Amplius Living (202331335)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331335

Amplius Living

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated 12 June 1995. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. The landlord has various physical health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident previously raised a complaint to the landlord about the lack of ground maintenance visits. The resident disputed paying service charges for a service that fell below his expectations. The landlord resolved the resident’s complaint in November 2022, stating that contractors would tend to ground maintenance once a fortnight in the summer and once a month in the winter.
On 24 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that there had been no ground maintenance visits since November 2022. On 2 March 2023 the landlord responded stating that contractors had attended that week, and that it would audit the site periodically to ensure that the contractor maintained the standards expected.
On 11 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. a month had passed, and the contractor had failed to show.
2. the landlord had failed to make any positive changes since he first reported issues with the ground maintenance in August 2022.
3. he felt that the landlord was obtaining service charges by deception.
4. he wanted his complaint escalated to stage 2 as he felt the landlord had given misleading information in its previous complaint response.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 June 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. The landlord:
1. apologised for the service provided.
2. explained that a site visit on 13 July 2023 had identified areas of the site needing extra attention and would include these on the next visit.
3. acknowledged that ground maintenance visits were currently taking place every 3 to 4 weeks.
4. advised it was working on plan for fortnightly visits; however, it could not commit to this at present due to bad weather.
5. offered the resident compensation of £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
On 17 August 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said:
1. the landlord’s stage 1 resolution offered no guarantees.
2. the landlord was failing to adhere to the Tenant Charter.
3. residents were paying for the contractor’s non-attendance.
4. the landlord expected residents to do the contractor’s work.
5. the contractor did not attend every 3 to 4 weeks as stated in the landlord’s stage 1 response. Attendance was nearer 2 to 3 months if not longer.
6. ground maintenance work agreed by the landlord was still outstanding.
7. he felt the landlord listened to the contractor and not the residents, despite it being the residents who paid for the service.
8. using the weather as an excuse was not acceptable.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord met with the contractor and requested that ground maintenance was to be tended to twice a month until the end of October 2023.
On 26 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in responding and for the significant reduction in the ground maintenance service provided.
2. acknowledged its failure in providing the agreed level of service.
3. advised it was working on increasing ground maintenance to every 2 to 3 weeks, but the contractor was experiencing workforce shortages.
4. stated it did not expect residents to carry out any maintenance work.
5. explained that it was reviewing the ground maintenance contract and looking at alternative contractors for the new year.
6. apologised that it could not give solid guarantees of site visits.
7. promised to do its utmost to attend site visits along with the contractors and oversee the work until the end of the current contract.
8. offered the resident compensation of £300 which comprised of:
  1. £150 for the late acknowledgement and resolution of the complaint.
  2. £100 for any upset and inconvenience caused.
  3. £50 offered in its stage 1 response.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023 after further issues with the ground maintenance. He said he was not satisfied with the lack of site visits and the standard of work. As an outcome, the resident said he wanted the landlord to implement any of the following measures until a new contract was in place:
1. schedule and supervise all contractor site visits.
2. employ a temporary contractor.
3. stop charging residents for the service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns payment of fixed service charges within his rent for grounds maintenance work. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent are within the jurisdiction of either the First-Tier Tribunal or the courts and the resident may wish to seek legal independent advice. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance

