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

Amplius Living (202415453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415453

Amplius Living

17 July 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:
    1. Position regarding an upgrade to the property’s heating system.
    2. Handling of repairs to the property’s storage heaters.
    3. Handling of repairs to the property’s garden gate and fence.
    4. Response to the resident’s request for a managed move.
    5. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom bungalow. Her tenancy began as a starter tenancy in July 2023. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident viewed the property with the landlord’s Housing Officer in May 2023. The resident says the officer told her of plans to upgrade the property’s heating system. Following the resident’s move to the property, she raised concerns as she found the heating inefficient and costly. The landlord replaced a storage heater and surveyed the property. However, it informed the resident it had no plans to install central heating until approximately 2048.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 April 2024. She had raised concerns about the running costs of the property’s heating for 9-months. She considered the landlord’s Housing Officer had “lied” to her during the initial viewing. The resident considered the landlord should move her based on the false information it had given her. The resident also raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to storage heaters, garden gate, and garden fence.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 May 2024. It sent its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024. The landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and repair delays. It also offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord said the resident did not meet its criteria for a management move and informed her of her housing options.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 May 2024. She said the landlord had not responded to her concerns of the Housing Officer lying to her.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 June 2024. It sent its stage 2 response on 27 June 2024. The landlord understood the resident sought a house move as a resolution for her complaint. However, it had identified no evidence to support the resident’s allegation its Housing Officer had told her of planned changes to the heating system. The landlord remained satisfied the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move. However, it apologised to her for further repair delays and offered an additional £150 compensation. Therefore, taking its total offer to £400.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. The resident states she would not have taken the property with only storage heaters. She said her decision to accept was based on the landlord telling her it planned to upgrade the heating system. The resident says while capable of budgeting, she struggles to afford the property’s heating costs. She feels the landlord should move her.

Assessment and findings

Position regarding an upgrade to the property’s heating system

  1. The evidence shows the resident has repeatedly raised her concerns regarding the events which led to her accepting the property. It is reasonable to consider some form of miscommunication or misunderstanding may have occurred. However, both the landlord and resident consider their position correct.
  2. During our contact with the resident on 10 July 2025 we explained our role. This included our impartiality and the requirement of evidence. While we do not doubt the resident’s recollection of the property viewing, we have been unable to identify any evidence which documents proposed plans to upgrade the heating system before 2048. Nor are there any supplementary comments regarding planned works within the tenancy documents following the viewing.
  3. There is evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s allegations at stage 2 of its complaints process. This included interviewing the Housing Officer and reviewing its planned works department records. The landlord found no evidence it had suggested the property was due a heating system upgrade. However, it believed the resident may have misunderstood its explanation about replacing a storage heater, like for like. Therefore, it remained satisfied with its handling of the property viewing.
  4. While this would not be the outcome the resident sought, it demonstrated the landlord took steps to investigate her concerns.
  5. Without evidence, it is not possible for us to determine what took place during the resident’s conversation with the Housing Officer. Therefore, our determination is a finding of no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
  6. However, we note the resident’s ongoing upset regarding the efficiency of the property’s thermal comfort. While the resident has informed us of recent upgrades to windows and loft insulation, difficulties remain with the running costs of the property’s storage heaters.
  7. We note the property’s electrical performance certificate (EPC) is an ‘E’ rating. The EPC included ratings of average or very poor for the main heating, heating controls, and hot water system. While an ‘E’ rating is within the government’s current statutory requirements, we recommend the landlord arranges a thermal comfort survey at the resident’s property. We are aware this is something the landlord previously offered the resident, which it has not yet been able to complete. However, it may identify opportunities for further property improvements which the landlord can consider.

Handling of repairs to the property’s storage heaters

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy splits repairs into 3 main categories. These are:
    1. Emergency repairs which it will fix or make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Appointed urgent repairs which it will complete within 7 calendar days.
    3. Appointed routine repairs which it will complete within 28 calendar days.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord raised an initial repair for a storage heater at the bottom of the resident’s stairs on 19 October 2023. The evidence also shows a further 8 appointments took place between 27 October 2023 to 22 February 2024. These appointments were to inspect, measure, and or repair various storage heaters at the property.
  3. While the evidence shows the landlord generally attended within its repair response times, it is unclear why recurring appointments took place over this extended period of time. This caused the resident time and trouble to progress matters.
  4. There is evidence the landlord attended the resident’s property on 6 November 2023 and 22 February 2024 to measure the storage heater at the bottom of the resident’s stairs. This was due to plans to replace it. However, it is unclear why the landlord had not resolved this need between this time.
  5. Furthermore, there is evidence on 18 January 2024 and 11 February 2024 where the resident chased the landlord for progress. In doing so, she explained how the landlord had already measured heaters on “3 or 4 occasions” since October 2023 without a resolution.
  6. The landlord’s records from 11 February 2024 confirmed the resident’s understanding that it had already measured the heaters. Therefore, it escalated the job for a replacement. It was appropriate the landlord recognised the need for escalation. However, the landlord’s communication and monitoring leading to the resident’s repairs had not been effective. This caused the resident further time and trouble attempting to resolve matters.
  7. The resident’s original complaint on 29 April 2024 repeated her concerns regarding recurring visits. It is therefore unclear why the landlord’s stage 2 response did not take the opportunity to address why this had occurred and how it would prevent similar happening again. This does not demonstrate effective communication or monitoring of this repair need. It also indicates a lack of understanding of what the landlord needed to do to resolve matters for the resident.
  8. Within the landlord’s handling of the resident’s heating enquiry, it refrred to her property having air source heating. The resident described the landlord passing her around various departments and contractors due to this information to progress her repair needs. This caused her further time and trouble. The landlord missed an opportunity to take ownership of the repair to ensure the resident had support to resolve matters.
  9. Furthermore, given the landlord’s records state it did not have “this asset down as having air source heating,” it is unclear why the landlord told the resident this. Or how the landlord corrected its records to prevent similar confusion happening again.
  10. The landlord has provided us with information within the resident’s tenancy agreement, ‘Annex A,’ which states the property has a communal ground source heating system. The resident does not believe this to be correct. This therefore indicates a record keeping and knowledge and information management failure which the landlord should investigate and correct its records, if required, where necessary.
  11. Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s storage heaters. While the landlord has demonstrated attending the resident’s property, there were an accumulation of failures in its record keeping and communication. This caused avoidable repeat appointments between October 2023 to February 2024, which delayed a repair resolution. This caused the resident time and trouble to arrange her availability.
  12. The landlord’s compensation offers do not apportion any redress specifically for this complaint point. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation. This sum is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Handling of repairs to the property’s garden gate and fence

