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

Torus62 Limited (202224281)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224281

Torus62 Limited

31 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her mobility scooter.
    2. The landlord’s provision of suitable storage for mobility scooters.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in an extra care facility for people aged over 55, which has a mandatory communal storage room for mobility scooters. The landlord has recorded the resident having a number of underlying medical issues, and she reports that these include chronic back pain.
  2. Following the landlord’s letter to and then meeting with residents of the resident’s facility in July and November 2021, respectively, about registering their mobility scooters, being considerate of others, and the lack of allocated spaces when using the storage room, it approved, ordered and fitted CCTV in the room from 3 March to 7 July 2022. Although it apologised to residents for the delay in delivering the CCTV due to this not being in stock during a meeting with them on 9 June 2022, when it also confirmed that it could not increase the size of the storage room, and might refuse future residents requiring a scooter as there was no more capacity. The landlord additionally asked residents who no longer used mobility scooters to dispose of these, and it advised them to take out insurance for their scooters.
  3. The resident reports that, in June 2022 she subsequently contacted the landlord to tell it her mobility scooter had been vandalised while in its storage space.
  4. On 11 August 2022, the resident then raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord, because her scooter vandalism report in June 2022 had been acknowledged by the landlord, but she had received no further correspondence about this. The resident wanted the landlord to pay for repairs to her scooter, and explain what action it was taking to stop damage happening again.
  5. On 17 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It explained that, due to fire safety regulations, it was unable to offer alternative storage for mobility scooters. It reiterated that, during its monthly meetings with residents, it asked them to respect each other’s property, and pointed out that scooters were left in the storage room at their own risk. It also told her that it had spoken with some residents on the ground floor with scooters and asked them to store these on their patios to free up space in storage. It apologised for the damage to the resident’s scooter, and explained it had taken steps to avoid future damage, including installing CCTV cameras in the storage space.
  6. The resident then reported to the landlord on 15 August 2022 that she had experienced an incident with a neighbour swearing at and assaulting her 2 days earlier over the location of her mobility scooter in the storage room, which she also reported to the police and the landlord agreed to meet with the neighbour about. It subsequently met with residents again on 5 September 2022, when it asked for all storage room incidents to be reported to it immediately, as it did not have the staff to monitor the CCTV there continuously, and it agreed to discuss re-arranging the room by scooter size and producing signs for this.
  7. On 12 September 2022, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that she had only been told to leave scooters in storage at her own risk when she received the landlord’s stage 1 response. Additionally, she said she had reported to the landlord each time her scooter had been damaged in the past year, and that the CCTV had been requested by residents and approved 5 months previously, but had only been installed in the last 6 weeks.
  8. The resident also stated that the mobility scooter storage space was not fit for purpose, was too small, and that sometimes she had to move scooters around to get to hers, which worsened her back problems. The resident felt that the landlord was responsible for the damage to her scooter in June 2022 that insurers had declined to cover, as it had told residents that they had to leave their scooters in storage. She requested £350 compensation towards a new scooter, and a better storage space at the facility.
  9. On 26 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated that it was unable to provide alternative mobility scooter storage due to fire safety regulations, and that it was unable to pay compensation as scooters were left at residents own risk, the same as cars in its car park facility. It apologised for any distress caused, and said it would put signs up to reiterate this to residents.
  10. The landlord also explained that expanding the storage space was not possible, and that it had discussed how to manage current or new residents who wished to use mobility scooters, in order to prevent further issues. It again recommended that the resident insure her scooter, as other residents had done so, and it said that it could help her with this if she needed support. It also said that its care team had been instructed to assist residents with moving scooters out of hours if needed.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, stating that this was because it had told residents that they left their mobility scooters in the storage room at their own risk when they had no choice but to leave these there. She wanted it to take responsibility for the damage to her scooter in the storage room, and to have this repaired, stating that it had never previously put notices in the room that these were left at the owners own risk, or taken steps to ensure that the scooters there were safe. The resident added that the landlord had told her that there were 5 stages to its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint raised with the landlord and her correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident mentioned that she wants the landlord to take responsibility for the damage to her scooter, and repair this. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about this. However, this part of her complaint is not something the Ombudsman can consider.
  2. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. We do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability, which is a legal issue and would need to be considered using legal avenues. Equally, the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to look at claims for damage the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to how the landlord handled reports of the damage, the subsequent advice and information it gave to the resident, and the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Reports of damage

