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

Amplius Living (202322334)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322334

Longhurst Group Limited

26 February 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of multiple repairs in the property.
    2. The resident’s report of a running water noise.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her son who has autism.
  2. The resident first made a formal complaint via her local MP on 25 July 2022. The complaint was in relation to the condition of her property and outstanding works. The local MP requested that the landlord arrange for a surveyor to visit the property and identify the works required to bring the property to a habitable standard. The works outlined were:
    1. An outstanding repair to the shower which had a completion deadline of September 2021. The resident said the lack of shower had caused an increase in her utility costs.
    2. Damp throughout the house, particularly in the bathroom and her son’s bedroom.
    3. Lounge doors which the landlord had taken off during a previous repair but had not been re-hung.
    4. The resident said since re-decorating the lounge there were water marks on the inside of the lounge window.
    5. She said she was unable to paint on the walls due to the condition of the plaster. She said the cladding on the outside of the house was also damp and crumbling away.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 2 February 2023. It confirmed that its communication to the resident since she reported the repairs was inadequate. It apologised that it had not offered her alternative accommodation. It also apologised for mishandling the damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged the delay in dealing with her complaint.
  4. The landlord stated that a surveyor and damp specialist inspected her property on 13 October 2022. It outlined the schedule of works. It said it had commissioned the external work which would begin on 1 February 2023. It said it would begin the internal work on 20 February 2023 and it would move the resident into temporary accommodation with an expected end date of 4 March 2023. It offered £1000 in compensation. £950 was to take into account the stress and inconvenience caused and £50 was for the delays with the complaint.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2023. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed the bathroom walls, bathroom, kitchen and dining room doors, and architrave. She said there were cracks on her stairway and landing which the landlord had told her it would make good. She said there was also an issue with the door which had been re-hung. She said the plumbing in the outhouse had not been fixed and that she could still hear running water. The resident wanted the landlord to complete the remaining repairs without further delay. The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint on the same day.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 September 2023. It provided a timeline of events and outlined the works which had been agreed and carried out by 14 July 2023. It said the resident confirmed she was happy with those works.
  7. The landlord said a surveyor attended on 17 August 2023 in relation to the cracks. It said the surveyor stated that they were not of concern but the surveyor would return on 16 November 2023 to check if there was further movement. It said it had carried out investigative works in relation to the resident hearing running water in the property. The landlord said the surveyor who attended on 17 August 2023 raised a repair to lag the pipes to help reduce the noise. It confirmed it had booked an appointment for that on 12 October 2023.
  8. The landlord apologised for the significant delay in completing work, it said it failed to follow through on the repairs agreed to her home. It said it was working to improve project management of its third party contacts. It offered a further £1000 in compensation. £600 was for distress, upset and inconvenience caused, £250 was for the further delays with the repairs, and £150 was for the late resolution of the complaint. The landlord also offered a decorating pack for the resident to complete decoration of 3 rooms in her home.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted to understand how the landlord reached its conclusions. She also wanted a clear plan on how it would address the cracks in the property and what would happen if they reappeared. She said she wanted a full investigation into the sound of running water and the landlord to resolve any underlying issues, rather than lagging the pipes.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. On 1 February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that her water company discovered that a neighbour’s pipe was causing the running water noise. She confirmed that the noise had stopped.
  2. In June 2024, the landlord confirmed that the outstanding repairs of the architrave, kitchen door, and filling the cracks were taking longer than expected. It said it had put measures in place to ensure repairs were completed in a timelier manner and it had weekly contractor meetings to discuss the work. It said it had changed the process of monitoring works and implemented a new complaint escalation process. The landlord said it wanted to offer the resident a further £100 for the repair delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her household’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
  2. The resident has reported that additional issues have arisen since the stage 2 response, such as a requirement for a new bathroom and the hazards posed by it. The scope of this investigation is limited to the matters addressed by the landlord during its response to the resident’s formal complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme and to allow the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs in the property.

