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

Amplius Living (202442283)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442283

Amplius Living

6 June 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. Reports of damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
    2. Repairs to the paving slabs.
    3. Replacement of the front door and back door which caused a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s son has a heart condition, and she also has another young child.
  2. The resident has told the Ombudsman she has had issues with damp and mould since her tenancy began in 2019. Between 31 October 2022 and 2 November 2022 she called and emailed the landlord to chase up repairs to her paving slabs which she said were a hazard. She also asked when her front and back doors would be replaced, as they had been previously inspected for replacement. The landlord raised a repair to level the paving slabs on 7 November 2022 and told her the doors were not due to be replaced until 2030. She asked it to inspect them and to complete a damp and mould inspection. It completed the damp and mould inspection on 24 November 2022 and raised repairs. The resident reported it did not attend the appointment for the paving slabs on 28 November 2022.
  3. The landlord recorded it had completed the damp and mould repairs in February 2023, but the resident disputed this. She made a stage 1 complaint on 14 March 2023, which was about:
    1. Having unsafe paving slabs in the garden, which were a hazard for her young children. It had booked a repair for this but never attended.
    2. Her front door needing to be replaced, had gaps around it and was causing a draft in the hallway. She said she had been told it was due to be replaced in 2021 but then this changed to 2030.
    3. Her back door leaked water when it rained and needed to be replaced. The landlord’s previous repairs had not resolved the leak.
    4. Still having damp and mould, despite it having installed air vents. It had not installed an additional radiator as planned. She said she had a 3-year-old child with a heart condition, and a 3-month-old baby, and was concerned for their health.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. Between 16 March 2023 and 13 May 2023 the resident chased a complaint response twice. She discussed the damp and repairs issues with the landlord. It asked for an extension of time on 12 May 2023 and raised further repairs for thermal boarding and loft insulation. It confirmed on 1 June 2023 that both front and back doors needed to be replaced, and that an additional radiator needed to be installed on 6 June 2023. Its gas contractor inspected the next day but said they could not get a pipe to the area for a new radiator. The landlord completed damp repairs to walls in the dining room and filled around the back door on 21 August 2023. Between 19 September 2023 and 12 October 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response, and it requested 2 further extensions of time to respond. She told it she still had damp and mould, it had returned after its repairs and had damaged her possessions.
  5. On 17 October 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord booked a damp and mould inspection for 25 October 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 20 October 2023, in which it:
    1. Defined the complaint issues, and said the resident had been chasing it to complete repairs and suffered from poor communication from it.
    2. Said it would arrange an inspection.
    3. Apologised for its poor service and confirmed it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  6. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 23 October 2023 and emailed her on 27 October 2023 to acknowledge escalation. It inspected the property on 25 October 2023 and discovered a cellar which was causing rising damp. The resident contacted solicitors, and they sent a letter of claim alleging disrepair to the landlord. The landlord requested an extension of time on 8 December 2023. The resident refused access to the landlord until after 8 January 2024 based on her solicitors’ advice to allow for their survey, which the landlord then chased for. The landlord installed the new radiator on 19 January 2024 and repaired the paving slabs on 15 March 2024. It contacted the resident to request 7 further extensions of time between 5 January 2024 and 26 March 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitors on 12 April 2024, denied liability and did not make a settlement offer. It requested its ninth extension of time on 15 April 2024, and provided its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024, in which it:
    1. Apologised it had taken it longer than it had liked to respond to the complaint.
    2. Explained it had discovered the cellar which was causing rising damp during its inspection. It had inspected again on 23 February 2024 and raised repairs. On 15 March 2024 it had repointed brickwork, overhauled doors, overhauled the extractor fan, and completed the paving slab repairs. It had also repaired guttering and raised an appointment for plaster repairs.
    3. Confirmed the doors would be replaced on that years’ replacement programme.
    4. Accepted there had been service failure due to delays in completing repairs.
    5. Offered £200 compensation for complaint handling failings, £250 for delays to repairs, and £750 for distress and inconvenience, totalling £1,200.
  7. On 28 June 2024 the landlord completed the plastering repairs. It spoke to the resident on 19 July 2024 who confirmed it had replaced the doors, but one was damaged. It post inspected the repairs and produced a report on 23 July 2024. The landlord fitted a replacement door for the damaged one on 29 August 2024. The resident reported damp, and the landlord completed a new damp and mould inspection on 29 November 2024. It raised further works which it said it completed by 17 April 2025. It noted condensation but said there was no mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s possessions

