Torus62 Limited — case 202416059

REPORT COMPLAINT 202416059 Torus62 Limited 2 September 2025 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 The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Repairs to the wet room. Repairs to the heating and hot water system.

The resident’s temporary decant. The associated complaint. Record keeping. Background The property is a 2-bed semi-detached bungalow. The resident moved into the property with her partner and child after it was built in 2022. The resident has mobility issues and states she uses a wheelchair. Her daughter has autism. The landlord is aware of these conditions. The property has an air source heat pump and underfloor heating rather than gas central heating. The resident reported in February 2024 that there was a leak from the heating system.

She said water was “everywhere” including under the flooring. She reported a further leak in March 2024. On 5 April 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said: The heating and hot water had been “intermittent” since they moved in. Water from the shower leaked into the hallway and her daughter’s bedroom. This had caused “significant damage” to her hallway flooring and she had found mould growing underneath. In February 2024 she had reported loss of heating and hot water.

The landlord moved the family to a hotel for 3 days. It moved them back into the property despite not having completed any repairs. She reported a leak in the heating system in March 2024. It took 33 days for an operative to attend. Due to her disability she was unable to use the shower unless her partner was home to mop up the leaks. The leak had caused the floor to be uneven so she could not use her wheelchair. She and her daughter both had asthma, and the damp was affecting their health.

She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and to reimburse her for her high utility bills and damage to her flooring. The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation in a hotel on 19 April 2024. The landlord states it contacted the resident on 22 April 2024 advising it would need longer to respond to her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 May 2024. It said it: Was satisfied it had resolved the leak to the plant room. Would monitor the wet room repairs to ensure it completed them to the resident’s satisfaction.

Recognised there had been a service failure due to delays in repairing the wet room and decanting her from the property. Was due to complete the wet room repairs by 9 May 2024. Would offer her compensation when the repairs were complete. On 10 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with the repairs and the decant, and with its communication. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2024. It said: It understood its communication had not been consistent and timely.

It had therefore allocated a single point of contact (SPOC). It believed it could resolve the leak from the wet room by installing a fixed shower screen. If the resident agreed, it would work with the local authority to expedite an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. The heating system was not turned on when operatives attended. It had turned it back on and reset the thermostats. It would arrange a demonstration of the system for her when she returned to the property. It had temporarily rehoused her from 19 April 2024 in hotels and a short-term holiday rental.

It had worked with her to find accommodation suitable her for accessibility requirements and which could accommodate her dog. She had requested more stability in the temporary accommodation. While the heating and plumbing repair issues were “complex”, it had taken too long to resolve the wet room repairs. It upheld the complaint. It apologised and offered £3,400 compensation which included: £1,000 due to the significant impact of repair delays. £1,000 for “stress and anxiety caused” by the loss of the wet room.

£1,000 for loss of the wet room facility. £400 for increased energy costs including the use of a dehumidifier. This was in addition to it paying to replace her floor covering and the daily food allowance paid while they were in hotel accommodation. The resident remained in temporary accommodation until 25 July 2024 when she returned to the property. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues. She escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she said repairs remained incomplete.

The resident states that at the time of our investigation, the landlord has not reinstated the heating system and the family are still using temporary electric heaters. She also states aids and adaptations to the bathroom remain outstanding. Assessment and findings Scope of the investigation The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she first reported issues with the heating and hot water system in November 2022. However, the matter was not subject to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure until April 2024 following the resident’s contact with this Service.

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from November 2023 onwards.

This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. The resident’s initial complaint regarding the wet room related to flooding due to the flooring draining the wrong way. The landlord requested an OT report which recommended several other aids and adaptations. We acknowledge that these aids and adaptations to the wet room have not been completed. We consider however that this is a separate issue to the repairs to resolve the flooding raised by the resident and considered by the landlord in its complaint responses.

We have not therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the aids and adaptations to the wet room within this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with this issue she should raise a new complaint with the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s internal complaints process, she may bring the matter to the Ombudsman. Repairs to the wet room. The resident told the landlord on 7 February 2024 that the wet room was not draining properly. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 20 February 2024 to check the fall on the wet room floor.

This was within the 20-day timeframe for routine repairs outlined in its repairs policy. We recognise however that given the resident’s disability the issue would have had a greater impact on her. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to consider prioritising this inspection. This would have been in keeping with its policy which stated it would make “reasonable and proportionate” attempts to tailor its service to meet “individual circumstances”. The records show the surveyor discussed with the development team recalling the contractor that installed the floor.

