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

Amplius Living (202329793)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329793

Amplius Living

30 May 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 the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated November 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The property is heated by solid fuel only and does not have a gas supply. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 3 children. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a gas engineer attended and checked the carbon monoxide and smoke detectors in the resident’s property on 9 October 2023. On 10 October 2023 its contractor rescheduled an appointment for 18 October 2023 as it was unable to complete the solid fuel safety check. The resident called the landlord’s contractor on 18 October 2023. She complained that nobody had attended the appointment.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 October 2023. She said:
    1. a gas engineer attended her property on 9 October 2023 but was only able to check the carbon monoxide and fire alarms in the property.
    2. she was unsure why the landlord’s contractor continued to send gas engineers as there was no gas in the village.
    3. she wanted the landlord to ensure that it did not send another gas engineer as she only had solid fuel.
    4. the landlord’s contractor arranged an alternative appointment to check the solid fuel system on 18 October 2023. However, no one attended, and its contractor did not tell her that it had cancelled the appointment.
    5. she did not have the time to rearrange appointments.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 20 and 27 October 2023 to discuss her complaint. She said she wanted £150 compensation for wasted time and inconvenience. The landlord sent a letter to acknowledge the complaint on 27 October 2023. The landlord called the resident on 6 November 2023 to discuss her complaint and the outcome.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 November 2023. It said:
    1. the engineer who attended on 9 October 2023 was not qualified to carry out a solid fuel service, but it attended and therefore it did not miss the appointment.
    2. it was sorry for any inconvenience caused to the resident by this. It said it was sorry that its contractor did not attend the appointment on 18 October 2023 and did not notify her about this.
    3. as its contractor did not notify the resident at least 30 minutes before the end of the appointment timeslot that it would miss the appointment, it had awarded £10 compensation.
    4. its contractor had completed the service on 2 November 2023.
    5. the resident had requested an escalation to stage 2 as she remained unhappy. It had arranged this and would contact her.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 7 November 2023. It offered her a further £50 compensation for stress and inconvenience. The resident repeated her request to escalate her complaint. She reiterated that she wanted £150 compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 10 November 2023.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 November 2023. It outlined the complaint at stage 1 and the outcome. The landlord said:
    1. there had not been any service failures regarding the issues raised as it had offered compensation in accordance with its policy on missed appointments.
    2. it did not uphold the stage 2 complaint as it followed its complaints process and handled the complaint correctly.
    3. the £60 offered at stage 1 was still available. It consisted of:
      1. £10 for the original missed appointment.
      2. £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused while chasing appointments.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 November 2023. She remained unhappy that the landlord’s contractor sent the wrong engineer, and the landlord was refusing to accept that as a missed appointment. She was also unhappy that the landlord’s contractor missed the rescheduled appointment. She said she wanted the landlord to update its records to reflect which properties have solid fuel to prevent it sending the wrong engineer in future. She also said she wanted £150 compensation for wasted time, distress and inconvenience as she had to rearrange appointments and wait in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check.

