From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Amplius Living (202417094)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417094

Amplius Living

14 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:  
    1. Response to reports of a faulty Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP).
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.  The tenancy started on 17 February 2017.  The property is a 3-bedroom house.  The heating and hot water for the property is provided by an ASHP.
  2. The resident reported a problem with his ASHP on 18 March 2024 as it was shutting off which was making the electrics in the property go off. A stage 1 complaint was logged on 17 June 2024.  The resident said the ASHP was not fixed after visits by a contractor, and this had caused periods of no heating and hot water.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 June 2024.  It acknowledged a service failure due to the length of time to complete the repairs.  The landlord offered compensation of £133.74 made up of:
    1. £73.44 reimbursement for extra electricity costs for heating up to 30 April 2024.
    2. £60 for the length of time for the repair to be completed.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 26 June 2024.  He did not agree that the compensation was enough for the impact to him and his family.  He asked for the landlord to pay half of his electricity bill and reimburse him for a third of the rent for the period the ASHP was faulty.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024 and it:
    1. Acknowledged a service failure due to the length of time to fix the ASHP.
    2. Said that the stage 1 response should have considered compensation for the delay from May to July 2024, while the contractor was waiting for a part.
    3. Said that on 1 July 2024 it determined that the ASHP needed to be replaced, and it met the timescales to do this (the ASHP was replaced on 18 July 2024).
    4. Said it was not able to agree to compensation for loss of earnings, higher electricity costs from May to July 2024, or reimbursement for a portion of the rent.
    5. Offered compensation of £375 made up of:
      1. £150 for delays to repairs being completed from May to July 2024.
      2. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for stage 1 complaint handling failure.
      4. £75 for the increased electricity usage while using temporary heaters (as offered in the stage 1 response).
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this service on 29 July 2024.  He felt that the level of compensation offered by the landlord was not high enough based on the financial impact, stress, and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Response to reports of a faulty ASHP

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will respond within:
    1. 24 hours to fix or make safe for emergency repairs including no heat or hot water between 31 October and 30 April.
    2. 3 days if no heating or hot water between 1 May and 31 October.
    3. 7 days for urgent repairs.
    4. 28 days for routine repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that there may be a need to replace components including boilers and heating when they have reached the end of their life.  The policy says that the decision to replace components considers the condition, cost of repairing versus replacing, how long the repair would take, the next renewal date for the component, and customer feedback.
  3. The resident reported that their ASHP was not working on 18 March 2024.  It kept shutting off meaning there was no heat or hot water, and it was also causing the electrics in the house to go off.  The landlord did not permanently fix the issue until 18 July 2024, which was four months after the first report.
  4. The landlord sent a contractor on 19 March 2024, and the system was running when the contractor left.  The resident called the landlord on 20 March 2024 as the ASHP was again not working.  The landlord was willing to come out the same day, but the resident was not available because of work and agreed to an appointment on 27 March 2024.
  5. The landlord sent a contractor out on 27 March 2024 who said that the system was beyond economical repair and needed to be replaced. The contractor recommended a survey be scheduled for a new system to be installed. At this point the ASHP would work for short periods but would then stop working. The contractor showed the resident how to turn off the system while not in use. The contractor offered to lend fan heaters, but the resident said they had their own to use. The property also has immersion heaters that could be used for hot water, although the resident said these were more expensive to use.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 2 April 2024. The landlord said it was going to ask the contractor to repair the ASHP for now and it would look at replacing it as part of a future programme.
  7. The resident called the landlord on 22 April 2024 to ask when it would be fixing the ASHP and was told the contractor was waiting on a part.  The landlord dropped off two electric space heaters on this date after telling the resident he would only be given compensation for the extra electricity used when using the landlord’s heaters and not his own.
  8. While there were periods when the landlord contacted the resident to update him, there were also several times where there were gaps in communication and the resident had to spend time calling to find out what was going on.
