Amplius Living (202334124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334124

Amplius Living

10 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak and damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides at the property with her 5 children and husband. The landlord is aware that several household members have health issues.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2023 to report that there were leaks from the upstairs wet room causing damage in the property. She said that in 2020 the hallway ceiling had collapsed due to the leaks and, apart from a temporary repair, no further repair work had been arranged.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 July 2023. She said that:
   1. The leaks that she reported had not been repaired, were causing damp and mould and this was affecting her family’s health.
   2. There was ongoing ASB in the area that the landlord was aware of. Due to this she felt the property was unsuitable for her family.
   3. She was unhappy with a lack of communication from the landlord when she had attempted to seek a resolution to these issues.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. It recognised that there had been service failures in its response to reports of the leaks and in its complaint handling, it apologised for these. It offered the resident a total of £175 in compensation, which it broke down as:
   1. £100 towards distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
   2. £25 for delays in responding to the complaint.
   3. £50 for delays in arranging the repairs.
6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 November 2023. She was unhappy that it had not arranged a date to commence the repair works in the wet room.
7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 21 February 2024. It said that repair work would commence on 4 March 2024 and the resident would be temporarily housed elsewhere for the duration of the works. It highlighted and apologised for, delays in arranging the works, delays in responding to the complaint and poor communication with the resident. It offered a further £850 in compensation, broken down as:
   1. £150 for delays in resolving the complaint.
   2. £200 for delays in arranging the repair work.
   3. £50 for poor communication throughout the process.
   4. £450 for the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident.
8. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation to the resident to £1025.
9. The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She was dissatisfied with its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

10. The resident said her children’s health conditions were affected by the leaks in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
11. The resident told us that she has been reporting ongoing leaks from the wet room since 2018 and that part of the ceiling in the hallway had collapsed due to this in 2020. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They could then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how a landlord responds.
12. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, to see if it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. Our investigation has focussed on events leading up to its final response on 21 February 2024. Any mention of historical matters prior to this is for context purposes only.
13. Whilst conducting the investigation it is noted that the resident complained to the landlord after it had issued its final response, regarding the length of time she had been placed in temporary accommodation. The landlord responded to this with an extension of its prior stage 2 response to this complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s original formal complaint and issues reported after the landlord’s final response will not be considered.
14. In light of this, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to issue a new complaint response to the issues she raised on 8 May 2024, at stage 1 of its formal complaints procedure. The resident will then have the opportunity to escalate this should she remain unhappy at its response. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to bring a new case to this service at that stage.

Reports of leaks and damp and mould

15. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy in place at the time of the resident’s report of leaks from the wet room, states it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs and make safe within 4 hours.
    2. Complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days.
    3. Complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
16. It also states that containable leaks and issues with damp, mould and condensation will be categorised as routine repairs and responded to within the timescales set out for this priority.
17. Upon receiving the resident’s report of leaks from the wet room in June 2023, the landlord arranged for a Surveyor to attend the property. This was appropriate given that the resident had indicated that the issues with the leaks were longstanding. It was reasonable of the landlord to assume that due to the length of time that had passed, damage may be present that would result in it needing to arrange more complex repair work. When this is the case it is good practice to obtain a Surveyor’s opinion rather than raise a routine repair job.
18. The Surveyor attended to inspect the required work to the wet room on 12 July 2023. The response was timely and appropriate for the circumstances. The landlord identified the repairs required and passed them to its contractor to complete. It was noted that the family would need to be temporarily rehoused whilst the works were conducted, as there were no alternative toilet or bathing facilities in the house. The landlord advised it would liaise with its contractor to get this arranged. It arranged an appointment for 23 August 2023 for the contractor to attend, inspect the works and arrange timescales with the resident for completion.
19. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the arrangements for her to be temporarily rehoused. It gave conflicting information on whether this would take place and despite chasing clarification, she did not receive a response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify the situation with the resident at its earliest opportunity, particularly given the fact that it was aware that the resident had a large family and considerable planning would be required to facilitate moving out of their current property.
20. In its stage 1 response the landlord summarised the action it had taken to address the outstanding repair issues. It was appropriate that it apologised for delays in arranging repairs, confirmed a date for its contractor to attend to plan the agreed work and offered redress to the resident for its failings. Its offer of compensation of £150 was proportionate given the circumstances the resident had faced and is in line with our remedies guidance.
21. Despite a reasonable complaint response from the landlord, the evidence shows poor communication between it and its contractor ensued. This resulted in the resident receiving inaccurate information regarding the work and a significant delay in it commencing. This led to her request to escalate the complaint on 3 November 2023.
22. At the point of the resident’s escalation request, 4 months had passed without her receiving confirmation of a start date for the work. This was significantly outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. As part of its stage 2 investigation, it took a number of steps to identify where things had gone wrong. It is evident it worked cross–departmentally to ensure the situation was resolved. Actions such as regularly updating the resident on meetings that were being held, and arranging temporary housing next door to her home to minimise disruption were reasonable in the circumstances.
23. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed, the works that would take place, the date that work would commence and the arrangements around the resident’s temporary accommodation whilst the work was underway. It acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered redress to her. It highlighted the learning that it had gained through the complaint investigation and actions such as putting additional contractors in place, to reduce delays, were appropriate.
25. When considering all the circumstances of the case, we have considered if its compensation offer is fair and proportionate given the failings identified. The landlord made an offer of compensation at stage 2 of £700 for the delays in arranging repair work, poor communication, and the inconvenience the resident experienced due to this. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance. It is our opinion that this offer was reasonable and along with the other steps taken, amounts to reasonable redress.