The landlord’s occupancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s obligation to keep the exterior of the premises and any common parts in a good state of decoration.
The landlord’s estate management policy states that it will ensure that communal gardens/grassed areas are maintained in line with the contract agreed, inspected for adherence to contract and residents are asked for their feedback.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it should consider the distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure. Distress can include raised expectations, where the landlord’s actions or inactions resulted in a resident reasonably believing that something would, or would not happen.
On 24 February 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that ground maintenance had not been tended to since November 2022 and requested an update. The landlord responded on 2 March 2023, by which time the contractors had attended. The landlord told the resident that it would periodically audit the site to ensure that contractors were meeting the expected standards. Whilst the landlord’s response may have offered reassurance for future site visits, it failed to explain the lack of visits over the previous months. This was unreasonable, given the resident’s initial concerns.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord asked the resident for feedback on recent contractor visits. The resident replied on 29 March 2023 stating there were still issues with attendance. On 12 April 2023, 9 working days later, the landlord responded. It said that it had increased its meetings with the contractors in the hope of resolving issues, and that it was looking into procuring another contract. Whilst the landlord’s response indicated that it was working to try and resolve the issues, the time taken to respond to the resident was unreasonable, given the resident’s concerns about the contractors attendance.
On 11 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord stating that another month had passed, and the contractor had failed to attend. The landlord’s records show that in its resolution to the resident’s previous complaint, it had committed to site visits at least once a month, depending on the season. The frequency of the contractor visits fell outside of the levels the landlord had committed to, which was unreasonable.
On 29 June 2023 the resident reported again that there had been no ground maintenance for over a month. He also said that he had received no communication from the landlord regarding the missed visits. The landlord advised the resident that it would visit the site with the contractor on 13 July 2023 to decide how to put things right and would call the resident after to discuss any outcomes. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its poor communication regarding the missed visits. That it did not was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of any discussions or outcomes from the site visit on 13 July 2023. However, we have seen that on 19 July 2023 the landlord called the resident and was still unable to confirm the frequency of visits. The resident said that he was unhappy to pay for fortnightly contractor visits which were taking place every 3 to 4 weeks, and that the site was not being maintained. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations of a resolution which was unreasonable.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the below standard service that the resident had received and offered compensation of £50 for the delay in its response. The landlord advised it was working on a plan to increase site visits. In its response, the landlord failed to acknowledge any distress or inconvenience the ground maintenance issues might have caused the resident. This was unreasonable.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 17 August 2023. He said that the stage 1 response had offered no guarantees. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide. As the landlord had not yet resolved the issue, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided the resident with a date by which he could expect a resolution or a status update. That it did not was unreasonable.
The evidence shows that the resident reported issues with missed contractor visits 5 times between February and September 2023. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs (found on our website) states that landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. As there was no schedule for the ground maintenance visits and this Service has seen no evidence of any maintenance logs, the landlord failed to effectively monitor its grounds maintenance service delivery. This was unreasonable.
On 5 September 2023 the resident raised concerns about poor standards of work following a ground maintenance visit. Issues included untreated weeds and leftover tree debris. On 7 September 2023 the landlord asked the contractor to make fortnightly visits to the site which was a reasonable response from the landlord.
On 26 September 2023 the resident complained that the contractors had not attended for over 3 weeks. On 29 September 2023 the landlord’s records state that the contractor was not making visits as agreed due to a lack of workforce. It would have been reasonable at this point for the landlord to consider other options to ensure it was able to fulfil the service promised to its residents, such as hiring temporary contractors until it procured a new contractor. The landlord failed to act to ensure it fulfilled its commitments. This was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 October 2023. The landlord apologised and acknowledged its failures in delivering the agreed level of ground maintenance service. It offered £100 compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer the resident redress to put things right. However, it failed to set out how it would resolve the issues before the procurement of a different contract. This was unreasonable.
In summary, although the landlord identified its failure to comply with its service level agreements and offered redress for this, this Service has found maladministration in the handling of the resident’s concerns about ground maintenance. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to explain the lack of contractor visits between November 2022 and February 2023.
2. communicated poorly with the resident, with delays in responding to his concerns.
3. failed to monitor the contractor attendance.
4. failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding resolving the issues.
5. failed to consider alternative actions to ensure it fulfilled its commitments.
The landlord’s failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Whilst it attempted to put things right by apologising and offering redress, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation.
After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s ground maintenance concerns. This is in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response, making a total compensation award of £300.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord asked the resident for feedback on recent ground maintenance visits. The resident’s reply stated there were problems with contractors’ attendance and said that he felt let down by the landlord’s poor management. The Code states that survey feedback may not necessarily need to be treated as a complaint. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 April 2023 advising that it had increased its meeting with the contractors hoping to resolve some underlying issues and was looking at procuring a new ground maintenance contract.
The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2023. The landlord’s policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2023, which was 34 working days later. The landlord’s acknowledgement letter failed to recognise the delay. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
The resident requested that the landlord advance his complaint straight to stage 2. He said this was because he felt the landlord had given misleading information in its previous complaint resolution. On 7 July 2023 the landlord called the resident to explain that the time to request an escalation to his previous complaint had expired, so it had opened a new complaint for the resident instead. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to open a new complaint, there is no evidence to show why it took 2 months for the landlord to explain this to the resident. This was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 July 2023. This was 42 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord’s policy states that if it requires an extension beyond 20 working days to respond to a complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. We have seen no evidence that the landlord requested an extension. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 17 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the request the following day which was reasonable. The evidence shows that after 20 working days had passed, the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response 3 times. On 2 October 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident and said it was working to improve the ground maintenance service. We have seen no evidence that the landlord requested an extension in providing its complaint response. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 October 2023, 49 working days after its acknowledgement. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident compensation of £150 for the late acknowledgement and resolution of the complaint. It added this to the £50 compensation offered in its stage 1 response, making a total of £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
Whilst the landlord addressed the delays and attempted to put things right, its lack of communication meant that the resident had to chase for the stage 2 response. This would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience which was unreasonable.
In summary, although the landlord identified its failure to respond within its policy timescales and offered redress for this, this Service has found maladministration in the handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.
2. delayed in explaining why it opened a new complaint instead of escalating the resident’s old complaint.
3. failed to request extensions in providing its complaint responses.
4. communicated poorly, causing the resident to chase the stage 2 response.
The landlord’s failures would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Having considered the redress, the compensation of £200 offered to the resident is reasonable and proportionate. However, we have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this investigation. We also order the landlord to reoffer the £200 compensation if this has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about ground maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. pay the resident a total of £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about ground maintenance. The landlord may deduct the £100 offered if it can evidence it has already been paid.
3. reoffer £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling or provide evidence that it has already been paid.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.