Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Amplius Living (202230495)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230495

Amplius Living

27 March 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 reports of repairs to the porch.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mobility issues.
  2. From 4 May to 15 August 2022 the resident reported an issue with her front door lock on around 8 occasions. On some occasions the landlord attended as an emergency repair the same day. Attempts were made to repair the lock but these were unsuccessful due to structural movement. There was a period of 6 weeks that the front porch door was insecure. There was an inner door to the property, but there was no lock on this door. The landlord noted that a structural survey was required in July 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 August 2022. She said she was frustrated at the length of time (around 3 years) that issues with the porch had been ongoing. She complained about the landlord’s lack of contact and missed repair appointments. She said the door had been left insecure and she had to use a piece of wood to secure it between the inner and outer door. She said she had to use the rear door, which was not ideal, particularly in the dark, as she had to walk down a dark passage. She described how the situation had a detrimental impact on her mental health.
  4. The landlord telephoned the resident on 22 August 2022 and acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  5. The structural survey was completed on 30 August 2022. On 7 September 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that there were no immediate safety concerns in relation to the structure of the porch. It gave her an estimated timescale for completion of works of November 2022.
  6. The landlord telephoned the resident on 8 September 2022 and offered her £75 for its lack of communication and the stress caused. The resident declined this offer and the landlord made a revised offer of £200 on 12 September 2022. The resident also declined this sum.
  7. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates from October 2022 to November 2023, when the porch works were completed. The landlord communicated with the resident during this time, but largely in response to her requests for updates. She became increasingly frustrated and stressed by the landlord’s delayed action and contacted us in early March 2023.
  8. The landlord surveyed the porch on 8 March 2023 and recommended it be removed and rebuilt.
  9. On 13 June 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident it would start work on the porch on 26 June 2023. However, on 21 June 2023 the landlord advised her the start date had changed to 24 July 2023. It then confirmed it could bring this date forward slightly.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 June 2023, it apologised for its delayed response and outlined its actions so far. This included a drainage survey, taking soil samples and investigation work. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the works and for its lack of communication. It also acknowledged some damage to paving slabs and planters that had occurred while it was carrying out investigations. It confirmed it would start work on the porch on 26 June 2023 and detailed the specific works this would involve.
  11. The landlord offered £550 compensation as follows:
    1. £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
    2. £50 under the Right to Repair Scheme for the delay in completing the repairs to the door lock.
    3. £100 for the lack of communication regarding the repairs.
    4. £250 for any upset, stress, and inconvenience caused.
    5. £100 for damage caused to the garden planters.
  12. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 20 June 2023, saying it would respond by 14 July 2023. On that date it wrote to the resident to extend its response timeframe to 28 July 2023.
  13. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. It acknowledged its failures and increased its initial compensation offer by £350, to a total of £900 (a further £200 for any upset, stress, and inconvenience plus £150 for its delayed stage 2 response).
  14. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. It had investigated an additional allegation that an operative had made an inappropriate comment about the resident. It said the comment was unacceptable and it had spoken to its contractor about this behaviour. It increased the total compensation offer to £1,650 (a further £300 for its lack of communication, £300 for its delays in completing repairs, £100 for a damaged drain and £50 for damaged planters).
  15. A final stage 2 response was then issued on 8 November 2023, when the landlord acknowledged that the property had been left insecure for 6 weeks. It increased the compensation again by £250, giving a total compensation offer of £1,900.
  16. The landlord completed the porch work in November 2023. However, the landlord was not proactive in its communication with the resident throughout the works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the porch