We have not seen evidence that it followed this action up. This was a missed opportunity. The surveyor raised an order for mould washes to the bathroom and any other affected areas. The landlord carried this out the next day, 21 February 2024. This was a prompt response and in line with the 24-hour timeframe for emergency repairs outlined in its repair policy. Notes from the mould wash appointment state that the property had “ongoing issues” with leaks that had not been rectified so the mould wash was a “stop gap measure at best”.

We would therefore have expected the landlord to consider what longer term actions it could take to resolve the issue. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It also states they should be proactive in tackling potential problems. Had the landlord followed these recommendations it might have prevented service failure. On 1 March 2024 the landlord attended to clear a blockage to the shower drain.

The operative reported: ‘there are no issues with the shower drain… it is flowing as it should. The issue is with the wetroom floor. As soon as any water hits the floor it falls towards the door and the WC, which has already caused a lot of damage to the hallway floor which has had to be taken up. There are other issues with the seals on the wet room floor in the corners… Can this be chased up ASAP and can someone please make contact with the tenant to get the issues resolved.

’ The landlord’s records indicate that it attended again on 14 March 2024. The contractor reported that the concrete floor in the wet room was level and required lowering. They also recommended that the vinyl should be renewed and rigid tile trims fitted to replace the flexi. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 7 May 2024 indicated that these works were scheduled to be completed by 9 May 2024. The resident’s communications with the landlord indicate it cut off the water supply to the property on 15 April 2024 due to uncontrollable leaks.

The landlord accepts that it told the resident on this date it would decant her but did not do so until 19 April 2024. The resident and her family were therefore living in the property with no access to running water for 4 days. The reason for the delay in decanting the resident and her family is not apparent from the evidence. However, that they were left without running water for this period was entirely unacceptable particularly considering the additional needs of the resident and her child.

The landlord attended on 2 and 3 May 2024. The repair records indicate that the vinyl was removed, the concrete screed to the shower base was ‘hacked up’ and three layers of screed was applied with levellers and new vinyl. This work should have ensured that the fall in the wet room was corrected. However, there is no indication that the contractor tested the shower to ensure the water was now draining away. The landlord visited the property with the council on 29 May 2024. The landlord’s major adaptations team leader concluded that the wet room was designed with a fixed shower screen.

They noted that the previous removal of the screen rendered the wet room not for purpose as it does not contain the water when the shower is in use. The landlord’s major adaptations team leader recommended that the shower controls and head were moved to the opposite wall taking the water to the furthest point from the door and form the shower floor in this area, with a slight back fall from the doorway to the shower area to allow for any excess water. It was also agreed that an occupational therapist assessment should be completed to consider adaptations in the wet room to support the resident.

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 31 May 2024 appears to acknowledge that the repair to the wet room floor and the installation of a weighted shower curtain had not resolved the issue and water continued to run towards the door. However, it did not include reference to the major adaptations team leader’s recommendations. Instead, it suggested that the leak from the wet room was best rectified by installing a fixed shower screen. It appears that there may have been a difference of opinion on what action, if any, the landlord should take in the wet room.

Internal email correspondence indicates that the landlord’s business improvement and innovation consultant believed that the shower and wet room were functioning as expected. They shared a video from the wet room with the shower on to support his view. They believed a switch back to a shower screen would be sufficient. Upon receipt of the occupational therapist’s assessment completed on 15 July 2024, the landlord appears to have decided to progress with the wet room alterations recommended by its major adaptations team leader.

The occupational therapist stated that the wetroom should be amended to ‘accommodate an extra wide shower chair with adequate space and the water from the shower should be contained sufficiently with correct positioning of a shower curtain so that water does not escape and flood other areas’. The occupational therapist therefore does not appear to support a return to a shower screen. The landlord has provided a copy of a quote for alterations to the wet room dated 14 August 2024.

This indicates that the shower would be moved to the opposite wall to be further away from the door. A new tray would be installed and the flooring amended to create a fall. These changes do not appear to have been completed until June 2025. The resident has reported that the changes have not resolved the issues in the wet room. As such, it is clear that the landlord’s complaints process, up to its stage 2 complaint response dated 31 May 2024 failed to resolve the resident’s concerns with the wet room.

This response failed to include the advice of the landlord’s major adaptations team leader. The landlord instead recommended reinstalling the shower screen, which was inappropriate for the resident. It is acknowledged that the delay the resident experienced waiting for the landlord to act on the major adaptations team leader’s recommendations between May 2024 and June 2025 appears to be, on the face of it, excessive. However, the landlord’s original compensation offer of £3,000 is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced, the time and trouble of raising the issue on multiple occasions, as well as the loss of the wet room facility up to 31 May 2024.

