Torus62 Limited — case 202433269

Decision Case ID 202433269 Decision type Investigation Landlord Torus62 Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 27 January 2026 Background The resident is unhappy with the way the landlord has responded to her request for repairs and reports of damp and mould since she moved into the property via a mutual exchange. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs request for repairs to a lean-to request for a new kitchen We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination) We have found: maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to a lean-to no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Damp and mould The landlord repeatedly failed to book inspections and carry out work in line with its repairs policy timescale.

It also failed to follow-up to ensure that works had been effective, meaning the resident had to raise multiple reports about damp and mould over a prolonged period. Repairs to the lean-to The landlord has been unable to provide evidence that the resident was made aware at the time of the mutual exchange that it did not install the lean-to and that she would be responsible for maintenance and repairs. New kitchen We have seen no evidence the resident was promised a new kitchen.

The landlord relied on its internal expert’s opinion that the kitchen does not need replacing, which was reasonable. Complaint handling There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2. It failed to acknowledge these in its stage 2 response. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 24 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £100 as offered in its stage 2 response £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in responding to damp and mould £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issue with the lean-to £50 for its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 24 February 2026 3 Completing the works and setting out repairs responsibilities The landlord must take all steps to ensure it meets with the resident by the due date and provides us and the resident with a report setting out the following: what steps it is going to take to get the lean-to into a safe and serviceable condition what it has agreed with the resident about the ongoing maintenance of the lean-to No later than 24 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 28 August 2024 The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repairs.

She said that several contractors had visited and promised to raise works, but it had not carried out work. She said she had heard nothing about a damp issue she had raised in October 2023. She also said she had recently been told her kitchen would not be replaced which contradicted what she was previously told. 11 September 2024 The landlord told the resident it needed more time to investigate the complaint. 18 September 2024 The landlord again told the resident it needed more time to investigate the complaint.

25 September 2024 The landlord sent its stage 1 response, in which it said: a damp survey was carried out on 13 December 2023 – jobs were raised which were completed on 25 January 2024 the kitchen was surveyed on 8 January 2024 and further work was completed in April 2024 the kitchen was due for renewal in 11-15 years repairs to an outside lean-to/canopy were the resident’s responsibility – it said this was explained at the time of the mutual exchange 11 October 2024 The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.

24 October 2024 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. 25 November 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 response, in which it said: it had identified on 4 October 2024 that repairs were needed to the chimney stack, but said this work had not been raised – it offered £100 compensation to recognise this delay it was satisfied it had acted correctly in delaying a job in the kitchen that needed the sink to be removed the kitchen was safe, useable and not due for renewal Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as she said that there were still issues outstanding.

She wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen, complete repairs and resolve damp and mould issues. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs Finding Maladministration The resident reported damp and mould on 27 October 2023 and the landlord raised a work order.

It carried out an inspection on 13 December 2023. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescale which says it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. Following this inspection, it identified repairs needed to kitchen units and for an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom, and an associated roof vent. The landlord carried out the work to the kitchen units on 25 January 2024, slightly outside its policy timescale. At this visit it made a referral to assess the kitchen.

The landlord completed work to install the roof vent and extractor fan on 18 March 2024. This was outside the policy timescale and represented an unreasonable delay. The landlord attempted to visit to assess the kitchen and bathroom for mould on 16 April 2024 but was unable to gain access. It attended again on 13 August 2024. However, its records do not show that it made any attempts in the 4 months in between, which was not appropriate. It raised repairs to the kitchen and a contractor attended on 16 August 2024 to carry out the work.

During this visit the resident said she could smell damp behind the sink and the contractor asked the landlord to inspect the remaining units. The landlord raised an order for a further inspection on 28 August 2024. In the meantime, it booked for a contractor to attend on 11 September 2024 to remove a unit and inspect/mould wash behind. A contractor attended on this date but it was too late in the day to get the work done, so it did not carry out any work. On 4 October 2024 the landlord identified that it needed to repoint a chimney stack and it said it would make a referral for scaffolding.

It returned to complete the work in the kitchen on 18 October 2024. On 22 November it carried out work to replace mortar between some cracked bricks. In its stage 2 response of 25 November 2024 the landlord said it was reasonable for the contractor to have not started work they knew they could not finish which would leave her without a sink. While we appreciate this was a reasonable decision by the contractor at the time, the landlord was aware of the required job and should have booked an appropriate length appointment.

This led to an unreasonable delay of 5 weeks, which it failed to acknowledge. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to arrange scaffolding for the work to the chimney stack and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise this failing. It said the work had been reraised. It subsequently completed this work on 23 December 2024, so its response to this specific repair was reasonable. The landlord carried out the inspection requested on 28 August 2024 on 16 December 2024, which represented a further unreasonable delay, outside of its repairs policy timescale.