  9. Starting in late April 2024, the resident had a period of three weeks with no hot water as the immersion heater was not working.  During this period, the resident and his family had to boil a kettle and use a bucket to bathe.  The immersion heater was fixed at an appointment on 17 May 2024, meaning the resident had hot water again (but still no heating).  There is no evidence that the landlord knew about the immersion heater not working and therefore there being no hot water until 15 May 2024.  This confirms that it responded within the required timeframe to repair this issue from when it was made aware and according to its policy for no hot water during this time of year.
  10. The contractor went to the property and tried unsuccessfully to fix the ASHP on 19 March, 27 March, 10 May, 17 May, and 1 July 2024.  On some of the appointments, the contractor was able to get the system turned on, but it would shut off again soon after the contractor left.
  11. At the 1 July 2024 appointment, the contractor again attempted to fix the ASHP and was not able to fix it.  They said they could try to order a new control module, but this would take 8-12 months to get from the manufacturer and would be expensive, so they again recommended replacing the system. The landlord agreed to replace the ASHP following this appointment.
  12. A survey was completed on 5 July 2024 and the new ASHP was installed on 18 July 2024. It has worked since then, according to the resident.  Once the landlord agreed to replace the system, it completed this quickly.
  13. While it is reasonable for a landlord to try to repair rather than replace heating/hot water systems wherever possible, it needs to take into consideration the cost of repeated repairs, the advice it gets from its operative as to whether a repair can be achieved and any planned replacement programme. In this case the contractor was clear at the appointment on 27 March 2024 that the ASHP needed to be replaced rather than repaired, but the landlord decided not to follow this advice and instead spent a further three months trying to repair the system, which was not successful.
  14. The landlord mentioned that it would look at replacing the ASHP as part of a future programme when it decided to try to repair, rather than replace the ASHP.  There is no obligation on landlords to follow every recommendation made by its contractors.  However, given the advice came from a qualified contractor, it would have been reasonable for it to have properly considered this advice. This was particularly important as there was no ASHP replacement programme already scheduled.
  15. The landlord should have further explored whether replacement of the ASHP was the most appropriate option at this time.  If, following an assessment, it felt this was not the case, it should have then made a record of the reasoning behind its decision, explaining why it was not following the advice that it had been given.  The landlord’s evidence does not show that it did this.  It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it acted fairly and properly prior to initially deciding against replacing the system.  That the landlord did not give adequate consideration to its contractor’s recommendation from March 2024 is a failing.  It was not an adequate response to wait to look at a future programme to replace the ASHP without having a specific plan and timeframe, given the circumstances in this case.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged there were delays in attempting to complete the repairs and this was a service failure, although its response did not acknowledge that it would have been reasonable to replace the ASHP sooner on the recommendation of the contractor.
  17. In its response, the landlord said it was not able to agree to compensation for loss of earnings. This is in line with the landlord’s policy. The tenancy agreement requires residents to give access for repairs to be carried out and in general we do not expect a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings. Landlords should however consider the inconvenience caused by appointments that did not fix the issue, including the number and the frequency of appointments when awarding compensation.
  18. In its complaint responses, the landlord awarded £75 for increased electricity usage, which is something the resident asked to be considered.  This was in line with its policy which says it will consider reimbursement for actual costs incurred by a resident.  This covers situations where there has been a failure by the landlord, but also says it will consider reimbursement for increased cost even when there has been no failure in service.
  19. The £75 was based on using two electric space heaters for the period, but only up to 30 April 2024, which is in line with the policy in relation to having to temporarily use electric heaters.
  20. There is also a direct cost that has not been considered, which is the resident needed to use immersion heaters for hot water, which uses more electricity than the ASHP for heating water.  The resident raised this concern to the landlord before and during the complaint process.  This increased usage was up until the ASHP was replaced on 18 July 2024.
  21. In this case, the resident has provided evidence showing how much electricity he used between March and July 2024 and between March and July 2025 so there is information to show the increased usage during the period the ASHP was not working. The landlord’s policy states it can reimburse for increased costs during the entire period the heating system was not working, not solely for periods it caused delays.