As the resident has reported that the wet room remains unfit for purpose, it is ordered that the landlord arranges a joint visit with the landlord’s surveyor, its major adaptations team leader, a member of its senior leadership and the council’s housing standards team to assess the wet room and listen to the resident’s outstanding concerns. Given the length of time this matter has been unresolved, the landlord should consider appointing an independent expert to carry out further investigations and make recommendations.

The landlord is required to provide the resident and this Service with a report outlining the findings of its investigations and an action plan with timeframes for works to resolve the issues. Repairs to the heating and hot water system. On 28 November 2023 the resident reported a leak to the heat pump system. The records show the landlord attended on the same day. This was within its policy timeframe for initial attendance for emergency repairs. On inspection the operative decided an engineer from the heating system manufacturer needed to attend.

The landlord raised an order for the manufacturer to inspect the system. It attended on 1 December 2023. The records show it found the condensate pipe was leaking so it replaced this and the heating was left working. The repair was completed within 3 days, this was within its policy timeframe of 20 days for routine repairs. At the end of January 2024 the resident reported that her heating and hot water was not working. The landlord raised a repair but then cancelled this noting it was “issued in error”.

It is not clear from the records whether the landlord attended and whether the heating and hot water were working. This indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping. On 8 February 2024 the resident reported a leak in the underfloor heating system. She said there was water “everywhere”. The landlord arranged for a specialist heating engineer to attend. The evidence shows the heating engineer attended on 12 February 2024 and carried out a pressure test of the underfloor heating.

They reported that they could not find a leak in the heating system and they suspected the leak was from the wet room. The engineer confirmed that they left the heating working. The resident stated within her stage 1 complaint that following her report of a leak in the heating system, the landlord decanted her to a hotel for 3 days. She said that the landlord requested an inspection by the heating manufacturer but that they did not attend until “55 days later”. The landlord has not refuted the resident’s account.

We have not however seen any reference to this decant in its records. This incident and details regarding the decant should have been recorded. That they were not indicates serious gaps in the landlord’s record keeping and is inappropriate. On 21 February 2024 the resident again reported that she had no heating. The landlord arranged for the heating engineer to attend the following day. They found no sign of a leak, but the pressure in the system was low. The engineer manually filled the system to the correct level, reset the controls as requested by the resident and left the heating working.

The resident reported a leak in the plant room at the start of March 2024. The evidence shows the landlord booked an appointment to inspect the issue but that when it attended on 7 March 2024 the resident was not home. The resident disputes this account. She stated in her stage 1 complaint that no one attended until 33 days after her report. We do not have evidence to corroborates either account. Therefore, we are unable to draw any conclusions about whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.

On 5 April 2024 the resident complained that her heating and hot water was “intermittent”. She also said there was a leak to the plant room from the heating system. The landlord arranged for the heating engineer to attend on 8 April 2024. They reported that they found the heating system in standby mode due to the time zone settings being incorrect. The heating engineer noted that the system pressure was normal. They highlighted that there was evidence of water leaking into the cupboard.

However, the heating engineer did not find a leak present and was unsure what the source of moisture in the cupboard was. Given the issues reported and because this was not a traditional heating system, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide further support to the resident in its use. The landlord should have also further investigated the source of the moisture in the cupboard. That it did not take these steps at this time was a missed opportunity. The resident reported a “uncontainable” leak from the boiler on 19 April 2024.

The landlord arranged for the heating engineer to attend the same day. They noted that the resident reported a severe water leak overnight. The heating engineer found the cupboard still damp, but no leak was detected and they were unable to locate the source of the previous leak. They noted that the water supply had been isolated and still needed to be restored. The resident stated within her emails to the landlord on 19 April 2024 that the water supply to the property was turned off on 15 April 2024 and she had been unable to bathe since.

That the water supply was turned off as early as 15 April 2024 is not reflected in the landlord’s repair records. The landlord has not however disputed the resident’s account. We therefore consider this was a gap in the landlord’s records and a further record keeping failing. The evidence shows that in May 2024 the landlord contacted the manufacturer of the heating system regarding a “boiler issue”. The manufacturer’s engineer attended on 15 May 2024. Their job report states: ‘pressure loss on system…tested cylinder and heat pump.