It identified further repairs which it completed in January 2025. We have seen no evidence the landlord carried out a post-work inspection to ensure it had resolved damp and mould issues. This is not in line with its damp and mould policy, which says it will review all damp and mould works after 6 months to ensure the proposed solution has been effective. In February 2025 the resident reported further damp concerns. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 9 June 2025, which was again not in line with its policy and was not a reasonable timeframe.

This inspection identified several repairs that likely contributed to damp and mould in the property, and the landlord completed works during June and July 2025. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was not reasonable. It repeatedly took too long to carry out inspections after the resident raised issues and then took too long to carry out the identified repairs. It failed to follow up on works to ensure these had resolved the damp issues, meaning the resident had to report further problems.

It failed to identify the extent of its failings during its internal complaints process and did not put a plan in place to ensure it had resolved the problems. The resident has told us that despite the works carried out during June and July 2025, there is still a damp smell in the property, particularly in the loft. She also told us that paint is still peeling off the living room wall, since the landlord replastered the area. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged damp issues.

We have made this award with our remedies guidance in mind. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £500. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to a lean-to Finding Service failure The resident moved into the property following a mutual exchange in September 2022. She has told us that when she viewed the property, the landlord did not tell her anything about the lean-to, or whose responsibility it was to maintain. The landlord has provided a copy of a mutual exchange inspection form from August 2022 which notes the presence of a fixed canopy but does not provide any further detail about this.

The outgoing tenant signed this inspection form, but there is no evidence to show the resident saw this form. A work order of 19 July 2024 noted that the lean-to roof had holes in that needed filling but we have seen no evidence that the landlord completed any work. In her complaint the resident told the landlord she was unhappy that repairs remained outstanding. In its stage 1 response of 25 September 2024 the landlord told the resident that she was responsible for repairs to the lean-to but did not provide any additional explanation of this.

In its stage 2 response of 25 November 2024, it said the previous tenant installed the lean-to and that she had accepted responsibility for repairs when accepting the mutual exchange. The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for maintaining and repairing parts of the outside of the property including to structures that they have installed. In this case the resident did not install the lean-to. The landlord has told us it cannot provide evidence that it made the resident made aware at the time of the mutual exchange that the previous tenant installed the lean-to.

So, it is not reasonable for the landlord to apply that term here, as it has not made the resident reasonably aware of her responsibility. We have seen no evidence that she could have known that the landlord did not install the lean-to. We recognise that the landlord did not install the lean-to and therefore repairs should likely not be its responsibility under its policy terms. The landlord must meet with the resident to agree a way to rectify outstanding issues with the lean-to and set out clear responsibilities for it moving forward.

We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to set out her repair responsibilities when she moved into the property. We have made this award with our remedies guidance in mind. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen Finding No maladministration The resident has told us that a member of staff of the landlord told her that she was due a replacement kitchen.

After reviewing the evidence from both parties, we have not found confirmation of this commitment. We appreciate that this may be disappointing for the resident. However, our investigation must be based on the evidence available. In this case, we have focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord carried out a survey of the kitchen on 13 August 2024. It found issues with mould but said that it was repairable and would be fully usable once repairs were completed.

In its stage 1 response of 25 September 2024 the landlord told the resident that it was not due for renewal for a further 11-15 years. It has provided a copy of a stock condition survey which supports this. The landlord said that it would survey the kitchen in the next 5 years so it was possible that this timeframe could change. This explanation was reasonable and supported by its expert’s opinion. Its stage 2 response of 25 November 2025 reiterated what it said at stage 1. It said that it had no evidence she had been told it would be added to its replacement programme sooner.

The landlord acted in line with the findings of its survey and communicated this consistently to the resident in its complaint responses, which was fair. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure As can be seen above: the landlord told the resident it needed more time to investigate 10 working days after she raised the complaint (28 August to 11 September 2024) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days it told the resident it needed more time 5 working days later (11 September to 18 September 2024) it sent its stage 1 response on 5 working days later (18 September to 25 September) – in line with policy timescale of 20 working days where an extension is required it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request after 9 working days (11 October to 24 October 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 5 working days it sent its stage 2 response 22 working days after its acknowledgement (24 October to 25 November 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days We have not seen any evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

However, overall, it kept her updated when it needed more time and sent its stage 1 response in line with its policy. At stage 2 it did not acknowledge the escalation request promptly and its stage 2 response was slightly delayed. It failed to acknowledge these delays in its response. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. We have made this award with our remedies guidance in mind.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord has been unable to provide clear, written records of what was discussed with the resident at the time of the mutual exchange. This has led to a lack of clarity over repairs responsibilities. Its own internal investigation showed that it had failed to raise works, leading to repair delays. The landlord should consider whether its processes are sufficient to have a robust oversight of repairs. Communication The landlord’s records for this case do not demonstrate effective communication.

There were prolonged periods between the resident raising repairs issues and the landlord arranging inspections and repairs. We have seen no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated when it was unable to carry out works within its policy timescales. The landlord should ensure it keeps the resident updated when works are delayed.