The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Torus62 Limited (202204805)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204805

Torus62 Limited

29 September 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. an infestation of mice;
    2. general repair issues including damp and mould in the upstairs of the property, leaks, and cracks in the plaster; and
    3. the subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupied a property under a secure joint tenancy agreement which commenced on 27 October 2008. The property was a two-bedroom house managed by the landlord.
  2. It must be noted that the actions and communications with the landlord came from both joint tenants. This report refers to ‘the resident’ when describing actions taken by either joint tenant.
  3. The resident first reported an infestation of mice in the property on 18 January 2022. The landlord was unable to resolve the infestation whilst the resident was in occupation of the property. Following an inspection of the property by the private sector housing team of the local authority on 16 January 2023, the council served an abatement notice on the landlord. During the period of 18 January 2022 to 30 April 2023, the landlord arranged 27 appointments and the resident cancelled or did not allow access to 13 of those appointments.
  4. The resident first reported general concerns about the disrepair in the property in 2018. However, the repairs referred to in this complaint are those that were identified by the landlord and the resident in 2022. Only one of these repairs was rectified by the landlord before the resident was rehoused in May 2023.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on7 June 2022, about the mice infestation. The landlord’s contractor issued a stage 1 response on 23 June 2022. It did not uphold the complaint because it had attempted to access the property, and this was denied by the resident. The resident escalated his complaint on 27 June 2022 and the landlord issued its final response on 26 July 2022. It did not uphold the complaint because there was no evidence of an infestation of mice. However, the surveyor at the time agreed to several general repairs that required attention at the property.
  6. The condition of the property and outstanding repairs were later discussed in a separate complaint made by the resident on 5 December 2022. This was responded to as part of a final response, on the same day, by the landlord. It did not uphold the complaint because the resident had cancelled appointments and not responded to requests to remake them.
  7. The landlord’s statements regarding the resident’s refusal of access and outstanding repairs were raised formally by him on 23 February 2023; and responded to at stage 1 on 15 March 2023. Its final response was issued on 19 April 2023. Both stages did not uphold the resident’s complaint because of the refusal by the resident to move his belongings to allow the works to go ahead, appointments being cancelled, or access being denied.
  8. The resident explained to this service that the outstanding issues are:
    1. The lack of acknowledgement by the landlord for the time and distress it took to raise the complaint; and
    2. The length of time the repairs remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. The scope of this report will limit the timeframe considered around when the resident first made his reports to the landlord. This investigation will not consider reports made by the resident before 18 January 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation of mice