  1. The tenancy agreement shows that there is no gas supply in the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s domestic and heating communal heating safety policy states that for solid fuel appliances:
    1. any contractor or consultant employed to carry out any works relating to solid fuel appliances should be approved by the Heating, Testing and Approval Scheme (HETAS) and registered to comply with the new Competent Persons Scheme introduced on 1 April 2002 within the Building Regulations and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
    1. it would award £10 for a missed appointment if it did not contact the resident to cancel or rearrange at least half an hour before the end of the appointed timeslot.
    2. it would not compensate for loss of earnings or other related expenses in the event of missed appointments.
    3. it would award between £50 and £100 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact to residents, but the impact on the resident was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
  4. The engineer sent to the resident’s property by the landlord’s contractor on 9 October 2023 was not qualified to complete the safety check on the solid fuel system as he was a gas engineer. He was only able to complete checks on the carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. The tenancy agreement shows that the property has no gas supply. Additionally, the landlord’s domestic and heating communal heating safety policy states that it should send a suitably qualified engineer to work on solid fuel appliances. It is best practice and line with our guidance on repairs (available on our website) for landlord’s to correctly categorise repairs so it could effectively manage and respond to them. Therefore, it was inappropriate and not in line with the landlord’s policy to send an unqualified engineer.
  5. On 10 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor rescheduled the appointment for 18 October 2023 and informed the resident of this. However, it failed to attend this appointment and did not tell the resident that it had cancelled it. This was unreasonable. The landlord’s contractor rescheduled the appointment for 6 November 2023 and informed the resident of this on 19 October 2023.
  6. On 26 October 2023 the landlord requested that its contractor brought the solid fuel safety check forward as it was due to expire on 9 November 2023. The landlord considered that the appointment date of 6 November 2023 was too close to the expiry date. Its contractor brought the date forward to 2 November 2023 on 26 October 2023 and informed the resident of this. It was reasonable for the landlord to request that the safety check was brought forward.
  7. In its stage 1 response of 6 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had sent an unqualified engineer to conduct the solid fuel safety check on 9 October 2023. It also acknowledged that its contractor had missed the appointment of 18 October 2023 and failed to inform the resident that it had cancelled this appointment. The landlord apologised and offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment. This was appropriate in accordance with its compensation policy for missed appointments.
  8. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord said the appointment of 9 October 2023 was not a missed appointment, because an engineer attended. The landlord failed to acknowledge in its complaint response that while the appointment was attended, the engineer was unable to complete the solid fuel safety check. This would have prevented the resident from having to rearrange the appointment. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact caused to the resident. Therefore, this was unreasonable.
  9. The landlord called the resident on 7 November 2023 and offered a further £50 for stress and inconvenience. In its stage 2 response of 21 November 2023 the landlord repeated its offer of £60 compensation. It said it did not identify any service failures as it offered compensation in accordance with its policy on missed appointments. Again, it failed to consider the impact on the resident of the wrong engineer attending on 9 October 2023. This was unreasonable.
  10. Additionally, in both of its complaints responses the landlord failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles. For example, it did not confirm to the resident whether it, and its contractor’s, records reflected that her property was solid fuel only to ensure it sent a suitably qualified engineer in future. Given the resident had requested this as part of her complaint, the landlord’s response was unreasonable.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary, the landlord has acknowledged that:
    1. its contractor sent an unqualified engineer to the resident’s property on 9 October 2023 who was unable to complete the solid fuel safety check.
    2. its contractor failed to attend the rescheduled appointment on 18 October 2023 and did not inform the resident of this.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in requesting that its contractor brought the third appointment for the solid fuel safety check forward to ensure the safety certificate did not expire. However, the landlord:
    1. did not fully recognise the impact caused to the resident by its contractor sending an unqualified engineer on 9 October 2023.
    2. did not confirm to the resident whether it, and its contractor’s, records reflected that her property was solid fuel only to prevent it sending the wrong engineer in future.
  3. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies; a fair level of compensation would be an additional £60 to the £60 already offered by the landlord. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check.
  4. The landlord should also write to the resident and confirm whether it, and its contractor’s, records reflect that her property is solid fuel only. The landlord should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and states that:
    1. it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1.
    3. it would provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 19 October 2023. Therefore, the landlord had until 26 October 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. There was a slight delay in the landlord sending a letter to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 27 October 2023. However, the landlord had called the resident on 20 October 2023 to discuss her complaint.
  3. In its stage 1 acknowledgement letter of 27 October 2023 the landlord said it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days, by 24 November 2023. This was an oversight as the landlord had 10 working days to respond at stage 1. This meant it had to provide its response by 10 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with its complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 November 2023. Therefore, the landlord had to provide its stage 2 response by 4 December 2023. The landlord provided this response on 21 November 2023. This was appropriate as it was in accordance its complaints policy.
  5. There was a slight delay in acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint. However, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint within 1 day of her raising it. Additionally, although the acknowledgement letter at stage 1 contained some incorrect information regarding response times. The landlord sent its responses at both stages of the complaint within the timescales stipulated in its complaints policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days the landlord should:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident the £60 offered to the resident in its complaints responses if it has not already done so.
    3. pay the resident an additional £60, which it must not offset against arrears, to recognise the likely upset and distress caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the annual solid fuel safety check.
    4. write to the resident and confirm whether it, and its contractor’s, records reflect that her property is solid fuel only. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this determination.