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

Torus62 Limited (202220173)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220173

Torus62 Limited

19 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a three-bedroom house, ‘the property’. The landlord currently has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. In correspondence with this Service on 11 January 2024, it referred to “physical constraints” affecting the resident, referenced as part of the complaint.
  2. The resident reported issues with the pointing of the property’s gable end and rear elevation on 19 August 2022. The landlord inspected the property on 25 August 2022 and took the following action on the same day:
    1. It raised an order to “rake and repoint the gable end and rear elevation” by 19 October 2022. It booked the 3 October 2022 to complete this. It ordered scaffolding for erection on 30 September 2022 to support this.
    2. It discussed internally the need for the resident to sign a disclaimer. It needed to do this to move a number of the resident’s personal items at the side of the house that would block erection of the scaffolding. It noted the resident was unable to do this himself as he had a “physical disability”.
  3. On 30 August 2022 and 30 September 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident its contractor would erect the scaffolding on 30 September 2022. This did not take place. As a result, the resident raised a complaint on 3 October 2022. He stated the following:
    1. He had received a card from the landlord telling him the scaffolding would be erected on 29 September 2022. It was not erected on this date. The scaffolding was also not erected on 30 September 2022 which he confirmed on the phone. He said this was due to the items at the side of the property, which the landlord had previously told him it would move.
    2. He asked for compensation for 3 days waiting for the landlord to attend to complete the repair.
  4. On 3 October 2022 the resident confirmed he had moved the items at the side of his property himself. The landlord arranged for erection of the scaffolding for 14 October 2022 and to complete the repair on 17 and 18 October 2022. The landlord responded to the complaint on 17 October 2022. It stated the following:
    1. It acknowledged it failed to ask the resident to sign a disclaimer to move the items at the side of his property. It said this was due to a “failing in communication between its departments”. It said now the items had been moved work was due to go ahead on 17 October 2022.
    2. It apologised for the “inconvenience and frustration” caused to the resident. It said it did not feel his complaint met the criteria for a compensation award.
  5. A contractor completed part of the work on 17 October 2022. On the same day the resident called the landlord. He raised concerns the brickwork had not been raked. The landlord told him during two calls raking may not be required and then that a further operative would complete “link up work”. The contractor attended the following day, 18 October 2022 to complete the repair. On 20 October 2022 the resident reported “missing mortar in the wall between his property and his neighbour’s. The landlord attended the same day and completed further pointing works.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 October 2022 after the landlord’s operative had left the same day. He raised his dissatisfaction with the repair. He said it was not raked and “only cemented over”. He said the contractor who attended that day was only given 1 hour to complete the job for what they said was a 2-day job. He believed there was a history of the landlord not taking care of the external of the property.  The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2022. It told him the following:
    1. It had spoken with the resident on 15 November 2022, and he had requested compensation for 9 days he had lost.  It said it recognised it had not completed the work to his property in a timely manner. It offered him £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It also apologised for disruption it caused to him.
    2. It confirmed it would carry out a further inspection to the repointing to the rear elevation as the resident felt further repointing was needed. There is no evidence this was completed.
  7. The resident reported missing mortar in the wall again on 7 March 2023. The landlord surveyed the brickwork on 28 March 2024 and completed a “rake and repoint” on 5 May 2023.
  8. This Service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 27 April 2023. He said he wanted £900 compensation total, for all the days it had taken to resolve the repair issue. The landlord called the resident on 6 July 2023. He told it he had asked for it to pay the £150 compensation to him, but it had not done so. He said he now rejected the compensation and would wait for the Ombudsman’s outcome.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

  1. In correspondence with this Service on 18 April 2024 the resident stated he was concerned with the landlord’s approach to repairs at the property and its complaint handling. It is not clear if he was referring to his current complaint or the landlord’s overall handling of repairs. This Service can only consider the current complaint that has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This investigation will focus on events between 19 August 2022 and 6 July 2023 in relation to the repair to the exterior brickwork at his property. If the resident wishes to pursue further issues outside of this, he will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

