Amplius Living (202220408)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220408

Amplius Living

5 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 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 response to the resident’s:

1. response to reports of damp and mould in the property;
2. complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a 1-bedroom flat under a shorthold tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has asthma, as well as glandular, skin, and digestive issues.
3. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 12 September 2022. The landlord attended and completed various work including mould treatment and resealing around the windows by 10 October 2022.
4. On 7 November 2023 the resident complained about damp and mould to the landlord. He said the issue was affecting his health and he wanted the landlord to find the root cause of the problem.
5. The resident subsequently told the landlord he wanted compensation for damage to his belongings, the property, and for the effect on his health. 
6. On 8 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The main points were:
   1. A damp and mould inspection was raised on 27 October 2023.
   2. The repairs surveyor had visited the property on 6 November 2023. He confirmed following the visit, and previous visits made, the damp and mould has not been excessive. He stated there was no real signs of damp and mould in the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom.
   3. He identified mould growing on furniture and clothing and believed this to be an environmental factor. With the damp and mould, he felt this to be due to the resident drying clothes in the property as well as steam emanating from bathing and cooking.
   4. As a result of the visit, he raised a work order for mould treatment, sealant around windows and the bath, as well as repairs to the extractor fan. During the visit, the surveyor said the wallpaper on the wall behind the front door would need to be removed to allow a mould treatment to be applied as the treatment would not absorb through the wallpaper.
   5. It attended again on 7 November 2023. During this visit the operative carried out a mould treatment to the bathroom and bedroom, removed and resealed silicone to the bath and resealed around the windows. As the resident had not removed the wallpaper, the operative was unable to apply the mould treatment in the lounge.
   6. The operative returned on 4 December 2023 where he confirmed the work for black spot mould had already been completed and not returned. He confirmed the resident did not wish to remove the wallpaper until he had confirmation of the costs for redecorating would be provided from the landlord.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 8 December 2023. He subsequently told the landlord he was having to throw out wooden furniture and clothes due to damp and mould. He said he did not have receipts or pictures but would like to be compensated for these items.
8. Following an inspection in the property on 31 January 2024, the landlord advised that there was a small amount of black mould beneath the wallpaper in the living room and a small amount beneath the wallpaper in the bathroom. The inspection noted the improvement to the damp and mould compared to the last visit. The resident said the mould within the property had mostly gone and he had some mould spray to keep on top of it in the future.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 February 2024. It said it had carried out works to address the damp and mould but had been unable to complete treatment in the bathroom and living room as the resident had not removed the wallpaper. This was also confirmed in the landlords contractor notes.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s claim for compensation but noted it had not received any evidence to support that claim. It informed the resident that it could not look to compensate for health issues or handle personal injury claims through its complaints process. It also said its records show that the damp and mould was originally reported on 12 September 2022, and it attended and completed work by 10 October 2022. As the resident then raised concerns that the damp and mould had returned on 7 November 2023, the landlord was currently dealing with that issue. The landlord said that it made timely efforts to address the issue when made aware of it so now considered the investigation as concluded.

Assessment and finding

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has told us he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in his property and complained about this matter since 2016.  We may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation is therefore only able to consider the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property from September 2022. Any events that occurred in the years before this are outside the scope of this investigation.
12. The resident said the condition of his home impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about this. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages for damage to health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s initial complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

13. The landlord’s repair policy defines condensation, damp and mould as an appointed routine repair and that such repairs will be completed within a maximum of 28 calendar days. The resident reported the issue on 12 September 2022 with the landlord attending and competing works by 10 October 2022. This was in line with its repair policy.
14. The landlord has attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions in response to concerns he raised regarding the damp and mould issue. Although the landlord assessed the condition of the affected areas and concluded that the level of mould present was not excessive, it arranged for works to be carried out. On 7 November 2023, the landlord carried out a mould treatment to the bathroom and bedroom, removed and resealed silicone to the bath and resealed around the windows in line with its repair policy.
15. The landlord confirmed that remedial works to address the mould were carried out at the property and completed by December 2023. However, it noted that certain areas in the living room and bathroom were not treated due to the resident not removing the wallpaper As such, those specific areas were excluded from the works. The landlord did advise that once the wallpaper was removed, it would be able to continue with the works. We are not questioning the resident’s reasons for not removing the wallpaper at that time, but this ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues and the landlord is not fully responsible for delays caused by a lack of access. Therefore, the delay caused did not amount to a service failure by the landlord.
16. The landlord refused to reimburse the resident for damaged belongings because he did not provide any evidence to support his loss. In line with standard practice, the landlord requested photographic evidence or receipts. As the resident was unable to provide this evidence, his claim was refused. This was reasonable given that the resident was unable to evidence his losses.
17. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 made up of £150 for its delayed complaint response and £150 for reimbursement of the resident’s wallpaper costs. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered however he eventually accepted the amount.
18. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issues raised by the resident and to put things right through its actions. It attended the property on a number of occasions, carried out treatment works and remained in communication with the resident throughout the process. Where works could not be completed because of the wallpaper in the living room and bathroom the landlord arranged to return once it was removed. In addition to this, the landlord has provided the resident with guidance on how to keep the mould at bay. These actions reflect a proactive approach which were aimed at addressing the concerns of the resident.

Complaint handling

19. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2–stage complaints process and its complaints policy said it was to provide a stage 1 response within 15 working days of a complaint being raised. The policy said it would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
20. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023, therefore a response was due by 25 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and although it did not provide its formal response until 8 December 2022, it maintained communication with the resident throughout the process. This included providing updates on the status of the investigation and responding advising the resident on the outcome of the visits to his property.  
21. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlords stage 1 complaint response so escalated his complaint 8 December 2023. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 22 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response outside of the required timeframe on 22 February 2024. The majority of the required works had been completed by the time the response was issued. Despite this, a complaint response that is sent over 2 months later than the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy represents a significant and unreasonable delay. The resident had to chase the landlord for a response and also contacted his local MP to chase on his behalf.
22. This lack of timely engagement likely caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident and undermined his confidence in the complaints process. The delay was not appropriate and fell short of the standards expected in effective complaint handling. 
23. The landlord is expected to treat reports and complaints of damp and mould seriously given the potential health risks associated with such conditions. In this case, the resident made it clear that the damp and mould was affecting his living environment. The delay in the landlords stage 2 response demonstrated the issue was not being adequately prioritised. Furthermore, the delay caused additional stress and frustration for the resident and this did not reflect the proactive approach required under the Complaint Handling code. The landlord should have acted promptly when providing its response without any unnecessary delay. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 was therefore inappropriate. The Ombudsman also expects landlords to be able to identify and respond to complaints without the involvement of the Service.
24. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord awarded compensation to the resident in acknowledgement of the delays the resident experienced in handling the complaint. This payment reflects an effort to take responsibility for the inconvenience caused by the failure to adhere to the complaint handling timelines. While compensation cannot fully substitute for timely and effective service, the offer of redress demonstrates that the landlord has accepted some accountability for its impact the delays had on the resident. The offer was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of the damp and mould in the residents property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect its handling of the complaint.