Torus62 Limited (202208222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208222

Torus62 Limited

11 December 2023

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 condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of a 4- bedroom adapted house. She has physical limitations, and two of her three children have complex needs. The property was offered on an “exceptional let” basis.
3. The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2021. However, both the resident and her husband refused to move into the property stating that its condition was unacceptable. The landlord arranged an inspection and drew up a schedule of repair. A delayed commencement date of 16 November 2021 was agreed between the parties, with the landlord going without rent for the first month. The landlord then started carrying out these repairs to the property. By January 2022, the landlord stated it had completed all outstanding matters, but the resident disputed this was the case.
4. A further site visit took place at which the landlord agreed to carry out more tasks. Finally, on 25 April 2022, both resident and landlord agreed that everything had been done.
5. In the meantime, on 26 November 2021 the resident complained about the condition of the property on handover. She subsequently reported that her relative had had to spend 5 to 6 weeks working on the property to get it to an acceptable standard. She stated that a lot of money had been spent buying materials and her relative had lost wages as he had been unable to work during that time. The resident further reported that the situation had had a negative effect on her health as well as that of her husband. She stated she had been put to considerable inconvenience and wanted an apology and compensation to reflect what had happened.
6. Through its internal complaints procedure, the landlord agreed that its communications had been poor and that it could have offered the resident a better service. It maintained, however, that the property was fit to be let at the time it was offered. The landlord stated it had gone further than the lettable standard in some respects as a gesture of goodwill. The resident was offered compensation of £500. The landlord was open to the possibility of paying further compensation for the work carried out by the resident if she could explain what was done and provide receipts and proof of what had been spent. She offered some evidence which it rejected as insufficient proof and no offer was made after all.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. In her view she had provided enough evidence to prove her losses and the landlord should have made an offer of compensation. The resident referred the matter to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

8. There is a significant difference of opinion in this case between the resident’s view of the property upon letting and that of the landlord. The resident reports that the property was in a poor state, and she is highly critical of the landlord’s void works. It, in turn, maintains that the property had reached a lettable standard. It refers to the works identified at the start of the tenancy as “snagging” issues which were minor in nature.
9. The landlord’s records show the following:
   1. It spent over £15,000 on the property during the void period, including fitting a new kitchen.
   2. Some of the ‘additional repairs’ identified at the tenancy start were, in fact, outstanding jobs from its void survey.
   3. Some tasks had been started but not finished.
   4. Some tasks had been completed but not to a satisfactory standard.
   5. The landlord subsequently identified some work it agreed to carry out as being better than its lettable standard.
   6. Further jobs were then classified as new repairs after the tenancy started.
   7. Some works were carried out as a gesture of goodwill but which the landlord considered it was not really responsible for.
10. The landlord’s view was that the resident’s expectations were higher than its letting standards provide for, hence the difference in their opinions of the situation.
11. This Service does not ordinarily inspect properties. We also do not have the expertise to diagnose faults within a building or set out what work is required to put them right. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the property was not ready for letting at the start of the tenancy. This is because of the significant number of jobs the landlord agreed to attend to in the following few months, together with the fact they were spread throughout every part of the property. Further, it is noted that in the landlord’s “Voids Post Inspection” report next to the question “have all required repairs been carried out”, the answer “no” has been added. The property was then let out. The landlord’s failure to get the property reasonably ready for letting represented a failing in the service it offered to the resident.
12. It was not until April 2022, 6 months after the initial letting, that resident and landlord agreed all outstanding matters had been completed. This report speculates that the disruption to the resident and her family gradually petered out over that period with the highest intensity taking place in the earliest weeks. However, the resident reasonably reports being put to significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord offered compensation of £500 for this, as well as waiving the initial month’s rent when the family refused to move into the property initially.
13. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
14. The landlord did not accept any specific service failures in its complaint responses, but it did agree that it had “not responded to you in an appropriate way.” It apologised for the resident’s experience. Its acknowledgement that the letting of this property had not gone smoothly and to plan was an important part of its response. 
15. The landlord operates a Discretionary Compensation Policy which confirms it can offer a financial award for “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of a service failure”. That policy does not set out, however, how the award should be calculated. This Service’s Remedies Guidance offers information on this point. It states that an award for distress and inconvenience of between £100 to £600 is appropriate where the resident has had a negative experience but there is no permanent effect on them. The landlord’s offer falls at the upper end of this bracket and is considered reasonable as it fits the circumstances of this case.
16. The landlord made no offer in respect of any “injury” to the resident’s health and wellbeing. Its policy covers service failings and does not include claims for personal injury. The landlord was not obliged to make any offer on this basis and the compensation awarded reflects, not just inconvenience, but distress in any event.
17. Further, this Service cannot consider claims for personal injury. It does not have the expertise to determine what injury has been suffered, or to decide liability for it. Such issues are better dealt with by the courts.
18. The landlord made no offer in respect of the resident’s reported expenditure or the time/labour of her relative. It did, however, say it was willing to consider doing so upon receiving evidence of the relevant loss. The resident provided her bank statements which showed amounts she had paid to specific retailers along with evidence of a payment to her relative. The landlord responded that this did not prove what work had actually been done. It did not set out what had been purchased from those businesses and what its purpose was. The documents did not enable the landlord to confirm whether the money was spent on materials/labour that it should have provided. It was unable to assess the claim from the information received.
19. The landlord asked for an itemised list of what work was claimed for and what materials had been purchased, together with receipts for them. The resident refused, stating she had offered all the evidence that was needed. No figure/calculation was put forward by the resident as owing for the landlord’s consideration (or for this Service to examine either).
20. There is a reasonable expectation that landlords have an obligation to use their resources carefully and sensibly and will be required to account for their expenditure. It was therefore fair and reasonable that it asked the resident to be clearer about her claim and to offer more compelling evidence of it. In the absence of such information, the landlord was unable to progress the resident’s claim. A recommendation will be made, however, that the landlord reconsider this aspect of the complaint if the resident supplies the necessary information within the next 4 weeks. As the landlord was willing to make an offer, the fact none was made does not prevent a finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this case.
21. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged that there had been problems in its dealings with the resident. It had carried out repairs and waived one month’s rent. The landlord had also offered appropriate compensation and confirmed it was willing to consider further losses on receiving appropriate evidence. It has offered redress which was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case and no finding of maladministration will therefore be made. 

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

23. The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £500, if it has not already been paid, as it reflected failings in the service offered and this decision is made on the basis of this amount being paid.
24. The landlord to reconsider the resident’s claim for labour and materials if she supplies the information it previously requested to it within the next 4 weeks.