All okay…opened underfloor heating manifold – pressure dropped by 0.1 bar. Leak on system’.. It is not clear whether this prompted the landlord to undertake any repairs at this time. This is further evidence of record keeping inadequacies as such details should have been recorded. The resident raised further concerns about the system in late July 2024 and early August 2024. The landlord arranged for the manufacturer to attend several times in August 2024 to check the pressure in the heating system.

This was appropriate. Communications between the landlord and the manufacturer show that it suspected there was a leak in the underfloor heating system. Throughout August and early September 2024 the resident asked the landlord for updates about the heating system issue on several occasions. She said she was worried she would be left without heating and hot water during the winter period. That the resident had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for a response was unreasonable and caused her avoidable distress.

The landlord replied to the resident in early September 2024 and said the manufacturer would carry out testing of the system. It said this would take up to 2 weeks and that during this time she would not have heating that it would provide temporary heaters. It said her hot water would not be affected. The manufacturer started testing on 17 September 2024. It found a leak within the system and, following further tests it located and isolated the leak. However, the resident continued to report that the heating was only working intermittently.

The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 27 September 2024. It acknowledged that the underfloor heating system pressure has been dropping and required topping up every 48 hours. The landlord noted that the resident had now been briefed on how to do this herself and she was capable of topping up the pressure. It explained that it had now isolated two leaks in the system, which were affecting the hallway and bathroom. The landlord indicated that it was still investigating the issue to identify the appropriate fix.

At the time of this report the resident has told us that the landlord had recently completed additional works and assured her that it has now altered the heating system to auto edit the water pressure and there are no leaks.. She said she remained doubtful that all issues with the heating system have been resolved. The resident confirmed that she had continued to have to use temporary heaters at “great expense”. We acknowledge that repair issues are not always simple. It is not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out several visits to resolve a repair, particularly where the issue is complex and the root cause is unknown.

It is evident the landlord was finding it difficult to identify the root cause of the issues with the heating and hot water system. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving issues can be a case of ruling out causes until the source of the problem is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented.

In this case we have not seen evidence that the landlord planned its approach to investigate and remedy the issues until August 2024. This was 9 months after the resident reported a leak in the system, an unreasonable and excessive delay. That the resident’s issues with the heating and hot water system remain unresolved almost a year after her formal complaint is inappropriate. Overall, the landlord has failed to resolve the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water system.

While we acknowledge that the issue has been complex to diagnose, the landlord has failed to effectively manage and monitor the issue. The resident has had to invest considerable time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates. She has also experienced distress and inconvenience due to intermittent access to heating and hot water and financial detriment due to use of temporary heaters for extended periods. We therefore consider that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.

The resident’s temporary decant. On 15 April 2024 the landlord told the resident that she needed to be decanted. Two days later she contacted the landlord asking for an update. She said it had told her that the property was “uninhabitable”. The notes described the resident as “clearly distressed” on the call. The landlord’s internal emails demonstrate that it was aware that it should have contacted the resident by this time to arrange the decant. It is unclear therefore why it failed to take any action to address the issue and provide her with an update.

This was inappropriate and caused the resident evident distress. On 19 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again asking for an update on the decant. She reported that she felt suicidal. She also said the stress was having an increased impact on her family as she was disabled and her 4-year-old daughter was autistic. Given the resident’s statement, the landlord should have adopted an empathetic approach and taken action to ensure that the resident and her family were safe.

At minimum it should have assessed the risk to the resident and considered making referrals to agencies who could provide support if required. We have not seen evidence of such actions and this was inappropriate. On 19 April 2024 the landlord decanted the resident and her family into a hotel. The hotel room was accessible. This demonstrated that the landlord had reasonably considered the disability needs of the resident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any formal documentation in relation to the decant.

It has confirmed in response to our information request that it made all arrangements with the resident by telephone and email. This was not in line with its temporary decant procedure. The procedure states the landlord will write to the resident confirming the decant. It has a template letter for this purpose which outlines the address of the decant and the estimated length of the decant. That the landlord failed to follow its own procedure was inappropriate. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2024 and asked how long she would be in temporary accommodation.

She contacted it again 3 days later repeating her question. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded. This was an example of poor communication and a missed opportunity to support the resident and manage her expectations. The landlord’s decant procedure states that it will maintain “regular contact” with the resident. It also states it will ensure they are “adequately supported” and “kept updated on the timescales for returning to their property”. The evidence shows that the resident regularly had to contact the landlord asking for updates.