  1. While the resident has referred to issues with the porch from around 2019, the formal complaint under investigation here was not made until August 2022. In the interests of fairness, and in line with the landlord’s own assessment of the complaint, this investigation focusses on events from 2022 onwards.
  2. The landlord was under a duty to remedy the porch issues within a reasonable time of being given notice that there was an issue. This is set out in the tenancy agreement and the implied terms of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 2 to 24 hours and make safe and attend appointed repairs within 21 days.
  3. Landlords are also required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Local authorities have powers to act under the HHSRS and will typically work with landlords to address identified hazards in a home. There are 29 hazards that include but are not exclusive to space, security, light, and noise.
  4. Following the resident’s initial report in May 2022, the landlord attended within its emergency repair timeframe, which was appropriate given the security concerns. However, the repair was unsuccessful due to structural movement and this understandably meant a lasting repair would be more complex.
  5. At this point, the landlord should have considered its obligations under the HHSRS, particularly in relation to the security hazard, and taken steps to reduce the risk within a reasonable timeframe. It was clear the security issue impacted the resident’s safe enjoyment of the property and caused her stress and anxiety. The landlord’s delayed action to remove the hazard of the security risk under HHSRS was therefore inappropriate.
  6. In August 2022, 3 months after the initial report, the landlord gave the resident an estimated completion date for the works of November 2022. We recognise that structural work falls outside the scope of the landlord’s responsive repair timescales and often involves design, planning, co-ordination of scope of works and liaison with 3rd parties. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord recognised the more complex work plan and initially estimated a timeframe of 3 months to complete the work. At this point, the landlord was proactive in managing the resident’s expectations.
  7. However, the landlord’s estimated timescale for completion of works was delayed significantly by 14 months, which was unreasonable. During this time, the resident was left in the dark and had to make many chaser calls and emails to the landlord to find out what was happening. The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate and represented a serious failure in service.
  8. The landlord’s delayed actions to complete work on the porch caused significant impact on the resident in terms of initial insecurity of the property, inability to use the front door, worry, stress and inconvenience of not being kept informed of what was happening. This warranted acknowledgement by the landlord.
  9. The resident also complained about an alleged inappropriate comment made by an operative. The landlord recognised the inappropriate comment and told the resident it had addressed these concerns with its contractor. We consider the landlord’s response to be appropriate in respect of this issue.
  10. While the landlord did take some steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns about the porch, and respond to her report about a specific contractor, there were failures in its handling of the matter overall. These include its: delays in ensuring the property was safe and secure; delays in completing the necessary works to the porch; and lack of communication throughout the repairs process.
  11. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  12. In responding to the complaint, the landlord openly acknowledged that there had been failings and ultimately offered a total of £1,700 compensation in relation to this point. Its breakdown of this sum covered the delay in completing the works (under the Right to Repair Scheme), poor communication, upset, stress and inconvenience and damaged caused to items. This demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously and acknowledged that the matter had impacted the resident in various ways.
  13. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the compensation offered is considered reasonable. In line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord’s response was fair and satisfactorily put things right for the resident.
  14. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the porch repairs. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £1,700 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. An extension of up to 10 days may be appropriate where agreed with the resident. In this case, the resident raised her complaint on 16 August 2022 and did not receive a written response until 16 June 2023, 10 months later. This was an unacceptable period of delay with very little communication or updates given in the interim.
  2. While the landlord had contacted the resident in September 2022 and made verbal offers of compensation, this was not sufficient to properly respond to the complaint or comply with the requirements of the Code. Any such offers should have been made in writing, and in accordance with the formal process for responding to complaints. This ensures both parties are clear on what stage they are at and what the next steps are.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation. Given the significant departure from the Code timescales, with very little communication or management of expectations in the interim, this sum was not proportionate to the landlord’s failings.
  4. The resident then escalated the complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and communicated with the resident to extend the timescale for its stage 2 response, in line with the provisions of the Code. However, it then exceeded its extended timeframe by 3 days without updating the resident. This was understandably distressing and frustrating for her, given the previous delays in the process.
  5. The landlord then proceeded to issue 3 separate stage 2 responses which made for a disjointed and confusing approach. All of the outstanding issues should have been dealt with together, in a single, clear response which confirmed the landlord’s position and explained the next steps if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  6. The landlord did acknowledge complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and offered an additional £150 compensation, bringing the total to £200. This went some way to put things right for the resident and serves to reduce what would otherwise have been a finding of maladministration to service failure.
  7. However, we do not consider that this sum adequately reflects the multiple failings over an extended period of time which exacerbated an already stressful situation for the resident. We therefore order the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation for her distress and inconvenience, in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the porch.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Provided a written apology to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Paid the resident £300 compensation for its complaint handling failures (inclusive of the £200 previously offered).

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Provide a written apology for the full extent of its service failures in relation to the porch repairs identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,700 it previously offered if it has not already done so. This forms the basis of our decision that it has put things right for the resident in our finding of reasonable redress.