Reports of ASB

26. The landlord has adopted the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause:
    1. Harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
27. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
28. Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has 2 main duties when receiving reports of ASB. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to weigh in balance the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
29. The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case on 29 June 2023 after a neighbour reported a dispute with the resident. In line with its policy it conducted a risk assessment, completed an action plan and spoke to the resident regarding the allegations that had been made. These actions were appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. It became apparent to the landlord that the complainant’s place of employment was working to resolve the issues between the neighbours. Due to this and the fact that the complainant was a private owner, it concluded it was limited in the action it could take and closed the case.
30. When raising her complaint on 6 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that, due to ASB issues present in the area, she was unhappy that it rehoused her in the property. She said that it was aware that she needed to move from her previous address due to sensitive circumstances and that it should not have deemed the property suitable for her due to these issues.
31. In its stage 1 response, the landlord summarised its findings from its recent ASB case. It stated that it was not aware of any issues in the area that would have led it to consider that the property was not a suitable offer of accommodation for the resident. In the absence of evidence that the landlord had received significant reports of ASB from the area, we conclude that its response was reasonable.
32. In order to seek a resolution to any ASB issues, good communication between landlord and resident is imperative. Where issues are present it is important they are reported to the landlord in a timely fashion to enable it to implement its ASB policy and conduct an investigation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this in its response and explain its ASB process. This would ensure that the resident was clear on how it would manage any concerns going forward. Not doing so was a shortcoming by the landlord, however, we do not consider it as warranting a finding of failure.
33. In summary, due to a lack of evidence presented to the landlord bringing its attention to any ASB affecting the resident, its response to her was appropriate overall. For this reason we find there is no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Associated complaint

34. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. At stage 2, if the response cannot be completed in full by the twentieth working day, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
35. The landlord commenced its complaint handling well, acknowledging the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in a timely fashion. In its response at this stage, which it issued 33 workings days later, it apologised for its delay and offered £25 in compensation to the resident. This was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance.
36. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2 which were outside of the timescales set out in its policy. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 17 working days after she made it and issued its response 60 working days later. It apologised for these delays and offered the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the failures in its complaint handling.
37. In the landlord’s explanation to us it acknowledged that its complaint handling was not appropriate. It told us that it has introduced new quality assurance methods in its complaint process to ensure a better quality of service for its customers.
38. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable given its delayed responses. Its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and damp and mould.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
41. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the associated complaint.

 Recommendations

42. The landlord should consider contacting the resident to issue a new complaint response to the issues she raised on 8 May 2024, at stage 1 of its formal complaints procedure. This is to ensure that she is given a fair opportunity to address its response in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).