From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Amplius Living (202322332)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322332

Amplius Living

30 April 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 goodwill payment offer for the resident’s complaint about being stuck in a lift.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lived in a flat situated in a block until September 2023.
  2. On 13 September 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that:
    1. He had been stuck in the block’s lift for an hour.
    2. The situation had caused him distress because he is autistic, has anxiety and asthma.
    3. He was moving out that day and had incurred costs from a removal company.
    4. He was looking to be compensated at least £100.

The resident added on 20 September 2023 that he was claustrophobic and has now developed a fear of lifts because of the incident. He said he was seeking more compensation than originally requested. He also attempted to send a copy of the receipt for the removal company costs, but it is not evident this was received.

  1. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 25 September 2023, the landlord said it had not identified any failings in its service because:
    1. The lift had been serviced a month before in-line with its maintenance schedule and no faults had been identified.
    2. It could not have foreseen the lift breaking down.
    3. Its lift contractor had responded to the call out in under its 2-hour timescale.

The landlord offered £25 as a gesture of goodwill. It also agreed to consider the resident’s request to be reimbursed his moving costs if he provided evidence.

  1. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 26 September 2023. He said that, while he accepted the lift breaking down could not have been foreseen, it did not change the fact that it happened. The resident advised that he had lost £254 because he could not use the removal company and had to call upon a friend. He sent a screen shot of his invoice for the removal company and asked the compensation to be increased to £300.
  2. In the stage 2 response dated 28 September 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed its original response. It agreed that the lift contractor attended within the required timescale. The landlord advised that it had considered the resident’s evidence and would increase its goodwill offer to £125. It said this was because the resident had initially asked to be compensated £100.
  3. After the complaints process ended, the landlord paid the resident the goodwill payment of £125 in December 2023.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. He advised that he has been affected financially and mentally. The resident said he is seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that being stuck in the lift has had a significant impact on his mental health because of his vulnerabilities. This includes a fear of using lifts. The courts are the most effective place to consider if the actions or inactions of the landlord has directly impacted the resident’s mental health. In personal injury claims, the parties usually appoint independent medical experts to provide insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Instead, consideration in this case will be given in this investigation to the distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part have caused the resident. 

Lift breakdown

  1. According to the landlord’s complaints policy it would take steps to put things right for the person complaining “Where it is clear that something has gone wrong.” The landlord’s approach is in-line with the expectations of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This states that a landlord is expected to take actions to put things right “where something has gone wrong”.
  2. The resident complained that he lost money from a removal company and was caused significant distress and inconvenience. He initially asked for “at least” £100 but later added he was looking for up to £300.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy said it would consider if “there has been an actual, evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of the service failure identified in an investigation.” The landlord identified no service failure in its investigation of the resident’s complaint. It said this was because:
    1. It serviced the lift regularly.
    2. There was no known fault with the lift.
    3. Its lift contractor responded within the timescales set in its service level agreement.
  4. We have seen evidence showing that the lift was serviced on 4 August 2023, just over a month before the incident complained about happened. According to the log, no faults were identified. This supports the landlord’s account that it met its obligations to maintain the lift and that there was no issue found with it. We have also seen evidence showing that the lift contractor recorded receiving a call that the lift had broken down at 9:31am on 13 September 2023. Its engineer then recorded that it attended at 10:15am. This was around 45 minutes after the report. Therefore, the evidence also supports that the landlord did meet its timescales.
  5. The landlord awarded a goodwill payment of £25 at stage 1. It then increased this by £100 at stage 2 after it considered the resident’s receipt. The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £125 because it did not cover his expenditure. He also said it does not reflect the serious impact that being stuck in the lift caused.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it may offer compensation as a gesture of goodwill “If a resident has suffered distress or inconvenience from issues that are not covered elsewhere in the policy”. It may pay up to a maximum of £50. While we acknowledge that the resident was caused distress from being stuck in the lift, there is no evidence that we have seen that this was caused by the actions or inactions of the landlord. As there was no evidence of service failure, the landlord was not required under its policies or the Code to offer to put things right for the resident. It was at the landlord’s discretion then that it did offer compensation. The amount it awarded was also beyond the maximum the policy states it would usually pay for a goodwill gesture.
  7. It is our view that the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was fair and reasonable, and in-line with its policies. While this is the case, we have seen a shortfall in its handling of the stage 1 response. This was around the further information the resident gave about the impact of the events on him. It is unclear if the landlord received a copy of his receipt, but the call notes support that he offered to send this prior to the initial response being sent. He had also asked the landlord to consider awarding a higher amount than originally requested.
  8. It would have been appropriate, in the circumstances, to either ask the resident to provide the receipt before sending the response. Alternatively, the landlord should have reflected the resident was seeking up to £300 and explained why it would not be paying this amount. As this did not impact on the decision or the resident negatively, we have not found this oversight from the landlord is enough to make a finding of service failure. Rather, this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s overall handling.
  9. We recognise that the resident was caused considerable distress and inconvenience from being stuck in the lift. The evidence, however, supports the landlord’s view that the fault with the lift could not have been foreseen or prevented. It also shows that the landlord responded to the issue well within its timescales. There was no service failure and, therefore, the landlord is not ordered to make any further goodwill gesture payments.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was no maladministration in the landlord’s goodwill payment offer for the resident’s complaint about being stuck in a lift.