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, as well as any shared areas. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy it is responsible for condensation, mould and damp. This includes conducting surveys, cleaning affected areas, cleaning blocked air vents and installing extractor fans as needed. Its policy says damp and mould repairs are routine repairs which it will complete within 28 days. The policy also says the landlord will take into account the presence of young children, and household vulnerabilities, when considering and booking repairs. The landlord implemented its first damp and mould policy in July 2024, which was after its stage 2 response in this case.
  2. When the resident asked for a damp and mould inspection in 2022 the landlord completed one within its 28-day policy timeframe. It did not produce a report, or provide photographs, which would have been helpful. It raised repairs, and recorded that it had completed them in February 2023, but this was outside of its 28-day timeframe. It did not record, or failed to provide, contractor notes and before and after photographs, as required under its policy. The resident said at the time that it had not completed the repairs, and the evidence shows it had not installed the new radiator.
  3. Despite the resident reporting damp and mould again within her stage 1 complaint the landlord delayed for nearly 2 months before raising further repairs in May 2023. It should have taken action sooner, especially as the resident had told it she had young children and one with a medical condition. There is no record of if or when the repairs raised were completed. It did complete different repairs at the end of August 2023, nearly 5 months after her complaint. These repairs were ineffective, and she told it by October 2023 that there was mould everywhere, her possessions had been damaged, and she wished she could just leave the property.
  4. Positively and in line with its repairs policy the landlord arranged another damp and mould inspection. During this inspection, on 25 October 2023, it discovered a cellar under the property, causing rising damp, which it described as “quite bad”. It is unclear why the landlord was not aware of the cellar under the property, or why it had not discovered and diagnosed the cause of damp during its first inspection 11 months earlier. This was a significant failing. Had the rising damp been discovered during the first inspection in 2022 it could have been resolved.
  5. The landlord delayed in raising repairs following the inspection. However, for a period in December 2023 to January 2024 the resident did not agree to allow access due to waiting for her solicitor’s survey. The landlord then decided to reinspect, due to the disrepair letter of claim, but delayed until the end of February 2024. It is not clear what, if any, repairs it raised to remedy the cause of the rising damp which was a failing. Positively it did complete further repairs, but it took until 28 June 2024 to do so. The resident had reported damp and mould in November 2022, and the landlord took 19 months to resolve the issue, which was not within any notion of a reasonable timeframe.
  6. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it would arrange an inspection, and it did so. It did not determine the complaint but agreed to escalate as per the resident’s request. At stage 2 the landlord correctly accepted its failings in delays, and offered £250 compensation for delays to repairs, and £750 for distress and inconvenience collectively. Within her contact with the landlord the resident had told it her possessions had been, and were continuing to be, damaged by the damp and mould. The landlord failed to enquire further, or consider this as part of its complaint responses, which was a failing.
  7. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  8. The landlord did not follow its repairs policy timeframes for completing repairs. It failed to take into account the vulnerabilities of young children, and one with a medical condition, living in the property with damp and mould. Its first damp and mould inspection failed to identify the presence of a cellar and rising damp. One of the 29 identified hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The landlord took too long to resolve the damp and mould.
  9. There was severe maladministration which caused significant distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £2,000 compensation, which is inclusive of its £1,000 stage 2 offer.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the paving slabs

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to shared areas. It is responsible for communal and main paths under its repairs policy. It is not clear whether the paving slabs were within a communal area or private garden, but there is no evidence the property had a private garden. The landlord correctly accepted responsibility for repairing the paving slabs.
  2. When the resident chased the repair in November 2022 the landlord promptly raised a repair with an appointment date within its 28-day policy timeframe. However, it failed to attend the appointment or keep the resident updated about the repair. When the resident raised it within her stage 1 complaint she explained, for the second time, that it was a hazard to her young children who could not use the garden. Falls from level surfaces is a hazard included under the HHSRS, and the landlord had an obligation to remove or minimise the risk.
  3. The landlord completed the repairs on 15 March 2024. This was over one year and 5 months after the resident reported the paving slabs, against a repairs policy timeframe of 28 days. Although the landlord correctly accepted its failings in delays to repairs within its stage 2 response, there was maladministration. The resident’s children had not been able to safely use the garden for an extended period of time. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of replacement of the front door and back door which caused a leak