  1. The Tenancy Agreement confirms the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including exterior decoration. The landlord’s Repairs Policy prioritises repairs as either emergency, arrangement or programmed.  Programmed repairs are classed as non-urgent but are complex in nature. The policy aims to complete programmed repairs within 60 days of a report. It will keep customers informed of any potential delays with repairs as necessary.
  2. When a repair is reported the landlord sends the resident a text to confirm the repair classification, and appointment or target date for completion. It will, where possible, call or text a resident prior to an appointment to confirm access arrangements. It also ensures residents with a disability “are dealt with sensitively and in line with their individual needs.” It offers an enhanced repairs service for vulnerable residents. It provides an “enhanced service” working with external agencies and repairs contractors to ensure vulnerable resident’s needs are “known and acted upon”.
  3. The resident reported issues with the pointing at the rear of his property on 19 August 2022. The landlord’s surveyor attended within an appropriate timescale, on 25 August 2022. It completed an inspection and raised a works order to complete the work by 19 October 2022. On the same day it arranged for the scaffolding to be erected on 30 September 2022. It is uncertain if the landlord informed the resident of this. The resident called to request this on 30 August 2022 which suggests it either failed to do this or was pre-empted in doing this.
  4. There was some uncertainty initially on 25 August 2022 with the landlord on who would remove items belonging to the resident that would block erection of the scaffolding. It decided on the same day that a contractor would complete this. The landlord acted appropriately in deciding it was responsible for obtaining consent from the resident to move his personal items at the side of the property. This was relevant in ensuring the resident was aware of liability if any damage was caused. However, the landlord did not ask the resident to complete a disclaimer. It acknowledged its error in failing to do this in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It also recognised in its responses the failure to do this caused delay to the completion of the repair.
  5. In his stage 1 complaint the resident suggested a card had been posted to him from the landlord. In it he said the landlord had confirmed it would erect the scaffolding on 29 September 2022 and complete the repair on 31 September 2022. This Service can find no evidence of this, however. As previously stated, the landlord had arranged for the scaffolding to be erected on 30 September 2022. The evidence does not show any deviation from this date. The landlord did confirm the date with the resident on 30 September 2022 and advised September did not have 31 days. The landlord did however fail to address the alleged card in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and whether it was responsible. This caused uncertainty for the resident and left this aspect of his complaint unresolved.
  6. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 3 October 2022 to complete the pointing work. It was unaware scaffolding had not been erected and as such was unable to complete the work. The landlord’s failure to appropriately communicate with its contractors resulted in further uncertainty and confusion to the resident. This was part of the cause for the resident raising his complaint the same day.
  7. The landlord confirmed with the resident he had moved the items himself later on 3 October 2023 and on the same day it arranged for the scaffolding to be erected on 14 October 2022. There is no evidence to suggest it informed the resident of this. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2022 informing it the scaffolding was being erected. This adds to the point that it failed to inform him when this would be completed. The landlord failed to meet its communication standards in its Repairs Policy, which caused uncertainty to the resident.
  8. The resident called the landlord twice on 17 October 2022 stating the contractor had left the property and the repair was incomplete. This suggests the landlord had not informed the resident the repair would be completed over 2 days. It initially stated the contractor may find it appropriate just to repoint and not rake. This information was not in accordance with the surveyor’s work order and there is no evidence to suggest it was aware if this was the correct process. On the second call it appropriately advised the resident the contractor was returning the following day. However, it should have informed him of the schedule for works much sooner as per its Repairs Policy.
  9. The work to “rake and repoint” the rear and gable end of the property was completed on 17 and 18 October 2022. This was completed in accordance with the landlord’s timescale of 19 October 2022 in its original work order. This also meant the landlord completed the repair within 60 days in accordance with its Repairs Policy.
  10. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the finish of the repair on 20 October 2022. The landlord acted appropriately in sending an operative the same day to complete further repointing work at the property. The resident raised dissatisfaction with this additional work in his complaint escalation request later the same day. The landlord promised in its stage 2 response of 17 November 2022 it would complete further investigation of the brickwork. There is no evidence it completed this and the resident requested this again on 7 March 2023. In failing to complete this the landlord failed to follow through on its earlier agreement and caused further delay to the overall resolution of the issue. It did complete a further inspection and completed works on 5 May 2023 following this. The resident confirmed to the landlord in a call on 6 July 2023 that all work was complete at the property.
