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

Amplius Living (202308309)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308309

Longhurst Group

14 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 repairs to the garden fence.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord between 2019 and January 2025. The property was a 2-bedroom house with a garden. The resident occupied the property with her 2 children aged 2 and 5. The landlord was aware the resident had mental health issues, anxiety and depression.
  2. In April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the garden fence needed replacement. The landlord attended on several occasions to carry out various aspects of the work, including removing old fencing, ground works, and installing concrete posts.
  3. The resident made a complaint in August 2022, saying the repairs were only partially complete and the landlord had not met the 28-day timescale for completing the repair. She said this meant the garden, which backed onto a public road, had been unsecured for an extended period. She said the situation was stressful and frustrating, affected her sense of safety and the overall security of the property, impacted the family’s privacy, and they had not been able to use the garden.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of November 2022, it apologised for its late response and for the level of service the resident had received from its repairs contractor. It upheld the complaint and offered £125 compensation (£50 for the delay in completing the repair, £50 for the stress and inconvenience, and £25 for its late complaint response).
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and compensation offer and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She detailed the impact of the situation on her mental health and informed the landlord of theft of belongings from the garden and expenses she had incurred taking her children out while the fence repair was outstanding.
  6. The landlord completed the fence repairs on 6 April 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It again apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and offered an additional £950 compensation (£400 for stress, inconvenience, and the impact on her mental health, £250 contribution for stolen items, £150 for its late complaint response, £100 for the delay in completing the repairs and £50 under the right to repair scheme).
  7. In her referral to us the resident has said the compensation offered for delay, and inconvenience and distress does not reflect the duration of the issue, or the amount of time spent engaged with the landlord on the issue. She also considers the landlord should reimburse the costs of monies spent taking the children out to alternative play areas whilst fence repairs were outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised issues of damaged and missing fencing from the start of the tenancy in 2019. The complaint correspondence also refers to the property not having a fence for 3 years. We ask that residents raise complaints within a reasonable time of the issues arising, normally within 12 months. The first complaint was made in August 2022 in relation to the fence repair requested in March 2022. As such, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of matters from 3 March 2022 to its final response on 20 April 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden fence