  1. The landlord has 2 versions of its repairs and maintenance policy which would be applicable for the timeframe of this investigation. The earlier version outlined that emergency repairs should be attended to between 2 and 24 hours to make safe. It says that appointed repairs should be completed within 21 days. The later version, which was effective from 25 May 2022 describes 3 repair categories, these are:
    1. Emergency repairs – attend within 4 hours and make safe.
    2. Appointed urgent repairs – complete within 7 calendar days maximum.
    3. Appointed routine repairs – complete within 28 calendar days maximum.
  2. The landlord’s compensation procedure outlines that its compensation can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the particular circumstances of the complaint. It states that its maximum awards of £600 and above would be offered in recognition of maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a long-term impact on the complainant.
  3. It has not been disputed that there were several failures made by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged its failures, apologised, and offered compensation. This assessment will therefore consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. This would be in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it raised a repair on 23 June 2021 in relation to the shower and bathroom tap. The landlord did not complete the repairs until 7 December 2022, almost 18 months later. On 28 June 2022, the resident reported that she had a lot of damp concerns with her home. The landlord did not complete a damp survey until 13 October 2022, almost 4 months later. The resident raised additional repairs in her formal complaint on 25 July 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 13 October 2022, almost 3 months later.
  5. Given the time which had passed since the resident first raised concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to inspect the property. However, the delays in doing so were not appropriate and exceeded the landlord’s repair timescales which were in place at the time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage 1 response and offer compensation in an attempt to put things right for the resident. It was also appropriate for it to outline the schedule of works required and to provide estimated timeframes for completion, to help manage the resident’s expectations.
  6. It appears there was a further delay between the inspections on 13 October 2022 and the commencement of the works in February 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined the reasons why and to show it had considered how it would not make the same mistakes in future.
  7. The landlord did not complete the works outlined in the stage 1 response by the projected end date of 4 March 2023. This led the resident to escalate her complaint. In her complaint escalation, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of and response to repairs which she felt had been unaddressed.
  8. While the Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s frustration, it must be noted that some of her complaints in the escalation such as the noise of running water, cracks on the stairways and landing, and upstairs doors were not included in the original complaint, nor were they included in the landlord’s schedule of works which was outlined in the stage 1 response.
  9. The Ombudsman must rely on the documentary evidence provided to it and no evidence has been provided of the resident querying these issues on receipt of the schedule of works. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord was at fault for not addressing those matters at the point of the stage 2 escalation. The landlord responded to the complaints in its stage 2 response and the Ombudsman will consider whether the response satisfactorily resolved all the issues.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it had completed the internal works by 26 June 2023 and the external works by 14 July 2023. It also outlined the works which had been previously agreed, which was appropriate. The landlord said the resident had confirmed it had carried out the repairs to her satisfaction.
  11. The landlord referred to the cracks reported by the resident. It evidenced that a surveyor had inspected the cracks and they did not show signs of concern. It was appropriate for it to arrange a follow up appointment on 16 November 2023 to review the cracks. This should have provided reassurance to the resident that while there was no current risk, it was taking her reports and the issue seriously.
  12. The Ombudsman finds that while there was a further delay in completing the works, the landlord acknowledged the failures and apologised for them. It aimed to put things right by offering additional compensation and it showed learning by outlining its commitment to improving its project management of its third party contracts.
  13. The total compensation offered in this case was £2000 which accounted for distress and inconvenience, delays, and late responses to her complaint. The amount is in accordance with the highest award band in the landlord’s compensations procedure and in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The amount appropriately recognises the detriment caused to the resident’s household as a result of the failures and the Ombudsman would not award any further compensation.
  14. The Ombudsman would have found reasonable redress if not for the further delays evidenced in April 2024. It was not appropriate that there were repairs outstanding for at least another 8 months after the stage 2 response. This suggests that the landlord did not learn from all its outcomes. While it appears that the landlord has since put measures in place to aim to remedy this, it was fair to consider additional compensation in recognition of the failures. The landlord has not provided further evidence to confirm that it has now completed all the works identified in the stage 2 response. Therefore, an order will be made for it to do so.
  15. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the report of a running water noise

  1. On 26 January 2023, the resident reported that the pipe to her washing machine had burst. She said the landlord had responded to it as an emergency, but it was now leaking and she could hear water running through the house, even when she turned it off. She asked the landlord to move her out of the house while any work took place, as she was finding it distressing. The landlord responded to the resident the same day to confirm that it had requested a decant. It said she should contact its contractor the next morning to arrange for them to repair the feed to the washing machine. It said it seemed that was the quickest route to getting an appointment.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 January 2023 to say the issue remained unfixed and she could not get an appointment. She said she was informed it would be dealt with as an emergency. The landlord responded to confirm that the repair was marked as urgent on 27 January 2023 and therefore it would take 7 days to complete the repair. It is unclear from the records if or when the washing machine was fixed. However, the resident stated in her stage 2 escalation that she could still hear running water. She said the landlord said it was because she was in an end house.
  3. The delay in responding to the washing machine leak was not appropriate nor was it in line with the landlord’s repair policy. It likely led to the delays in resolving the water running noise for the resident, as it was unclear if it was related to the washing machine leak.
  4. The records do not refer to the conversation where the resident said she was told the noise was due to her living in an end house. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the conversation happened, however, as previously stated, we must rely on the documentary evidence provided to us when determining a case.
  5. The resident sent recordings and raised reports regarding the running water noise in May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 May 2023 to state that it would erect a scaffolding on the week commencing 12 June 2023. It said it had asked its contractors to prioritise the running water noises in the walls as it knew it was a major issue for the resident.
  6. On 19 June 2023, the contractor reported the noise was coming from the water mains which was entering the property. They confirmed when the external stopcock was shut off, the noise stopped. They said it needed to be passed back to the landlord. The landlord said it then arranged for a drainage company to investigate on 10 July 2023. It said they reported no issues with the drains. It said the surveyor who visited on 17 August 2023 had raised a repair to lag the pipes to reduce the noise, the repair was booked for 12 October 2023.
  7. The Ombudsman acknowledges that while this was a non-urgent repair, it still exceeded the landlord’s 28 calendar day repair timescale. The landlord should consider why it was not able to carry out the repair within its timescales and if its more recent changes have addressed this.
  8. As stated, the initial delays in investigating the noise were not appropriate. The Ombudsman can also appreciate the likely distress caused to the resident as a result of the issue. However, the landlord evidenced that following the stage 2 escalation it took appropriate actions to investigate the noise. The resident confirmed that following further investigations recommended by the landlord, the issue was eventually resolved in December 2023.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it failed to follow through on repairs to the resident’s home and said it was working to improve its project management of third parties. It also awarded proportionate compensation in recognition of those findings. As such, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a running water noise.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves its handling of the resident’s reports regarding a running water noise satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must provide an update to the resident and Ombudsman on whether it has now completed all the outstanding repairs. If any repairs are outstanding, the landlord must provide the reasons why and create an action plan with defined timescales for completion.
  2. If it has not already done so, landlord must pay a total of £2,100 in compensation to the resident. This is broken down as the £2000 offered in its complaint responses and the £100 offered post complaint.
  3. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider why it was not able to carry out the repair identified on 17 August 2023 within its repair timescales, and whether its more recent changes to its processes have sufficiently addressed this.