  1. The landlord does not have a specific policy that deals with pest infestations. However, its neighbourhood policy states that it “will address infestations in communal areas for mice. Infestations must be because of a structural defect. We will repair the defect and arrange for treatment of the infestations.” The landlord’s policy clearly puts an obligation on it to rectify pest infestations in its property if it is a result of a structural defect. In the absence of a timeframe for completion in the policy, the Ombudsman would expect infestations to be resolved within a reasonable time.
  2. The resident first reported an infestation of mice at his property on 18 January 2022. The landlord’s contractor visited 3 times between 26 January 2022 and 14 February 2022 but was unable to fully inspect the property. The surveyor noted this was because there were a substantial number of items in the resident’s home which prevented a full inspection from taking place. There was also communication with the resident at that time, regarding the need for the resident to clear the property for it to assess the span of the infestation and to resolve it.
  3. The surveyor raised repairs following the visit on 14 February 2022, but these were not actioned. There is no justification provided by the landlord as to why the repairs did not take place. The Ombudsman considers this to be a failure by the landlord.
  4. The resident re-reported the mice infestation on 16 May 2022, and a further 3 times between 23 May 2022 and 31 May 2022. The landlord visited the property on 31 May 2022 and set up 10 bait stations across the property. This was 74 working days after the previous visit on 14 February 2022. The landlord noted in its repair logs that the condition of the property needed to be assessed by the neighbourhood team. The landlord wanted to assist the resident’s understanding of the need to declutter the property. Therefore, the appointment was paused. There is no evidence that the resident was made aware of the referral to the neighbourhood team.
  5. The Ombudsman considers there to be an unreasonable delay in dealing with the mice infestation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have communicated with the resident, as it knew that the problem remained unresolved from its previous visits. If the landlord had intended to pause its appointments, then it would have been fair and reasonable to contact the resident to let him know this was the case, rather than allowing the issues to be left and later re-reported. It is clear the landlord had ample opportunity to speak with the resident and the neighbourhood team. Therefore, it should have followed up with both parties because the repairs were not going to be reinstated until this element had been completed.
  6. On 6 June 2022, the resident reported the infestation again. On 14 June the resident did not allow access for the landlord to enter the property. Additionally, the resident cancelled the appointment made for 16 June 2022. At this appointment, both a contractor and a joiner were to attend together to lift the floorboards and bait underneath them. The cancellation resulted in only the joiner being cancelled. The resident stated he would not have allowed either of the contractors into the property to complete the repairs. The resident also cancelled or did not allow access on 6 occasions between 27 July 2022 and 13 March 2023 for contractor appointments.
  7. The evidence shows that the resident did not move his possessions before the appointments because he felt he needed more support. However, the Ombudsman notes that the earliest time the resident raised difficulties in moving his possessions was 23 February 2023. This appears to be the principal cause for the repairs not progressing. It is the resident’s obligation to move his belongings to enable repairs to continue. It is also clear that the resident’s conduct regarding access to the property and the cancellation of appointments contributed to the delays.
  8. The landlord did not offer further support to the resident until it issued its stage 2 response for the general repairs complaint on 19 April 2023. A that time offered the following to the resident:
    1. to instruct a contractor to remove and store belongings;
    2. a decant property; and
    3. temporary accommodation.

These options were declined by the resident as he felt that this would negatively impact the vulnerabilities of the household. He also stated that he preferred to be rehoused through the housing register as a resolution.

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the support needs within the household, but it did not actively try to work with the resident with these in mind until very late in the process. The Ombudsman considers that had the landlord communicated better with the resident, it would have understood the barriers preventing him from complying with moving his possessions. It would have then been in a better position to support him with tenancy sustainment advice and support. This would have also resulted in less wasted time for its operatives.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of general repair issues including damp and mould in the upstairs of the property, leaks, and cracks in the plaster.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy details that it will aim to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. It also states that specialist works may take longer. The resident’s tenancy agreement obligated him to allow access to the landlord to carry out repairs, as long as 24 hours prior notice was given.

The damp and mould

  1. The resident reported that there was damp and mould in the property to the landlord on 3 May 2022. The landlord booked an appointment on 7 June 2022 to visit the property, however this was cancelled by the resident and rebooked for 24 June 2022. The surveyor noted at that visit that there was damp and mould in the bathroom. The landlord attempted to arrange an appointment on 27 July 2022, however this was cancelled by the resident because he wanted to wait for the stage 2 complaint response before further works were undertaken. A further 3 attempts to arrange an appointment were not answered by the resident.
  2. Damp and mould were later identified in an abatement notice served on the landlord on 16 January 2023. The notice stated the damp and mould were in two rooms of the property. The landlord raised a job for this on 22 February 2023. However, the appointment was cancelled at the resident’s request. It then rang the resident on 12 April 2023 to try to re-book the repair, but the resident refused the appointment because he wanted to do it himself. The damp and mould were not resolved before the resident being rehoused.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord tried to resolve both reports of damp and mould. The resident delayed the appointment and later stopped the repairs from going ahead. As such there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord.

