Amplius Living (202423013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423013

Amplius Living

28 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured joint tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from April 2023 until the tenancy was surrendered in April 2024. The property was a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s wife and children lived with him. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the resident and his wife due to their health conditions.
3. Between November 2023 and April 2024, the resident reported concerns about damp and mould. He logged a complaint on 10 July 2024 and said:
   1. He had seen a survey report which detailed issues he had reported to the landlord and they had ignored.
   2. He had previously made a complaint but did not receive a response.
   3. He was given conflicting information that there was no damp and mould, only condensation, while an earlier visit had noted high moisture levels in the walls.
   4. They had cleaned daily but the damp and mould had damaged their belongings.
   5. The landlord ignored multiple reports even though it knew there were children, including a newborn, in the property.
   6. Due to the landlord’s neglect and the health risks posed he had felt forced to surrender his tenancy. He and his family were now effectively homeless.
4. In its stage 1 response of 30 July 2024 the landlord sincerely apologised for the delay in repairs that led to the resident feeling neglected. It said:
   1. It fully acknowledged the significant frustration experienced.
   2. The issues he raised should have been addressed promptly.
   3. It was unacceptable that, despite a surveyor’s visit, the recommended actions were not taken.
   4. It was concerned about the conflicting information he was given.
   5. It was deeply troubling that he felt compelled to give up his tenancy, and it was distressing to learn of the health issues he and his family experienced.
   6. It had identified and given feedback on areas where it could have acted with greater urgency and effectiveness.
5. The landlord did not offer any redress or resolution. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 August 2024 and asked the landlord what it would do to rectify the identified failings. He said he had given up a lifetime tenancy due to neglect and ill health, and experienced substantial financial loss. In its stage 2 response of 18 September 2024, the landlord said:
   1. It was clear it had not responded promptly to the resident’s concerns, leading him to feel he had no choice but to surrender his tenancy.
   2. It would reinstate his tenure and offer an alternative property.
   3. Its relocations team would contact him and support him with the process.
   4. It apologised for any distress caused.
6. The resident referred his case to us in October 2024. He was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling, specifically the time taken and a lack of empathy in its responses. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to show it had learnt from its mistakes and put plans in place not to repeat them.
7. In March 2025 the landlord told us that, while it had reinstated the tenancy as a resolution, it should have offered compensation for its failures in repairs handling and for the delays in complaint handling. It did not make an offer or specify a figure it thought should have been offered. It said it was working to align its complaints and compensation procedures to ensure they were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

8. The resident has told us that the matters complained of have negatively affected his and his family members’ health. We do not doubt his comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his family’s health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
9. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
10. The landlord has accepted its poor service levels in its complaint responses. It has also accepted that it should have offered compensation for the failures it identified. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, what redress remains outstanding to put things right.
11. The available evidence supports the failings highlighted by the resident and accepted by the landlord. While the landlord instructed inspections and reports, there is no evidence it then acted appropriately on the recommendations made. Some repair appointments were booked but these were either cancelled, had to be rescheduled, or were left incomplete on attendance. There were also conflicting findings shared with the resident as he said.
12. The landlord was aware of the presence of children in the property and that the adults were also vulnerable. It should, therefore, have acted promptly and proactively to address the issues identified, but it did not. It also did not keep the resident updated about its plans, or the reasons for its lack of progress. It further missed an opportunity to address its failings when the resident sent his tenancy surrender notice.
13. Evidence shows that the landlord called the resident to understand why he was terminating his tenancy. The resident explained in detail the difficulties he and his family had experienced. He was candid about the stress and worry over his children’s health, the damage to their belongings, and that he had already moved out of the property due to these concerns. Here was an opportunity to repair the breakdown in relationship and rebuild the lost trust. However, rather than acting on this information, the landlord simply processed the termination. It then kept telling the resident it was sorry to see him go but took no positive or meaningful action to rectify the situation, ultimately leading to his departure.
14. The identified failings amount to maladministration. The landlord has apologised, reinstated the resident’s tenancy agreement, and given feedback to prevent future mistakes. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. However, it did not offer any compensation for the impact of its failings on the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £500 for the stress, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
15. We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In March 2019, we published our Spotlight on complaints about repairs. In October 2021, we published our Spotlight on damp and mould, and a follow-up report was published in February 2023. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in these reports. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight reports.

Complaint handling

16. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. A complaint could be made by phone call, in writing, via its website or social media. It set out timeframes; 5 working days for acknowledgement and 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
17. Evidence shows the resident first expressed unhappiness to the landlord in January 2024 during a property manager’s visit to the property. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction which the landlord should have treated as a complaint. There is no evidence of this having been logged or responded to as such.
18. During a call on 29 April 2024, which was made to discuss the resident’s notice to terminate, he said he previously made a complaint but was told the landlord did not have the staff (presumably to deal with it). The operative told him to make another complaint, but it should have been logged during or after that call. On 1 and 24 May 2024, the resident chased the landlord about his complaint and on the latter date was sent a link to fill out a complaint form. Again, this was not necessary as it should have treated the resident’s earlier and ongoing contact as a complaint.
19. The resident chased the landlord again for a response to his complaint in June 2024, before sending an email on 10 July 2024, which it then finally logged as a formal complaint. Its stage 1 response was issued within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued outside its 20 working days timescale. The resident chased it during this period as the deadline had passed without an update.
20. The resident said he did not feel the landlord’s responses showed empathy and lacked detail. Given the impact of the landlord’s failings and the persistent delays in its responses (both for repairs and the formal complaint) it is understandable why he felt this way. While the landlord accepted its failings in profuse terms (saying it was concerned, troubled, and distressed) it did not match this with an appropriate or meaningful resolution.
21. The resident had to ask the landlord how it would rectify the mistakes it accepted before it offered a resolution. The offered resolution then did not go far enough, and there was no offer of financial redress to recognise the impact on him. Its responses also did not acknowledge the complaint handling failures or delays set out above.
22. The landlord’s poor handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration. It is, therefore, ordered below to write to the resident with an apology for its failure. It is further ordered to pay the resident £200 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
23. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Code which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
24. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to our remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in complaint handling.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £700 compensation, as follows:
       1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property.
       2. £200 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.