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

Torus62 Limited (202234170)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234170

Torus62 Limited

13 October 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 repairs, relating to:
    1. Reports of damp in the resident’s property.
    2. A defective stairlift.

Background

  1. The resident and landlord have an assured tenancy agreement. The resident occupies the 3-bedroom property with their daughter. The property is adapted with a stairlift to accommodate the resident’s health and mobility issues. All three bedrooms and the property’s only bathroom are located on the first floor.

Damp

  1. The landlord’s repair log showed it recorded an issue with damp at the resident’s property on 30 September 2022. The repair log recorded the issue as “damp in the bedroom”. The landlord arranged an appointment for a damp and condensation survey to be completed on 28 October 2022. It completed some subsequent repair work on 30 November 2022. This was recorded as “plaster patch the bedroom wall” and “fill in cracks”.
  2. The landlord completed another damp and condensation survey on 6 February 2023. The survey identified damp in the resident’s living room, around the chimney breast. It attended the resident’s property on 6 March 2023 to seal the chimney opening.
  3. The landlord identified the need to complete further work on 26 April 2023. The repair log detailed this work as “hack of tank and replaster section of wall adjoining to kitchen and left of front door and the chimney breast”. The repair log also referred to renewing skirting and replastering the “main stair wall”. The landlord completed these works and arranged for another survey of the resident’s property. The landlord said a surveyor had been “satisfied” with the work in June 2023, but the resident had spotted returning damp and raised their concerns again. A subsequent work order was raised by the landlord on 27 July 2023.
  4. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the damp issue remained outstanding as of 26 September 2023. The resident said that they continue to use a dehumidifier, which on average draws about “a bucket full” of water per day from the chimney.

Stairlift

  1. The resident reported their stairlift as inoperable in October 2022. This limited the resident’s ability to access the first floor of their property. The landlord arranged for the contractor responsible for the installation and maintenance of the stairlift to attend to the repair. The contractor declared that the stairlift required replacing in October 2022 and informed the landlord. The landlord said the member of staff responsible for the request to replace the stairlift did not take appropriate action when handling the contractor’s request. This resulted in the request being delayed until May 2023.
  2. The resident said they continued to stay at their parents’ property with their daughter, due to limited access to the rooms/facilities on the first floor of the property. The resident also raised concerns about health and safety, as the inoperable stairlift’s position posed a trip hazard.
  3. The landlord requested a quote for a new stairlift in May 2023 and one was fitted on 14 July 2023.

The resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 April 2023. They said that they had been raising issues “for years” and nothing had been done. The resident also said:
    1. Their stairlift had been condemned since October 2022.
    2. There was damp throughout their property, in particular the chimney.
    3. The lack of a working stairlift was having a huge impact on them, due to their health and mobility issues.
    4. They suffered from asthma, as did their daughter, and they were concerned about the damp having implications for their health.
    5. They require things to be put right and compensation.
  2. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 3 May 2023. The response acknowledged the resident’s complaint points and said that the landlord was waiting for a quote for a new stairlift. It also referred to a visit to the resident’s property on 26 April 2023, during which it had identified and scheduled a number of repairs for June 2023, including replastering and “topping up” roof insulation. The landlord apologised to the resident for them having cause to complain.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process on 11 May 2023. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 21 June 2023. The landlord said:
    1. The contractor responsible for the stairlift had been attempting to service it since May 2022 but had not been able to gain access to the resident’s property.
    2. The staff member responsible for the stairlift replacement request had failed to action the request and had since left their role.
    3. It would take around 4 weeks to install a replacement stairlift, from the date one had been requested.
    4. Work had been completed to treat the damp, but the resident had reported that it had returned, and the landlord would raise another work order to treat it.
    5. The length of time it took to deal with the inoperable stairlift and the stress/anxiety this had caused meant the complaint was upheld, and the landlord offered £1000 compensation.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Ombudsman. They requested that the landlord complete the outstanding works and pay appropriate compensation to resolve their complaint. The landlord said it had faced issues gaining access to the resident’s property on multiple occasions and confirmed that all works were completed, and a post inspection took place on 11 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Damp