The leaks

  1. The resident reported a loose radiator valve and that the bedroom radiator had been leaking on 3 May 2022. The landlord arranged an appointment to fix this on 9 May 2022. The resident reported on 17 May 2022, that the kitchen sink was leaking, and the piping had come away. The landlord arranged to visit the property on the same day. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly attended the property to fix both leaks reported by the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no service failure by the landlord in the way it handled these issues.
  2. The resident’s boiler was reported to the landlord on 15 June 2022, this included a leak and problems with the hot water and the radiators. On 4 July 2022, the landlord confirmed the boiler had been inspected and there were no repair issues found. However, the resident continued to report issues with the radiators and water not warming up sufficiently. The Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure because the landlord should have followed up on the subsequent reports regarding the boiler, to further assess the issues being experienced by the resident.
  3. The boiler was confirmed as defective in the abatement notice dated 16 January 2023. The notification of the boiler issues was emailed to the landlord on or around 3 February 2023. The email stated there was an “absence of hot water – the boiler is defective and only provides tepid or barely lukewarm water. The boiler needs to be repaired or replaced”.  The resident reported to the landlord that there was “no heating or hot water” on 25 and 26 January 2023. He also reported that there was “no proper hot water” on 30 January 2023. It is noted that there are historical references to the boiler’s functionality in the landlord’s repair logs. These appear annually dating back as early as 17 October 2018.
  4. The landlord made 6 appointments between 27 January 2023 and 22 February 2023 to assess the boiler and 2 of these were cancelled by the resident. During its assessments, the landlord stated that the decision to replace the boiler was due to its age and not its functionality because upon assessment it could find no problems with the boiler. Although it stated it did replace the heat exchanger on 1 February 2023, it said the property did have access to heating and hot water and that the boiler just took some time to warm to the correct temperature. This is at odds with the nature of the repair work which replaced a component of the boiler’s heating apparatus, the resident’s reports, and the findings in the abatement notice.
  5. The landlord fitted a new combi boiler on 22 February 2023. This was 7 months after the issues were first reported with the heating and hot water and19 calendar days after the abatement notice.
  6. The landlord is obligated, under the s.11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to carry out repairs within a “reasonable time.” A household with a boiler that does not provide hot water is considered an emergency repair. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that emergency repairs “will be completed within 24 hours.” It is clear from the evidence that the repair was not completed because after its visit on 27 January 2023, the issues continued. The Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration by the landlord for failing to fix the boiler within a reasonable time and in line with its responsive repairs policy.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation where there has been “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the service failure”. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies states that the maladministration level of redress is between £600 to £1000. The resident’s rent at the time of the formal complaint process was £86.33 weekly. The Ombudsman considers that the rent for the period the resident was without hot water would have amounted to £234.32 and should be paid to the resident as compensation.

Cracks in the plaster

  1. The resident reported the issue with the plaster on 16 May 2022. The landlord raised a job to repair the plasterwork initially on 6 June 2022, however, this was suspended whilst waiting for a neighbourhood team to help support the resident to declutter the property. There is no evidence that the resident was aware that they needed to engage with this separate team. When it contacted the resident on 27 June 2022 to make an appointment, the resident did not agree to it because he wanted to wait for the stage 2 complaint response before further work was undertaken. The landlord tried to contact the resident on three further occasions to book the work, however, these were left unanswered.
  2. The defective plaster was later identified as an issue in the abatement notice. The landlord tried to contact the resident on three occasions between 13 February 2023 and 15 February 2023. An appointment was agreed for 21 April 2023, however, the resident did not give access to the landlord’s contractors. The works were not completed before the resident being rehoused.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was proactive with the reports made to it regarding the plasterwork. The evidence shows it tried to work with the resident to arrange appointments to get the property into a position where the plasterwork could be resolved, however, these appointments were not agreed to by the resident. This caused a delay in the work being undertaken. However, again, there is no evidence to show that the resident was informed that a referral to the neighbourhood team was made and that these works may be dependent on this element being completed. Therefore, the lack of communication with residents about the need to engage with the neighbourhood team remains a service failure.