Often, she had to chase repeatedly for information about where it was moving her to and accessibility arrangements. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have ensured that it communicated with the resident proactively and let her know with as much notice as possible of any changes to her accommodation. On 3 May 2024 the resident was moved to a different room in the same hotel. The evidence shows the landlord was aware the room was not accessible but that no accessible rooms were available within the hotel or in nearby hotels.

The resident told the landlord that the room had an over bath shower so she was unable to bathe. The landlord’s decant procedure states it will make “reasonable efforts” to find suitable adapted accommodation. We acknowledge that the landlord would have been limited by locally available accommodation. The evidence shows it used a partner organisation to search a range of accommodation providers including hotels and holiday lets. This was reasonable. We accept that the resident had challenging requirements due to her mobility needs and because she had a dog.

This further limited the options available to the landlord. We acknowledge that the resident stated she did not have any friends or family who could look after her dog. It is understandable that the landlord wanted to limit distress to the resident by allowing her to keep her dog with her. However, it is evident that on several occasions it identified accessible accommodation that would have been suitable for the resident but which did not accept dogs. We consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to balance the resident’s accessibility needs against her wish to keep her dog with her.

It would therefore have been reasonable of the landlord to offer to pay for the resident’s dog to be accommodated in boarding kennels or similar. That it did not appear to have considered this option or discussed it with the resident was a missed opportunity. The evidence shows that the landlord completed repairs to the wet room on 9 May 2024. However, the resident said she did not want to return to the property until the landlord replaced the hallway flooring. It is reasonable that the resident wanted to wait for the landlord to replace the hallway flooring before returning to the property.

She had previously reported that the flooring was uneven due to the water damage from the wet room flooding. She also expressed concern that due to her mobility issues she was at risk of falling. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord accommodated her request. As the replacement of the hallway flooring was delaying the resident moving back home, we would have expected the landlord to prioritise this work. We have seen no evidence that it worked with its contractor to see if the work could be completed sooner.

It took a further 2 months for the hallway flooring to be replaced. We do not consider that this was a reasonable timeframe given the resident and her family remained in temporary accommodation. In June 2024 the landlord moved the resident to a new hotel. She advised there was no bed available for her child. The landlord explained it had booked 2 rooms and that the resident had only checked into 1. We consider that the landlord resolved the issue promptly. However, it would have been reasonable for it to make the resident aware that the family would not all be staying together in the same room prior to their arrival.

This would have meant it kept the resident updated and adequately supported in line with its decant procedure. One week later the landlord moved the resident to another hotel. The resident advised it was not suitable for her mobility needs as it did not have parking. We acknowledge that it would have been preferable for the resident to be accommodated in a hotel with onsite parking. However, it is evident that the landlord was struggling to find available accessible accommodation that would accept the dog due to a busy local event.

We therefore consider that the landlord placed the resident in the most suitable accommodation available to it. The evidence shows that between 19 April 2024 and 25 July 2024 the resident moved between 8 different hotels and apartments. The landlord has stated this was due to “difficulties securing accessible temporary accommodation” and changing estimated completion dates for the repair works. While we acknowledge the difficulties faced by the landlord, the impact on the resident and her family was unreasonable.

The resident has stressed that moving so often and at short notice had an impact on the wellbeing of her child. She said the impact was particularly severe due to her daughter’s young age and her being autistic. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to these concerns. This was inappropriate. The resident has stated to the landlord and this Service that the decant financially affected her family. She reports that she has “lost” approximately £15,000 due to being decanted.

This included: The cost of food and drink over and above the food allowance paid by the landlord. Petrol costs. Use of a laundrette. Utility bills at the property while they were not living there and contractors were using the electricity and water. Loss of earnings due to her partner losing a promotion due to the decant. The landlord paid the resident a food allowance of £15 per day for each adult and £10 per day for her child. This slightly exceeded the amount outlined in its decant procedure which states it will pay £15 per adult and £7.

50 per child per day. We do not consider that the allowance paid by the landlord was unreasonable. The resident would have had food and drink expenses had they remained in their home and we would only expect the landlord to pay any additional costs. This being said, we would expect the landlord to considered whether any costs incurred by the resident due to the decant could be reimbursed. This should include expenses such as parking, fuel, laundrette facilities etc. We have therefore ordered the landlord, on production of evidence by the resident, to consider whether it will reimburse any such expenses.

The landlord’s decant procedure states that it may consider paying a resident’s utility charges during the period the resident is away from the property. It says it will take meter readings when the resident leaves the property and when they return and will calculate any payment using these readings. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took meter readings in this case or that it considered reimbursing her for charges incurred while she was in temporary accommodation.

