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

Amplius Living (202424819)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424819

Amplius Living

30 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 concerns regarding:
    1. The condition of the property when let.
    2. Repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord formed in December 2024 after a merger with another social housing provider. The property is a 2-bedroom house built in 2020. The landlord is aware the resident has impaired mobility and struggles with her mental health. The resident’s tenancy began on 31 January 2024, however she lived with her mother and did not fully move in until May 2024. She lives with her young son.
  2. The resident reported a leak in a bedroom/from the loft on 7 February 2024. The landlord advised her to contact its repairs team and raise a repair. Over the following days the resident reported further repairs including issues with the windows and holes in the ceiling. She raised a formal complaint in relation to the property condition on 22 February 2024, before reporting further repairs 4 days later.
  3. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 7 March 2024. He:
    1. Raised repairs to the soffit and loft insulation.
    2. Checked with the resident if she had any further issues before he left and noted she “said no.”
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024. It upheld the complaint and said:
    1. During the meeting when the resident signed her tenancy agreement:
      1. It provided photos of the property to the resident.
      2. She did not raise any concerns regarding the property condition.
    2. It apologised there were outstanding repairs required when she moved in. However, the repairs had not been evident or identified when the property was handed back to it after the void inspection.
    3. It did not consider the property to be unfit for her to live in. And the repairs she raised had either been completed or were in progress.
    4. It had arranged for its surveyor to attend on 7 March 2024 to inspect and discuss the property condition.
    5. It offered £30 compensation in recognition of the repairs she raised.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 March 2024. She said:
    1. The property was falsely represented in the pictures shown to her.
    2. She still had not moved in due to the outstanding repairs.
  6. The landlord upheld the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024. It said:
    1. It acknowledged there had been service failure due to:
      1. The resident having to chase repair appointments.
      2. The length of time taken to respond to the stage 2 complaint.
    2. It booked for the soffit to be repaired on 17 May 2024.
    3. It did not consider that any of the repairs raised would make the property uninhabitable.
    4. The property passed the void inspection, images of every room were taken, and it was “a fairly new property.”
    5. It offered £330 compensation made up of:
      1. The £30 offered at stage 1 in recognition of repairs raised.
      2. £150 for its delayed complaint response.
      3. £150 for stress and inconvenience in chasing the repairs.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord sent a further response to the stage 2 complaint on 23 September 2024. It said:
    1. There were delays completing repairs to the soffit.
    2. It completed a number of repairs on 4 September 2024 which included to:
      1. The toilet seat
      2. Loft insulation
      3. The soffit
      4. An internal door
      5. Kitchen radiator.
    3. It offered an additional £200 compensation for the soffit repair delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The start date of this investigation is around the time of the resident’s tenancy start date. The end date of this investigation is 23 September 2024 when the landlord sent its follow-on response. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord, if she has not done so already, in relation to any further issues.
  2. The resident told the landlord and us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with her situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

Condition of the property when let

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says:
    1. “The tenancy begins on 31 January 2024.
    2. The resident must move into the property at the start of the tenancy.”
  2. The landlord provided a copy of its lettable standard. It says:
    1. “All roofing… and external walls will be checked and repaired to ensure they are structurally sound.
    2. All sealant around sanitary ware and flooring should be renewed and tiles re-grouted if they cannot be cleaned adequately.
    3. Tiles should also be re-grouted where this is missing or loose.
    4. Bath panels to be in place and have no cracks or sharp edges.
    5. Plastered walls and ceilings must be in a suitable condition, ready for redecoration by the incoming resident. All holes, aesthetic cracks etc should be filled and left smooth.”
  3. It was unclear exactly when the landlord’s contractor completed the void inspection of the property. However, it provided a record showing work raised. The landlord’s notes said the property was “handed back from property services on 23 January 2024 and it was advised it was ready to let.” It was reasonable for the landlord to assume the property met its lettable standard.
  4. The evidence suggests the resident did not view the property in person before signing her tenancy. However, she was shown photos prior to attending the tenancy contract meeting. She subsequently said she “felt duped” after signing and said the property was “not liveable.” On 15 March 2024 she also said from the photos she was shown, “no one would think there were any issues” and she was not shown photos of “holes in the ceiling.” It was unclear whether the resident was given the option to view the property in person. However, showing the resident photos provided by its void contractor was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
  5. The resident raised a number repairs in February 2024 which included:
    1. A leak in her son’s bedroom
    2. Holes in the ceilings
    3. The bath panel was cracked
    4. The bath sealant was incomplete and coming away from the walls
    5. Grout around the bath/shower area had come out
    6. The bathroom taps and shower screen were corroded
    7. The kitchen taps were leaking/corroded and sealant had come away

