received until 6 January 2022.
6. In February 2022, the resident said that other than the ariel, the repairs had not been completed. In March 2022, the landlord confirmed all repairs had been completed by 10 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The role of the ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord has acted within the law, the tenancy agreement and relevant policies relating to the resident and their property. The purpose of an investigation is to assess whether a landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and to decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.

Assessment and findings

8. Section 4.d.iii of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs & Maintenance Policy dated April 2020 covers ‘repairs by arrangement’ for non-urgent jobs and says the landlord will aim to complete all routine repairs within 20 calendar days. Although the initial repairs were done within this timescale, the resident had to raise the matter again and the ‘post inspection’ identified that further work was required, outside of the agreed timescale.
9. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the correct procedure when scheduling the follow-on works had not been followed. It identified learning from the investigation and said that relevant staff had been reminded of the correct process in order to provide appropriate customer care. However, the resident then advised the work had still not been completed.
10. The stage two complaint response acknowledged that its service delivery had not met a sufficient standard; it offered compensation in recognition of this and arranged for the work be completed a week later – with works completing on 10 December 2021.
11. The stage two response also referred to a failure on the resident’s part to confirm her availability for an appointment on 2 December 2021 to resolve the outstanding works. This contradicts the landlord’s contact notes, which clearly state, on 30 November 2021, the resident stating that she was happy for the works to proceed on 2 December. It is of concern that this was not picked up by the landlord’s repairs service team as it seemingly contributed to an unnecessary delay in completing works. This delay was not excessive however, as the works took places shortly thereafter.
12. The landlord said it used the Ombudsman’s guide for remedies in calculating its compensation offer of £150. This sum is within the Ombudsman’s suggested range of awards where there has been a service failure which has had an impact on the resident but was of short duration. In all the circumstances of the case, this figure presents as reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced. The resident was no doubt inconvenienced by the delay in resolving her TV aerial and was left with unfinished works for a period. However, these issues were unlikely to have a high impact on the household; as such, the offer of compensation is considered a satisfactory offer of redress.
13. Given the holiday period, the delay in the compensation being paid was not unreasonable, and the landlord has said that the compensation process has since been reviewed to ensure this is speeded up. This indicates further learning from the landlord and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles,’ to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.’  
14. There is a disagreement between the resident and the landlord over whether repairs remain outstanding. The Ombudsman does not doubt what the resident has said, but it is not clear if the resident refers to the repairs which are the subject of the complaint, or additional repairs. There is no evidence that the resident has raised this with the landlord after it said the repairs were completed in December 2021, and the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have responded if it was not made aware of an issue. It is recommended however, that the landlord follow this up with the resident to ensure the previous repair is fully resolved, or a new repair logged if necessary.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

16. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to establish whether any repair issues remain outstanding at the property.