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

Amplius Living (202428900)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428900

Amplius Living

12 June 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 which we have 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 response to the resident’s request to relocate the communal bin store, and concerns about fire safety.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a first-floor flat, within a 2-storey block owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2024 to say she was worried about a fire risk from the bin store, which formed part of the building and was located directly beneath her flat. She said the bins were often full of flammable materials and people tended to smoke in the area. The landlord visited the building in July 2024 and did not find any problems or risks. However, there was a significant fire in the bin store on 20 September 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 September 2024 citing her earlier concerns. She repeated her request that it relocate the bin store. She also asked it to provide a structural engineer’s report to show that the building was safe following the fire.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 October 2024. It said the design and construction of the bin store had met safety standards and had performed as expected when the fire occurred, protecting her and other residents from harm. It agreed to arrange a structural survey and acknowledged that this had been very traumatic for her, but it said it was not able to relocate the bins.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 October 2024. She asked it to reconsider its decision about the location of the bin store, and explained how the fire had affected her.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2024. It repeated its position at stage 1, and said it was still arranging a structural survey but would send her a copy of the report. It empathised again with the effect this had had, but said there had not been any service failure on its part.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said she has now returned from temporary accommodation and would still like it to move the bin store as she remains worried about the safety and security of the area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained the impact that the fire had on her mental health and emotional wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Bin store location and fire safety concerns

  1. When the resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2024, she said the recycling bins were overflowing with cardboard, paper and plastic. She stated that one of them did not have a lid, and she was worried that a discarded cigarette butt may set it alight. She said she had arranged an independent visit from a fire safety officer who suggested that the bins should be moved. She asked it to therefore relocate the bin store so it was not directly beneath her flat.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 April 2024 to request an update, as she had not had a response. Its fire safety risk assessor updated its internal records that day to say it needed to visit the building to conduct a visual inspection. There are no records to show that it did so until 2 July 2024, by which time she had contacted it again to request an update. While it may not have considered there to be an immediate risk, it should have updated her earlier.
  3. According to its records, the landlord’s fire safety assessor did not find any risks with the bin store during its visit of July 2024. It said the area was generally tidy, and it noted that the concrete ceiling separated this from the resident’s flat above giving adequate fire protection. It also concluded that there were no alternative locations for the bin store as this would have either taken up resident parking bays or caused access issues for refuse collection services. It should have updated the resident on its findings but there is no clear evidence that it did so. This indicates either poor record keeping or poor communication by the landlord, and we have made a recommendation about this.
  4. The landlord’s fire safety policy states that it will conduct fire risk assessments every 1 to 3 years depending on the nature and purpose of the building. Its notes of 4 July 2024 state that it referred to its most recent assessment report, which it said was in-date and did not highlight any concerns relating to the bin store. We have not seen a copy of that report however there is no evidence to indicate issues with the accuracy or frequency of its fire risk assessments.
  5. A fire did occur within the bin store at around 2am on 20 September 2024. In her complaint of 25 September 2024, the resident cited her previous concerns and asked the landlord once again to relocate the bin store. She also requested a copy of a structural engineer’s report. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 2 October 2024 explained why it decided it was not able to move the bins to another area. It added that the building construction had performed as expected during the recent fire, preventing serious harm. It said that neither its property service team nor the fire service had deemed it necessary to conduct a follow-up structural survey, however it agreed to arrange a survey anyway to reassure her.
  6. In her escalation request to the landlord of 10 October 2024, the resident elaborated on her experience of the fire and the traumatic effect this had on her. She repeated her request that it move the bin store and said the landlord had not considered suitable alternative locations. In its stage 2 response it said it knew the fire “would have been incredibly scary to witness” and acknowledged how upsetting this must have been. It upheld its findings that it had not failed in its service and repeated its explanation of why it had decided not to move the bins. It also reiterated its promise to arrange a survey and provide a copy of the report.
  7. It was good practice for the landlord to arrange the survey, and there is evidence that an independent contractor attended on 21 November 2024. They provided their report to the landlord the next day, which recommended some minor repairs and maintenance but did not find any immediate issues caused by the fire or otherwise.
  8. However, there is no evidence that it provided the resident with a copy of these findings, and she has told us that she has still not received this. We have not found failure by the landlord as it did arrange the inspection in a timely manner. However, we have recommended that it contact her to confirm those findings as promised in its complaint response, if it has not done so already. Whilst that report is from over 6 months ago and we understand it has completed further works since, this will still ensure that it has met its commitment and may be of reassurance to the resident.
  9. In her escalation request and other comments to the landlord, the resident raised concerns over her method of escape. She described that she awoke to find her windows and curtains were blackening, and there were visible flames right by her flat. She said there was no clear means of evacuation as there was “thick, black, toxic smoke” everywhere and the external lighting to the open steps outside the flats had failed. She said this was a “terrifying” experience.
  10. The fire service’s report stated there were no concerns over the evacuation routes and the alarm system had worked as intended. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have referred to this in its responses to provide further reassurance to the resident. However, it did recognise how frightening this was for her and reiterated that the building structure had kept her safe.
  11. The landlord did not address the resident’s earlier concerns about people smoking near the bin store. The fire service did not report any issues with this nor did they make any recommendations regarding smoking areas. However, it could have explained why it did not have the authority to enforce smoking rules in the external public area, given that this was of clear concern to her.
  12. We appreciate that the resident remains traumatised following the fire and we do not dispute how this has affected her. The landlord was however empathetic in its responses, and it was reasonable to rely on its inspections and other professional opinions regarding the location of the bin store and any other risks. In terms of aftercare, it kept in touch with the resident in the immediate aftermath of the fire and throughout the following weeks and months. Despite its failure to provide a copy of the structural survey following the fire, its overall response and handling of the situation was fair and we do not consider that the landlord failed in its obligations or service to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the communal bin store and her concerns about fire safety.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with the findings following the inspection of 21 November 2024, as highlighted in paragraph 17 of this report.
  2. The landlord should also ensure that it keeps its tenants and leaseholders informed if they have reported a potential safety hazard. Where it does not act on a report immediately, it should explain why. It should also review its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps clear and reliable information on file. The landlord could refer to our report on knowledge and information management, available on our website.