  1. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident states “you [the resident] have the right to have repairs for which we [the landlord] are responsible carried out in the timescales set out in the policy in force at the time the request for the repair is made.” Therefore, it was reasonable of the resident to assume that their reports of damp in the property would be addressed within the appropriate timescales.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy outlines the approach to repairs, including response timescales. The policy categorises repairs into “emergency” and “by arrangement.” The associated timescales for those categories are:
    1. Emergency – the repair will be made safe within 4 hours and repaired within 24 hours.
    2. By arrangement – carried out to suit the resident’s availability and completed within 20 calendar days.
  3. Given the timescales set out in the repair policy, the resident should have reasonably expected the landlord to treat and take preventative action against the damp within 20 calendar days. The landlord’s repair log shows it attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions between September 2022 and September 2023. The landlord completed a number of repairs, including replastering, replacing broken roof tiles and multiple damp surveys. However, the resident continued to report issues with damp in the property and confirmed to the Ombudsman that those issues remained outstanding as of 26 September 2023. The landlord said in its stage two complaint response that a surveyor had been satisfied the damp had been treated. Where there is disagreement regarding the presence of damp and mould, the Ombudsman recommends an independent survey be carried out to determine whether damp is still present. If the survey identifies damp, the landlord must take appropriate action within the applicable repair policy timescales.
  4. The landlord’s approach, taking more than one attempt to address an issue, is not uncommon. In this case, it was not evident that the landlord’s attempt at addressing the damp in the resident’s property would be temporary until after the fact. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving damp is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of investigation and elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see that an action plan is developed by the landlord which is overseen and closely monitored to ensure the cause is identified at the earliest opportunity and a prompt remedy is then implemented. The landlord should have identified the requirement for an investigation into the source of the damp sooner, and taken more substantial and permanent preventative action when the resident continued to report the issue.
  5. While the landlord has provided a repair log to show it arranged for multiple damp surveys of the resident’s property, it has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to demonstrate the findings and recommendations of those surveys. If a survey identified the existence of damp in the property, it is likely the survey would have also made recommendations to treat and prevent the return of damp. As those surveys have not been shared with the Ombudsman, it is unable to determine whether recommendations were made, or if they were followed. Irrespective of those surveys and any recommendations, it is clear from the repair log that the actions the landlord did complete (e.g., replastering) did not prevent the damp from returning. The landlord’s failure to permanently repair the issue meant the resident had been living with damp in their property for around 12 months and, according to their communication with the Ombudsman, continues to do so.
  6. In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance, damp and mould are potential hazards, and as such, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that demonstrated the landlord was exploring every possible solution to try to resolve the issues with damp. The available evidence shows that the landlord was aware that damp was evident “throughout the property” but failed to remedy the source of the issue. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow the HHSRS guidance and its own repair policy.
  7. The Ombudsman has identified a failure by the landlord to permanently address one of the resident’s substantive issues and has determined it must act to put things right. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £600 to £1000 may be appropriate for cases where there has been a failure by the landlord which significantly affected the resident, and the landlord has not acknowledged those failings. Therefore, this service has determined £1000 to be fair and proportionate to the considerable impact living with damp for 12 months would have had on the resident, who had health and mobility issues. While the landlord had been proactive with some repairs (e.g. hacking off and replastering) and surveys of the property, it failed to address the resident’s substantive issue by permanently repairing the damp.