The subsequent complaint.

  1. Clause 3 of the landlord’s complaint policy states that residents can expect a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
  2. The resident formally raised the complaint about the mouse infestation on 7 June 2022 in a phone call to the landlord. The landlord forwarded this to its contractor, which responded at stage 1 on 23 June 2022.
  3. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 27 June 2022 because of difficulties moving possessions, the support needs of the household not being considered, appointments not being agreed upon before workmen attended the property and that conditions in the property in general had been poor for years. The file contains two identical stage 2 responses dated 26 July 2022 and 8 November 2022.
  4. The contractor did not consider all the circumstances of the case as part of its investigation. It focused on the two appointments made just before the complaint. The landlord did not identify or acknowledge that repair works were raised by contractors on 14 February 2022, but these were not actioned. The contractor did not comment on the need for the resident to work with the neighbourhood team to enable works to go ahead, despite this being reported as a barrier by contractors on three separate visits. The landlord is responsible for these errors as the complaint response was provided on its behalf.
  5. The Ombudsman considers the scope of the complaint response and the way the investigation accounted for only specific visits, to be at odds with the dispute resolution principle to be fair and consider the facts of each individual case.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 March 2023. It identified that the repairs had not gone ahead because the resident had refused to move his items to allow the repair team to undertake their work. It also said that it would make a referral for the household to the tenancy sustainment team to support the resident. This was discussed internally by the landlord as a possible action on 17 February 2023, however, there is no reason provided as to why this did not happen earlier.
  7. The Ombudsman considers that had a referral been made earlier to the tenancy sustainment team or had it followed up with the neighbourhood team, the landlord would have been in a better position to have provided support to the resident. This is because it could have identified the issues preventing him from assisting them in undertaking the work. Although the neighbourhood team were involved with the resident, there is no clear evidence to show what, if any, support was provided as an outcome of this referral. This is evidence of a service failure because it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider these avenues of support at an earlier stage.
  8. The final complaint response on 19 April 2023 responded to the resident’s concerns over the outstanding repairs in the property and the resident previously stating they had not cancelled appointments. It offered the resident a contractor to remove and store belongings, a decant property or temporary accommodation. These options were declined by the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord showed in its final response it was open to a more supportive approach. It is reasonable to conclude that the delay in providing these options was attributable to the landlord not properly communicating with the resident, not considering the support needs of the household or the difficulties being faced by the resident in moving his possessions. Ultimately, there was a delay by the landlord to offer support to the resident which could have helped to resolve the general repairs and mice infestation at an earlier stage. Although this was not a duty in its policies or a contractual obligation, it is not in line with its values to “focus on solutions” and be “supportive.”

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation.
    2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of general repair issues including damp and mould in the upstairs of the property, leaks, and cracks in the plaster.
    3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the maladministration and service failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £784.32 in compensation made up of:
      1. £234.32 for its failure to repair the boiler in a reasonable time frame.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for this failure as it was a loss of amenity for a household with a dependent in wintertime.
      3. £100 for not communicating with the resident regarding pausing the repair appointments until further advice was given by a separate team; and delaying in referring the household for further support or following up with the neighbourhood team.
      4. £150 for the failures identified as part of its complaint handling.
    3. provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. To consider reviewing inter-departmental communication between the repair and neighbourhood teams, to ensure there is a robust workflow for joint actions and objectives. These can then be followed up promptly if repair works are due to be paused for engagement purposes.
  2. To consider reviewing its working practices with its residents when they face an issue preventing them from assisting the repairs team in carrying out its work.
  3. To consider reviewing its working practices regarding emergency repairs to ensure there is a robust procedure in place to ensure that if emergency repairs are not carried out, they are monitored and risks to residents are mitigated appropriately.
  4. The landlord should review its working practices regarding stage 1 complaints that involve investigations by contractor services to ensure it is compliant with its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code.