  1. As set out above the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property under the tenancy agreement. Its repairs policy states it is responsible for the repair and replacement of doors. It classes door repairs as a routine repair with a 28-day timeframe, but replacements as an urgent repair with a 7-day timeframe. The policy also states that components such as doors can be replaced on a programme based on age and condition following a survey, or when they are beyond repair.
  2. When the resident asked about her door replacements the landlord told her they were not due until 2030. It also told her on a different date that they had been due in 2021. The landlord had inspected the front door, and said in internal emails it had changed its policy timeframe for replacements. It also said it had no knowledge of the back door, which was a knowledge and information management failing. She asked for an inspection, but the landlord did not inspect, despite attending for a damp and mould inspection.
  3. Although the resident raised the issues with her doors at stage 1 on 14 March 2023, the landlord delayed until 1 June 2023 before agreeing they needed to be replaced. This was outside of all its repairs timeframes. Positively it did complete some interim repairs, and confirmed the doors would be replace firstly on the 2023 and then the 2024 programme. If the doors needed to be replaced based on the policy criteria, it is not clear why the landlord decided to delay and add them to a planned programme, rather than replace them more promptly. It replaced the doors by 19 July 2024, which was one year and 8 months after she had chased their replacement. This was an unreasonable delay, when taking into account the reported drafts, water leak during rain, and the damp and mould in the property.
  4. While the landlord accepted its failings in delays to repairs within its stage 2 response, its communication had been poor, and it took too long to complete the replacements. There was maladministration, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day complaint policy timeframe. Despite the resident chasing twice for a response, the landlord waited 40 working days before asking for an extension of time which was a failing. The complaints policy timeframe to provide a stage 1 response was 10 working days, and in line with paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. The landlord had failed to request its extension within time.
  2. Under its policy, and the Code, it could ask for an extension of time of a further 10 working days in “exceptional circumstances” and agree a further extension with the resident. The landlord failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. It provided its stage 1 response, after a second extension of time, on 20 October 2023. This was 154 working days after she made her complaint and was an unacceptable delay. The landlord provided its stage 1 response as the resident had asked to escalate her complaint, and it did not provide a full response as required under paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
  3. Positively the landlord did escalate the complaint and acknowledge escalation promptly. However, it then requested 9 extensions of time to provide its response. It did not provide good reason or demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Instead, it delayed in an effort to complete all repairs before providing its stage 2 response. However, landlords need to ensure that they do not allow complaints about repairs to stay open indefinitely while waiting for them to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints should repairs continued to be delayed. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
  4. The landlord took 134 days to provide its stage 2 response, which was an unreasonable and unacceptable delay. This was in breach of its complaints policy and paragraph 5.18 of the Code. Positively, within its stage 1 and 2 responses it accepted its failings. It apologised for its delays and offered £200 compensation. It did not, however, say how it had learnt from outcomes or how it would prevent similar delays in future. The landlord did not recognise that its approach to complaint handling had been incorrect in delaying for repairs to be completed.
  5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. To reflect the additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay the £200 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handing of:
    1. Repairs to the paving slabs.
    2. Replacement of the front door and back door which caused a leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report. The apology is to include an explanation of the lessons learnt from this complaint and how it has or will improve its complaint handling.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £2,900 compensation made up of:
      1. £2,000 (inclusive of its £1,000 stage 2 offer) for the significant distress, worry, inconvenience, time and trouble cause to the resident by its severe maladministration.
      2. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the paving slabs.
      3. £400 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling replacement of the front and back doors.
      4. £200 it offered at stage 2 for the additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Carry out a surveyor’s inspection and provide a report, or provide a copy of a recent inspection report, to confirm the damp, mould, and condensation has been resolved. If it has not, it is to detail what further repairs are needed and a timeframe for these to be completed. The report is to include information on what repairs it has completed to resolve the cellar rising damp and to prevent its reoccurrence.
    4. Provide, or arrange a date to provide, further training to its complaint handling staff on responding to complaints which involve repairs. This training is to include guidance on how to respond without delaying for repairs to be completed and the correct use of extension of time requests.
    5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.