Stairlift

  1. The resident first reported the stairlift as “unusable” in October 2022. The stairlift was an adaptation which assisted the resident with accessing the first floor of the property, which included the bedrooms and the property’s only bathroom. When the stairlift ceased, working access became limited for the resident, who described having to go up and down the stairs in a seated position whenever they wanted to go to their bedroom or bathroom. The position of the broken stairlift also left only a small space for the resident, their children, and any visitors to pass through to access the first floor. This would have had a significant impact on an able-bodied resident having to manoeuvre around the stairlift, let alone a resident with mobility issues.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that a contractor was responsible for the maintenance and replacing of the resident’s stairlift. However, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the contractor acted within a reasonable timescale, and in line with the repair policy. The landlord was also responsible for keeping the resident informed of the status of the repair and advising of any delays and/or estimated completion dates. Instead, it was not until the landlord’s stage one complaint response that the landlord informed the resident that it was waiting for a quote from the contractor. The resident also received visits to conduct a service of the stairlift, whilst it had been inoperable. This further demonstrated poor communication between the landlord and contractor, which negatively impacted the resident’s experience.
  3. The resident was told that the contractor had sent the necessary request for the stairlift to be replaced to the landlord. However, this had been sent to a specific member of landlord staff who failed to action the request and later left their role. The landlord’s failure to action the request meant this added to the substantial delays in waiting for the replacement stairlift to be fitted. The resident lived with an inoperable stairlift in their property, posing a safety hazard and making access to the first floor difficult, for over 9 months (41 weeks). This had a continued significant impact on the resident’s day-to-day life, having to stay away from their home for prolonged periods to be able to safely access a bedroom and bathroom.
  4. The repair policy referred to earlier in this report suggests the landlord was expected to repair the resident’s stairlift within 20 working days. The same policy also states “…some customers are vulnerable and may require an enhanced repairs service either on a permanent or temporary basis. [The landlord] will strive to provide this enhanced service…”. The resident has ongoing health and mobility issues and relies on the stairlift to facilitate their enjoyment of the property. It is the view of this service that the resident, having lost use of the stairlift was vulnerable as defined by the landlord’s own policy. There is no evidence to suggest the resident was considered for an ‘enhanced’ service as required by the landlord’s policy.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord and contractor had made failed attempts to visit the resident’s property on several different occasions. The visits were prior to and during the issues with the stairlift, and some also related to other repairs not part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had been unable to gain access for some of these appointments and, specific to the stairlift, had been unable to gain access on “5 separate occasions” to complete “monthly checks”.
  6. This Service notes the landlord’s comments regarding missed servicing appointments and difficulties gaining access to the property, however, the substantive complaint under consideration by the Ombudsman relates to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair the inoperable stairlift, and not the circumstances which led to it becoming defective.
  7. The landlord has also mentioned having “limited resources” available to complete outstanding work orders. While this information may have been accurate at the time, it is not something which should have impacted the resident’s ability to get a timely repair. The landlord is responsible for ensuring it has enough resources available to fulfil its obligations, in line with the appropriate policies. Particularly when considering the vulnerabilities of the resident, as outlined in the landlord’s own repairs policy.
  8. The landlord addressed the substantial failures associated with replacing the resident’s stairlift during the complaint process. The landlord subsequently offered the resident £1000 compensation for the length of time taken and the impact on the resident. While this offer of compensation went some way towards putting things right for the resident, the Ombudsman has determined it fell short of being proportionate to the significant impact the lack of a functioning stairlift had on the resident. The resident was unable to access the first floor of their property for a significant period of time and, therefore, had to seek alternative arrangements that further impacted on their day-to-day living. Therefore, this service has considered additional compensation based on rent.
  9. The Ombudsman must also note that, had the landlord not taken reasonable steps in an attempt to put things right by completing some repairs and making an offer of compensation, it is likely a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
  10. The resident was unable to make full use of their property, namely their bedroom and bathroom, due to the inoperable stairlift. This caused significant disruption to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that a 40% (15% for the bedroom and 25% for the bathroom) proportion of the resident’s weekly rent is appropriate for 41 weeks. The resident’s daughter was able to access their bedroom, albeit challenging, and therefore the other bedrooms have not been used for this calculation. The number of weeks has been calculated using the first report of the stairlift being inoperable (October 2022) and a replacement being fitted (14 July 2023). The calculation is based on the basic weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £110.77. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £1,816.62.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs relating to the resident’s reports of damp in their property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs relating to a defective stairlift.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2,816.62 compensation, in addition to the £1,000 offered during its complaint process. This amount is made up of:
    1. £1,000 for failing to address and permanently repair the resident’s damp issue, and the continued distress and inconvenience this caused.
    2. £1,816.62 calculated using rent as a basis for the resident being unable to access their bedroom or bathroom, as calculated earlier in this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to arrange an independent survey to determine the situation regarding damp within the property within 28 days. The landlord is also ordered to discuss a subsequent schedule of work with the resident to complete a permanent repair of any damp identified from the survey. The schedule must include timescales for works to be completed. The landlord should share a copy of the schedule of work with the resident and the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its process for logging and progressing repair-related requests, particularly from contractors. In this case, the failure of one member of staff had a significant impact on the resident. The review should consider whether the landlord is able to ensure requests are not determined or actioned by one single member of staff, and that its system allows for efficient monitoring of requests.
  2. The landlord is recommended to apply the principles contained in its repairs policy for vulnerable residents – that they receive an “enhanced service” – when considering how it manages interactions with the resident in respect to the ongoing servicing requirements of the newly replaced stairlift.
  3. The Ombudsman identified poor communication between the landlord, resident, and contractor during the investigation. The landlord may have since addressed these matters with the contractor through its contract management processes, but if it has not done so already, should review its relationship with any contractors to ensure communication is efficient and delays are avoided where possible. Where delays are not avoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the impacted resident.