  1. There is evidence the landlord raised a gate post repair on 21 December 2023. After further visits in January and February 2024, the landlord completed the repair on 18 March 2024. This was not appropriate and 60 calendar days later then the landlord’s routine repair response time.
  2. There is further evidence the landlord raised a fence repair for the resident on 19 January 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response suggests it completed this repair on 21 March 2024. This was 34 calendar days later than the landlord’s routine repair response time.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the need for follow on work for these repairs. An inspection arranged for 12 June 2024 did not happen due to the landlord’s contractor cancelling the appointment. Therefore, work did not complete until on or around July 2024.
  4. While it is reasonable for follow on work to require additional time and planning, the landlord did not demonstrate effective communication about this with the resident. She had already experienced time and trouble due to the delays to both repairs and needed to chase the landlord to progress matters. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
  5. The landlord apologised for the identified service failures at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. It demonstrated the need to improve communication with its contractors and residents and explained it would raise this as a learning point. The landlord recognised the recurring issues and increased its total compensation offer to £400. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
  6. Based on our findings we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge identified service failures and its steps to put things right. The landlord’s offer of £400 was consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident.

Response to the resident’s request for a managed move

  1. The landlord’s transfer policy states it will normally only accept transfer applications if a tenant is subject to 1 or more of the following:
    1. Race or hate crime.
    2. Domestic abuse.
    3. Critical medical need.
  2. The resident does not dispute experiencing any of the criteria as set out in the landlord’s transfer policy. However, she considered the landlord had a responsibility to put right an error she says it made regarding its plans to upgrade the property’s heating system.
  3. While we recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction, we have not identified evidence to support the resident’s position.
  4. The landlord has the right to make best use of its housing stock. It also has a responsibility to assist the local councils with their housing responsibilities. In this case, the resident’s property was appropriate for her needs. Therefore, her circumstances did not meet the criteria for a management move. As such, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to explain the resident’s housing options. And it also provided guidance and contact information to support her choices.
  5. Based on the evidence we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. In this case, we do not have evidence to demonstrate a service failure by the landlord. Therefore, the resident’s desire for a permanent move to another home is not something that we are able to order.
  6. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to ensure she is aware of her current housing options.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a full stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. And it must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of its escalation acknowledgement. We are satisfied the landlord’s complaint policy complies with the Code.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement on 10 May 2024. This was on time. However, the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024, 2 working days late. The landlord did not acknowledge this or apologise.
  3. While the detriment of a short delay may be minimal, there is a theme within the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s poor communication. The lack of acknowledgement to this does not demonstrate learning. Nor is it consistent with the expectations of the Code.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays and poor communication around the completion of repairs. It also explained the criteria for a management move. As it did not find the resident met the criteria for a move, it gave her details of her housing options.
  5. While the landlord’s decision would understandably have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord demonstrated efforts to offer her alternative options to move house.
  6. However, we note the landlord’s stage 1 response did not specifically address the resident’s allegations its Housing Officer “lied” to her. The Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Failing to respond to this point was not appropriate. By not answering this matter or demonstrating an investigation at this stage caused the resident time and trouble to escalate her complaint.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement and stage 2 response were both sent on time. This was appropriate and consistent with the Code.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response remained satisfied with its handling of the resident’s viewing of the property and comments regarding the heating system. Although the resident would have been disappointed with the landlord’s response of finding no wrongdoing, it was appropriate for it to investigate her concerns.
  9. The landlord also used its complaint process to recognise recurring repair delays. It increased its offer of compensation and demonstrated learning to work with its contractors to improve communication.
  10. Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s allegation at stage 1 caused her avoidable time and trouble. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise the short delay to provide a stage 1 response and apologise for not meeting service level expectations.
  11. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has not fully put right a failure in its service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s position regarding an upgrade to the property’s heating system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s storage heaters.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s garden gate and fence.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a managed move.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £150 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s storage heaters.
      2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Arranges a thermal comfort survey at the resident’s property and considers the findings to improve the property’s energy efficiency.
    2. Reoffers the resident the £400 compensation made during its complaints process, if not already paid.
    3. Checks and updates its property records regarding the property’s heating system.
    4. Contact the resident to offer housing options advice.