The number of repairs raised, and the short timeframe between the property being deemed ready for letting and the repairs being reported, suggest the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard. It is unreasonable that such a range of repairs was necessary so shortly after the void period. It is of concern that these could have been identified while the property was empty.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement said she must move into the property at the start of the tenancy. However, she remained living with her mother until May 2025. The resident said she should not pay rent from when she signed her tenancy agreement as she had not been able to live at the property. The landlord used its complaints process to explain its position in this regard and said the repairs required did not make the property uninhabitable. Given the repairs reported, this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. Further to this, as the resident was able to live with her mother, the impact the outstanding repairs had on the resident was reduced.
  2. Overall there was service failure by the landlord in relation to the condition of the property on letting. This caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord used its complaints responses to try and put things right for the resident. It apologised, arranged a surveyor to attend, and offered compensation for the inconvenience of raising repairs. In line with our remedies guidance, a figure of £100 is reasonable for the service failure identified in relation to the property condition when let. Taking into account of all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord’s final response to the complaint (and the identified failings) was appropriate and proportionate. A finding is made that the landlord offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
    1. Urgent repairs should be completed within 7 calendar days.
    2. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  2. The evidence showed the landlord’s contractor attended to all the initial repairs raised by the resident promptly and within policy timescale, which was positive. In relation to the reported water leak in the loft affecting her son’s bedroom, the contractor attended on 22 February 2024 within timescale and reported “the loft all looks good, tiles in place, no gaps, insulation dry. Only thing l can see on bedroom damp corner – suspect condensation.” The resident called chasing a roof repair on 29 February 2024 after a second contractor attended on 24 February 2024. The resident said this contractor said “there is an issue in the roof/insulation.” The evidence suggests some confusion on the landlord’s part as to why 2 contractors had attended. However, it promptly arranged for its surveyor to attend, which was reasonable.
  3. The surveyor raised repairs to the loft insulation and soffit on 13 March 2024. In relation to the insulation the surveyor said “remove and relay insulation to loft area.” But then said “tuck insulation into eaves”. In relation to the soffit, the surveyor said “supply and install ventilation strip to eaves soffit in conjunction with soffit renewal.” But then said “replace soffit strip to front elevation where over sealed.” The wording of the repairs was confusing and open to interpretation as to exactly what work was required. The repairs were noted as completed 10 days later. However, the resident called the landlord on 5 April 2024 and said no work was done. The evidence suggested the contractor had not attended, which was a failing.
  4. Following the resident’s call the landlord re-raised the repairs for 3 days later which was reasonable. However, the contractor rescheduled the work to 19 April 2024 due to availability, and delayed again to 25 April 2024. The contractor noted it did not renew the soffit because “it did not need renewal.” And “the insulation did not need to be tucked in.” Although the wording of the repairs raised by the surveyor was confusing, the contractor should have completed the repairs ordered by the surveyor rather than taking no action. This was a failing and contributed to the overall delays.
  5. The landlord used its stage 2 response to explain its position regarding the loft insulation after the surveyor agreed it did not need to be tucked in. This was reasonable. A further repair for the soffit was raised on 29 April 2024 which was marked completed on 23 May 2024 within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale.
  6. In an email to the landlord on 28 May 2024 the resident said the roof/soffit issue was still not fixed. In response, the landlord:
    1. Arranged for a further survey on 19 June 2024, however the resident was not in.
    2. Re-scheduled the survey for 11 July 2024, however the resident missed the appointment.
    3. Re-scheduled the survey initially for 31 July 2024, but brought it forward to 22 July 2024 and offered the resident an early morning inspection.

It was unclear whether the survey went ahead. However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and showed it was trying to resolve the issue for the resident.

  1. The landlord resealed the roof (unclear when) and raised another soffit repair on 13 August 2024. A contractor attended on 30 August 2024 to assess the soffit. Internal landlord notes said work was completed to the loft insulation and soffit on 4 September 2024. The landlord was not solely responsible for the delays repairing the soffit. However, given it was approximately 6 months since the first surveyor had raised repairs, this was an unreasonable delay.
  2. Where we have identified failings in the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, it is then for us to consider how the landlord responded to those failings through its complaints process. In this case, the landlord used the complaint to investigate the situation and explain the actions it had taken to progress the repairs. We also welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response. It was positive the landlord offered an additional £200 compensation for the delays in repairing the soffit after its stage 2 response. In line with our remedies guidance, the total amount of compensation offered £430 (plus £100 for property condition when let as above) was reasonable redress in response to the resident’s complaint about repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about the property condition when it was let to her.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. With that in mind, the landlord should ensure it follows up repairs with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates.
  2. The resident emailed us on 28 May 2025 and said there are issues with dampness and cold walls. The landlord may wish to contact the resident to discuss these issues.