  11. In his complaint escalation the resident told the landlord on 15 November 2022 he had “wasted more than 9 days” waiting for operatives and making calls. Whilst such works as those under investigation here will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the occupancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for losses for routine appointments as standard. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue. This Service can find evidence of the following:
    1. There were missed appointments on 30 September and 3 October 2022 due to failures by the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest an appointment was raised for 29 September 2022. Appointments arranged for 14, 17 and 18 October 2022 were required to ensure completion of the work at the property.
    2. The landlord’s contact logs only show the date and time the resident contacted it. It confirmed to this Service it retains phone records for 3 months. As such this Service can only consider the instances the resident called but not the duration. Due to the landlord’s failures, the resident was forced to call it on 30 August, 3 October, 14 October and twice on 17 October 2022. There is no evidence to suggest these calls took more than a nominal time to complete.
    3. In total the resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failures for 2 days. He was inconvenienced by having to make one call on 3 days and two calls on 1 day.
  12. The landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy confirms it considers compensation for “avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment or other unfair impact of the service failure.” It will calculate compensation based upon what it considers is “fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.” The landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. There is no further evidence to suggest how it calculated its compensation award. This Service finds the total compensation offered by the landlord as insufficient for the total detriment caused to the resident for the following failures:
    1. It failed to support him with a reasonable adjustment for his health.
    2. It was delayed in erecting the scaffolding.
    3. It failed to communicate with the resident and its contractor about the schedule of works and any changes causing inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident.
  13. The resident told the landlord on 6 July 2023 he had previously contacted it about its £150 compensation offer. He said he called it to provide his bank details and the landlord told him it would call back to take them. He said this never took place and as such he rejected the landlord’s attempts to pay this from 6 July 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord has failed to keep a record of this correspondence, or if it is the case that it has failed to provide it in response to our information request. However, we have not been provided with the evidence and we are unable to consider the resident’s comments in relation to this further.
  14. The landlord was aware on 25 August 2022 that the resident had a “physical disability” which meant he could not move the items by the side of his house. It promised him on this date it would move the items for him. This would be considered a ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the Equality Act 2012. In failing to move the items from this date the landlord failed to support the resident “in line with his individual needs”. The landlord’s inaction caused pressure to the resident to move the items himself. He did this despite the impact on his health, to ensure there were no further delays with erection of the scaffolding.
  15. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 11 January 2023 the landlord confirmed it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It did confirm its awareness of his physical health from the details of the complaint. It is crucial for a landlord to have any vulnerabilities for its residents recorded accurately and accessible. This ensures it is able to support a resident in accordance with their individual needs and circumstances. An order will be made for the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the resident and his property. It must appropriately record any vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.
  16. In summary the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s report and arrange for scaffolding to be erected and work to commence. Following this it failed to support the resident with a reasonable adjustment. The resident felt he had no option but to move the items himself, at risk to his health. The landlord failed to update the resident throughout on the work schedule for the erection of the scaffolding and the programmed repair. It was delayed in erecting the scaffolding but did appropriately complete the programmed repair within the timescale in its policy. It completed an initial recall in an appropriate timescale. However, it failed to complete a further investigation to the brickwork as it promised in its stage 2 complaint response until the resident chased it over 3 months later.
  17. As such the Ombudsman finds there is service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £300 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £150 previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred, and the offer of compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the inappropriate handling of repairs at the property. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
    2. The landlord must complete a risk assessment of the resident and his property. It must ensure any further appropriate action is taken as a result, including recording any vulnerabilities on its records.