It therefore failed to adhere to its procedure and this was unreasonable. We have ordered it to consider reimbursing the resident in line with its procedure. We are unable to draw conclusions on whether the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the decant cost the resident’s partner a promotion at work. The resident and/or her partner may wish to seek legal advice in relation to this. Overall, the landlord: Did not evidence that it responded appropriately and empathetically to the resident’s report that she felt suicidal.

Failed to adhere to its own temporary decant procedure. Did not communicate effectively with the resident causing her to invest unnecessary time and effort chasing for information and updates. Did not evidence that it had considered offering to put the resident’s dog in boarding accommodation to allow her disability needs to be better met. Did not demonstrate that it expedited the works to the property so it could move the resident back home as quickly as possible. Failed to consider reimbursing the resident for expenses such as fuel, laundrette facilities, and utility bills.

We consider that the landlord’s handling of the decant caused the resident distress and serious inconvenience. This impact was exacerbated due to the vulnerabilities of the resident and her child. We therefore find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant. Handling of the associated complaint. It took the landlord 21 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This exceeds the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

We acknowledge that the landlord states it emailed the resident on 22 April 2024 to advise it would need longer to respond to her complaint. It has not however provided a copy of this email. We cannot therefore determine that it adhered to the requirements of the Code. In its stage 1 response the landlord failed to address the following issues raised by the resident: Intermittent access to heating and hot water. Increased utility costs due to the repair issues. Request to be reimbursed for damaged household items and flooring.

The Code states that landlords must address all issues raised in the complaint. As the landlord did not do so this was a complaint handling failure. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframes outlined in its policy and the Code. The landlord however failed to acknowledge the failings identified by the Ombudsman. While the landlord offered a substantial amount of compensation, this only appears to relate to its handling of the wet room repairs.

It has therefore failed to put things right in relation to its handling of the other issues of complaint. In September 2024 the resident asked the landlord why it had closed her complaint when repairs related to the complaint remained outstanding. The landlord advised it had closed the complaint “in error”. It apologised and said it would re-open the complaint. The Code states that when there are outstanding actions after a final complaint response is provided, the actions must be “tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident”.

We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident. Indeed, the evidence suggests she did not receive updates unless she repeatedly chased for them. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. Overall, the landlord failed to: Respond to the stage 1 complaint within the timeframes outlined in the Code and its policy. Address all issues raised in its stage 1 complaint response. Acknowledge all the failings identified by the Ombudsman in its stage 2 complaint response.

Put things right within the complaint handling process. Track and action outstanding repairs and keep the resident updated. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. Orders and recommendations Orders Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to: Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case. The apology should be provided by a member of the landlord’s senior leadership and follow the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies. Pay the resident compensation of £5,300 which is comprised of: £3,000 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of repairs to the wet room and the loss of the wet room facility (this amount was offered by the landlord previously on 31 May 2024).

£1,000 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system. £400 for increased energy costs, including use of the dehumidifier (this amount was offered by the landlord previously on 31 May 2024). £700 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to its landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant. £200 for the time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint. On production of suitable evidence from the resident (e.

g. receipts or utility bills showing increased costs) the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for expenses incurred while she was in temporary accommodation. The landlord should demonstrate that it has sought suitable evidence from the resident and agreed a compensation amount within 2 weeks of the evidence being provided by the resident. If the resident is unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord she may make a new formal complaint to the landlord. Arrange a joint visit with the landlord’s surveyor, its major adaptations team leader, a member of its senior leadership and the council’s housing standards team to assess the wet room and listen to the resident’s concerns following completion of the recent works.

Considering the length of time the issue has been ongoing it should consider appointing an independent expert to carry out further investigations and make recommendations. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a report outlining the findings of its investigations and an action plan with timeframes for works to resolve the issues. Carry out a follow up inspection to check for any leaks or other faults in the heating and hot water system. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a report outlining the findings of its further inspection and an action plan with timeframes for works to resolve the issues.

Recommendations The landlord is to: Log and acknowledge a new stage 1 complaint about its handling of the wet room repairs since 1 June 2024. The landlord should contact the resident to ensure it understands the reasons for her dissatisfaction. Arrange a surveyor appointment to assess the resident’s repair reports regarding the shower (no hot water), the toilet (struggling to flush) the bathroom handrails (removed) and the flooring (not put down). Assess if the resident is due a payment for increased energy costs since 1 June 2024.