  1. In its response to the resident’s complaint about damage to her mobility scooter, the landlord told the resident that it had previously asked all residents during its monthly meetings to respect each other’s property in the storage room. This is reflected in its meeting minutes from November 2021, which also confirmed that it had told them that there were no allocated spaces in the storage room.
  2. Prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in August 2022, in March 2022 during another residents meeting, the landlord confirmed it had approved the installation of CCTV in the storage space, to discourage malicious damage. It also suggested that residents should insure their mobility scooters, if they had not already done so.
  3. In a June 2022 meeting, the landlord confirmed to residents that delivery of the CCTV had been delayed due to lack of stock from the supplier. It apologised to residents for the delay, and recommended again that residents insure their mobility scooters. The CCTV was confirmed as installed during a meeting in July 2022.
  4. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint in August 2022, the landlord apologised for damage to her mobility scooter, and explained it had taken steps to try and prevent further damage, including installing CCTV in the storage space. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, given that it was not presented with photographs or evidence to demonstrate the damage had occurred in the storage space, or that the resident had previously reported the damage to it in June 2022.
  5. The resident has said that there was a delay in installing the CCTV once this was approved. While this was the case, the delay from 3 March to 7 July 2022 was caused by a lack of stock from the supplier, and not as the result of a fault by the landlord. The landlord had also kept residents updated on the delays and apologised, as per its meeting minutes in March, May and June 2022. This was reasonable.
  6. In 2 separate meetings in March and June 2022, the landlord recommended residents insure their mobility scooters against damage. It also explained to the resident that scooters were left at the owners risk, the same way as cars were left in its car parking facilities. This was reasonable, as it was not responsible for insuring against damage to the resident’s personal scooter that it had not caused or contributed to itself. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage 2 response that it would put signs up in the storage space to emphasise this.
  7. It was also appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response responded to the resident’s report that she had been declined insurance for her mobility scooter by explaining that other residents had been able to obtain this, and that it could help her with this if she needed support. However, it is concerning that, as its complaints procedure requires it to refer any issue that might give rise to a claim against its public liability insurance to its insurers, it did not do so for the resident’s damages claim, and so it has been recommended below to do so and review its relevant staff training needs.
  8. The resident has said that she first raised concerns about mobility scooter damage in June 2022, but did not get a response from the landlord until she raised a formal complaint in August 2022. She also states that she had logged multiple instances of damage over the course of a year. While it is unclear why there might have been a delay in the landlord responding to her concerns in June 2002, there is no indication of it receiving her reports from either its records or her evidence, and the landlord’s meeting minutes show that between November 2021 and July 2022 it was already taking action to avoid further damages.
  9. It is nevertheless of concern that there is no evidence from the landlord’s records that it received the reports that the resident said she made to it about the damage to her mobility scooter prior to her stage 1 complaint. As she has also not provided evidence of this, this does not necessarily indicate failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her mobility scooter. However, the landlord has been recommended below to review its record keeping processes and staff training needs regarding recording residents’ reports of damages, in order to ensure that evidence of these is kept in every case.

Storage

  1. In its meeting with residents in July 2021, the landlord asked residents to register their mobility scooters with it so it could confirm if any were not being used, and could subsequently be removed from the storage space to make more room.
  2. In a further meeting in June 2022, the landlord confirmed to residents that it could not do anything about the size of the storage, and asked residents who no longer used mobility scooters to dispose of these. It asked this again in its July 2022 meeting.
  3. In both of its responses to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it was unable to offer her alternative mobility scooter storage due to fire safety regulations. The landlord’s fire safety management states that, the landlord “will take action to remove items that are left in communal areas.” This includes mobility scooters, as they can “present a hazard by blocking important access and escape routes.”
  4. Additionally, the fire safety management plan states that, “in the case of mobility scooters, where no designated storage area exists, they must not be stored in access or escape routes. Under no circumstances should mobility scooters be charged in any communal areas, other than specially equipped designated charging/storage rooms.” This is also confirmed by the landlord’s mobility scooter information for residents factsheet and its home user guide for the resident’s facility. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer storage based on these regulations, as residents were unable to keep scooters in communal areas.
  5. The resident has stated that the storage space was not big enough or fit for purpose due to the number of mobility scooters at the facility. The landlord wrote to all its residents on 20 July 2021 explaining that it was not feasible to extend the storage space. However, it explained to them on 9 June 2022 that it had considered alternative options, including arranging mobility scooters in size order, not accepting new residents who relied on mobility scooters, and removing mobility scooters that were not being used.
  6. The landlord additionally previously introduced a mobility scooter registration scheme in July 2021 to help with this, and asked visitors to park scooters outside. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response subsequently confirmed that it had also asked its care team to assist residents with moving scooters around out of hours if they needed support. Given that the landlord was not obliged to provide storage space, the actions it took to try and reduce storage capacity problems were reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy is a 2 stage process. It states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 11 August 2022. The landlord responded on 17 August 2022. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 12 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 September 2022. This was also in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The resident has said that she was told by the landlord that its complaints procedure consisted of 5 stages. There is no information available to show that this was the case.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident in August 2022 stated that if the resident was dissatisfied with the response, she could request a review at the next stage of its process. Its stage 2 response then said that if she remained dissatisfied, she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman. There is no mention of a 5-stage complaints process in either letter, the landlord’s complaint policy both in writing and available to residents on its website, or in the home user guide given to the resident when she moved in. The landlord has also said that copies of its complaints policy are on communal notice boards at the facility.
  5. In summary, there is nothing to show that the landlord gave the resident any information to say it had a 5-stage complaints process, so there was no failing by it here.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her mobility scooter.
    2. The landlord’s provision of suitable storage for mobility scooters.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with details to enable her to submit a public liability insurance claim for it to refer to its insurers for the damages that she reported to her mobility scooter.
    2. Review its record keeping processes regarding recording residents’ reports of damages, in order to ensure that evidence of these is kept in every case.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to referring any issue that might give rise to a claim against its public liability insurance to its insurers, and recording residents’ reports of damages.