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of fences on public boundaries or communal areas of land and it will complete such repairs within a maximum of 28 days.
  2. The resident’s fence bordered a public car park. She first requested a repair on 3 March 2022 and the landlord raised the repair the same day (meaning it should have been completed by 31 March 2022). The repair was not carried out and the evidence provided by the landlord does not make clear the reasons for this. However, the landlord told us the fencing works were issued during the time the landlord was changing it repairs contractor.
  3. When the resident made the landlord aware the outgoing contractor had not carried out the repair it issued a job to its new contractor. This was more than 4 months after the resident requested the repair. It was a failing that the landlord was not aware the repair had not been carried out until the resident brought it to the landlord’s attention. This shows the landlord did not have robust monitoring systems in place during the time it was transitioning between contractors. This negatively impacted the service provided to the resident and caused an unreasonable delay in a contractor starting repairs.
  4. After the job was raised to the new contractor there were further delays. A review of the documents provided by the landlord show the reasons were:
    1. Operatives not trained on the heavy equipment needed for preparatory ground works.
    2. Not enough time allocated to complete the work when it began.
    3. Difficulty sourcing materials to complete the works.
  5. The repairs records suggest the landlord raised the job directly to the fencing contractor without first carrying out a pre-inspection to scope the extent of the works needed. Had the landlord done this, it would have had a precise understanding of the time, materials, equipment, and training needs of staff and been able to plan the work accordingly. The lack of proper planning led to a stop-start approach which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The resident told us the contractors repeat visits were time consuming and stressful.
  6. On 10 August 2022 the contractor installed most of the fence panels, but the garden gate was not installed, which left the property unsecured. Given the fence bordered a public car park this was unfair and unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a temporary solution to secure the garden but there is no evidence it did so. The situation affected the resident’s sense of safety and privacy, she felt unable to relax in the property or let her small children into the garden.
  7. On the same day she made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The landlord immediately telephoned the contractor to discuss the matter, which was customer focussed. The contractor explained they had been unable to source materials for the gate. This issue was subsequently resolved because the documents provided show the gate was installed 3 weeks later on 1 September 2022. The fence repairs were then considered complete, 5 months over the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  8. On 4 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the issues and offered £50 under the right to repair scheme and £50 for stress and inconvenience. The resident was dissatisfied with the compensation offer and on 11 November 2022 escalated her complaint to stage 2. She explained the impact on her mental health. She also informed the landlord that toys, bikes, and clothes from the washing line had been stolen while the garden had been unsecured. She said she had also incurred expenses taking her children to alternative play areas.
  9. On 23 January 2023 (prior to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response) the resident reported the fence between her property and her neighbour’s property had fallen. The landlord raised a repair the same day (meaning it should have been completed by 20 February 2023). The landlord’s evidence shows this second repair was completed on 6 April 2023, 6.5 weeks past the timescale set out in its repairs policy.
  10. While this delay was not as protracted as the first fence repair, the records show the resident was calling the landlord frequently to enquire what would be happening next. In discussion with us the resident stated the landlord’s communication throughout the fence issues was not good enough. The landlord should reflect on this and ensure that, when it becomes aware it will not be able to complete a repair within the published timescale, it communicates in a timely way with the resident.
  11. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the fence between neighbours is not the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair. However, the documents show it decided to provide the second fence in recognition of the prolonged delay of the first fence repair. This was customer focused, and we consider this to be part of the remedy offered to the resident.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023. It again apologised for the issues with the fence repairs and offered £950 compensation. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint about expenses incurred in taking her children to alternative play areas. We have not been provided with any evidence that the resident was required to take her children to alternative play areas and do not find that the landlord was required to reimburse these costs. However, the landlord should have explained its position in its complaint response (more on this below).
  13. We find that the compensation amounts offered to the resident for stress and inconvenience and its contribution towards the stolen items were fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, the landlord far exceeded its repairs timescales for fence repairs on both occasions and the situation caused inconvenience and distress to the resident for several months. We therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fence repairs.
  14. The landlord offered £50 for its delays in the first fence repair, but this was not in line with the amounts set out in its compensation policy. The policy says the landlord will consider a compensation amount of between £100 and £600 where there has been failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy. There was a 5 month delay in the first fence repair and we consider that £300 compensation would have been more appropriate for that period. There was a 6 week delay in the second repair and we find that £100 compensation would be more appropriate for that period. Therefore, the total amount of compensation for delays to the fence repairs is £400. The landlord has already paid £150 compensation so it is ordered to pay a further £250 compensation now.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy further states that in exceptional circumstances it may extend the response time by no more than 10 working days.
  2. The landlord provided its complaint responses outside of its policy timescale at both stages 1 and 2. Its stage 1 response was due on 23 August 2022 but was not issued until 4 November 2022, over 10 weeks past its due date. We have not seen any evidence the landlord provided any apology or explanation or communicated with the resident during the time of delay. This was unreasonable and lacked customer focus.
  3. In discussion with us the resident said the situation caused disappointment and frustration. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was dealing with a high number of complaints and offered £25 compensation. In consideration of the landlord’s compensation policy, we find that this sum falls short of the amounts it should have applied at that stage.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement it informed the resident it would respond by 9 December 2022. On that day the landlord contacted the resident and the agreed a new response date of 23 December 2022. However, that deadline was missed and the landlord did not communicate with the resident about the situation. This was unreasonable and caused inconvenience and distress.
  5. Between 23 December 2022 and 19 January 2023, the records show the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and email 7 times requesting a call back to update her on when she would receive the complaint response. The records show the landlord did not respond until 19 January 2023, some 4 weeks later. This timescale was unreasonable. On 19 January it wrote back that it would get back to her when it had further information. It did not acknowledge or apologise that its complaint response remained outstanding. The landlord’s approach and failure to communicate for this month-long period was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
  6. After this, and up to 17 April 2023,  the resident continued to chase the landlord for its complaint response. This should not have been the case. The records show she was told she would receive a call back or the landlord would contact her when it had spoken to internal colleagues, but this did not happen. The situation caused the resident to be frustrated and exasperated as evidenced by the sentiments expressed in her emails to the landlord. She had to spend an unreasonable amount of time and trouble chasing the landlord on the issue which caused her to lose confidence in the complaints process.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 April 2023, 4 months past the date. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delay, said it was recruiting more staff and offered £150 for the late resolution of the complaint.
  8. As stated above, the resident also raised the issue of expenses incurred for alternative play areas in her stage 2 complaint, but the landlord failed to respond to this point entirely. Our Complaint Handling Code says landlords should respond to all the points raised in the complaint.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling resulted in a poor experience for the resident. The complaints process was unduly long and hard for her to manage. She experienced unreasonable delays at stages 1 and 2. The landlord’s lack of communication and urgency at stage 2 caused particular distress and inconvenience to the resident and meant she had to spend an unreasonable amount of time and trouble chasing for its response. We therefore find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  10. The landlord offered a total of £175 compensation for its complaint handling. In consideration of the landlord’s compensation policy (which says £50 to £100 might be paid where there has been service failure), the amount offered at stage 1 was insufficient. We consider that £75 would be more proportionate to the 10-week delay at stage 1 and £150 would be more appropriate for the 16-week delay at stage 2.
  11. We also find that an additional remedy of £75 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing a response to her complaint at stage 2 would be appropriate. The landlord has already paid £175 to the resident so an order is made for additional compensation of £125 to be paid.
  12. We acknowledge the amount of time that has passed since this complaint and that the landlord’s handling of this complaint may not be reflective of its current complaint handling practices. However, the landlord should be mindful that its compensation awards align with the amounts set out in its policy and are proportionate to the delay the resident has experienced. Had the landlord’s compensation awards for delays aligned with its compensation policy and been proportionate to the length of delay we may have found there had been reasonable redress. We note the landlord has apologised throughout its complaint responses for its handling of the issues, so no further apology is ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the fence.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident an additional £375 compensation:
    1. £250 for the delays in the repairs to the garden fence.
    2. £125 for the delays and residents time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.