Amplius Living (202322984)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322984

Amplius Living

13 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 report that its surveyor attended the property without prior arrangement.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a 2-bed flat owned by the landlord.
The resident has made the landlord and this Service aware that she has autism. She receives support in maintaining her tenancy from her mother.
On 1 June 2023 the resident made a complaint (Complaint 1) to the landlord. She said its operative had attended her home without an appointment. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided a formal response to this complaint. On the same day, the resident’s mother called the landlord and explained the resident did not respond well to unannounced visits due to her autism.
On 28 September 2023 the resident made another complaint (Complaint 2). She said the landlord’s surveyor had attended that day to complete an inspection without an appointment. She explained the surveyor said he had sent her an appointment letter but she had not received it. She said as a resolution to her complaint she wanted the landlord to pay for her moving costs when she completed her mutual exchange.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 2 October 2023. It said:
1. On 12 September 2023 it had sent her a letter advising that it would carry out a stock condition survey on 28 September 2023.
2. It found no service failing as it had written to her in advance of the appointment. It was sorry if she did not receive this.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it should have done more than just send her a letter. She also asked for proof that it had posted the letter. The resident said the landlord had attended her property without an appointment “multiple times” in the past and the issue had impacted her mental health.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2023. It said it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. It said this was because her request did not meet the requirements set out in its complaint policy. It said:
1. It followed its stage 1 complaint procedure.
2. It had outlined the facts as it understood them.
3. Its surveyor’s notes confirmed the resident’s own account.
4. It had sent a letter giving more than 24 hours’ notice of the appointment.
5. It was not possible to provide confirmation that it sent the letter as it sent it as “part of a bulk mailing to several people”.
6. It made a “reasonable assumption” that the post service would deliver the letters it sent. It was sorry this did not happen but this was “completely out of [its] control”.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She therefore escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2023. Her complaint became one we could consider in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s report that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property without prior arrangement.

In June 2023 the resident’s mother told the landlord that the resident did not respond well to unannounced visits due to her autism. The evidence also shows the resident complained about staff attending without an appointment in June 2023.
The tenancy agreement requires the resident to provide the landlord with access to the property for inspections and repairs. It also states the landlord will provide the resident with 24 hours’ notice (except in emergencies).
The landlord wrote to the resident (and others) on 12 September 2023. It said a surveyor would attend to carry out a stock condition survey on 28 September 2025. This fulfilled the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement to provide at least 24 hours’ notice.
We have not seen evidence that the letter was posted or delivered to the resident. We would however only expect to see such evidence if the landlord posted the letter recorded delivery. Using recorded delivery is generally reserved for sending legal documents such as notice of possession. Given the cost implications, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to do this for every letter sent.
We are satisfied that the evidence shows the landlord did write to the resident giving more than 24 hours’ notice of the appointment. Issues with the postal system are not something we can hold the landlord accountable for. We therefore do not consider the letter going missing a failing by the landlord.
The resident has stated that the landlord had agreed, following her June 2023 complaint, to contact her mother before attending. We have not seen evidence that shows what agreement was made at that time. The landlord did however in its stage 2 complaint response acknowledge that it agreed to provide at least 24 hours’ notice after the resident’s previous complaint. We would have expected it to keep a record of this agreement and the resident’s communication preferences.
Landlords are required by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to their provision to ensure it is accessible to those with disabilities. We recognise that not all people who have autism consider it to be a disability. However, for the purposes of disability legislation it is considered one. It is not for this Service to determine whether the landlord has failed to fulfil its duties under the Equality Act 2010. This would be a matter for the courts. We have however considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s autism and that unannounced visits caused her distress. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to consider additional methods of communicating the appointment alongside its letter. It would not have been onerous for the landlord to telephone the resident or her mother so she could prepare for the appointment.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights recommended that landlords look beyond meeting legal requirements in relation to reasonable adjustments. It said that they should instead aim to provide a ‘human-centric’ service, responding to people’s individual needs and circumstances. We would suggest that the landlord consider the Spotlight report in relation to its handling of reasonable adjustments and communications preferences.
Overall, we accept that the landlord wrote to the resident to make her aware of the survey. However, it should reasonably have recorded its agreement with the resident in relation to communicating appointments and her communication preferences. It should also have attempted other methods to confirm the appointment with her given its awareness of the impact that unexpected visits had on her. We therefore find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 1 June 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord did not respond or failed to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its response.
The landlord advised the resident on 4 October 2023 that it would not escalate her complaint as it would only escalate to stage 2 if:
1. The resident felt the stage 1 response was inaccurate.
2. It had not completed agreed actions.
3. The stage 1 response did not answer the complaint.
4. It did not follow its complaints process.
The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure.
We consider that the landlord should have considered the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process. In her escalation request she requested proof that the landlord sent the letter and said she felt it should have done more than send a letter. She was therefore challenging the landlord’s stage 1 assessment of its actions and its finding. The landlord should therefore have considered that the resident felt the stage 1 response was inaccurate, this was an acceptable ground for escalation under the landlord’s policy.
While the landlord said it would not escalate the resident’s complaint, it went on to address the issues the resident raised in her escalation request. We accept that the landlord was trying to resolve the resident’s concerns. However, this was likely to cause unnecessary confusion as it appeared that the landlord was providing a stage 2 response when in it had stated it would not. It would have been preferable for the landlord to have responded to the complaint at stage 2 by providing the explanations outlined in its refusal letter.
The resident stated that her desired outcome to the complaint was for the landlord to pay her moving costs when she completed a mutual exchange. We expect that when a landlord identifies a failure in its service, it will put it right in line with our dispute resolution principles. The remedy it offers should aim to restore the resident to the position they would have been in had the failure not occurred. If it cannot do so it should consider offering compensation.
For a remedy to put the resident back in the position they were in, it should be relevant to the failing itself. As the landlord’s failings did not relate to the resident’s application for a mutual exchange or the associated costs, it would not be reasonable for it to be expected to offer this as a resolution.
Overall, the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint. It also caused unnecessary confusion for responding to the resident’s reasons for escalation within its refusal letter. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property without prior arrangement.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation comprising:
  1. £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s report that the landlord’s surveyor attended the property without prior arrangement.
  2. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
3. Discuss the resident’s communication preferences with her and record these on its system. This may include adding an alert notifying staff that they should notify her of any appointments by letter and by a telephone call to her mother.