  22. The landlord would not have had the information showing the following years usage for the time of year, so it was reasonable for it to calculate the amount for the heating using its standard process. As we now have the information to calculate a more specific amount that also includes the use of the immersion heaters for hot water, it is reasonable, in our view, to review this to check whether the amount awarded was accurate for the increased usage during the period the ASHP was not working.
    1. The resident used an average of 19.75 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity a day between 5 March 2024 and 4 July 2024.  The resident used an average of 16.59 kWh a day between 1 March 2025 and 18 June 2025.  This shows 3.16 kWh a day of increased usage for a similar time of year for the period in which the ASHP was not working.  Based on the electricity price at the time of 24.85p this amounts to an increase of £106.01 for the 135 days from when the faulty ASHP was first reported and when it was replaced.
    2. We will include an order for the landlord to provide the £106.01 (which includes the £75 already offered) to reimburse for the direct cost of increased electricity.
  23. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a sum in recognition for the delay in the repairs.  The landlord offered £150 in the stage 2 response.  This award is in line with the landlord’s policy and in our opinion, is proportionate to recognise the delay in the landlord’s attempts to repair the ASHP.
  24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused.  It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a sum in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused, but we do not find this amount is adequate to recognise the failures by the landlord and the impact to the resident. The landlord’s failure to resolve the issue for over three months since it was reported, due to not adequately considering the contractors recommendation in March 2024, caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family during this period.  This impact included:
    1. Time spent chasing the landlord during periods where the resident was not kept updated.
    2. The inconvenience of 5 appointments that did not fix the issue.
    3. The inconvenience of constantly monitoring the system and having to turn it on and off regularly as advised by the contractor.
    4. The inconvenience of having the electrics go off regularly due to the faulty ASHP.  The resident states they had to replace their fridge/freezer during this time and believes the electrics going off were the cause of this, although this is not something that can be evidenced.
    5. Having no hot water for three weeks meaning he and his family had to boil a kettle and use a bucket to wash up.
    6. The daily monitoring of the system, having the electrics go off regularly, and having a period of no hot water would have impacted the resident’s enjoyment of their home during this period.
  25. In its complaint response, the landlord took several positive steps to put things right.  It apologised, offered compensation (for distress and inconvenience, repair delays, and direct costs), and did eventually replace the ASHP. However, these steps did not go far enough to fully redress the failings in this case, in particular the delay in replacing the ASHP despite the contractor’s first recommendation to do so. We have therefore found service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty ASHP.
  26. Based on the above, we will order the landlord to pay £200 to the resident to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused (including the £100 previously offered).

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.  At stage 2, it will acknowledge the escalation within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.  The policy says that a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction’ and the customer does not need to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 29 May 2024 and said they were not happy with the delays.  They also said they had been without a working ASHP for two months and the landlord and contractor have not been contacting him to let him know what was going on. The resident asked for compensation for the extra electricity usage.   As the resident expressed dissatisfaction during this call, it is our view that a complaint should have been logged on this date, which means the response by the landlord would have been due by 12 June 2024.
  3. In a further phone conversation on 17 June 2024 the resident asked when he would get a response to the concerns he had raised on 29 May 2024.  The landlord logged a formal complaint on this date.
  4. The stage 1 response was issued on 24 June 2024.  It acknowledged the delay in the repairs.  The resident escalated the complaint on 26 June 2024 as he was not satisfied with the compensation being offered.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 19 July 2024.  In its response the landlord said that the stage 1 response failed to consider some of the period of delay and offered additional compensation.   It did not recognise that the initial complaint was not logged as it should have been.
  6. The landlord offered £50 in compensation specific to the complaint handling failures.  We have considered whether this is a reasonable amount, given the slight delay in logging the initial complaint and the landlord not fully addressing all periods of the delay in the stage 1 response.
  7. We are satisfied that the £50 compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the failures in respect to complaint handling. In our opinion, this was proportionate to recognise the impact of the delays in the complaint process, and the offer was in line with the landlord’s policy.  We will recommend that the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the ASHP not working.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the ASHP.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £456.01 in relation to his reports of the ASHP not working (including the £325 previously offered).  This is made up of:
      1. £106.01 to reimburse for increased electricity usage.
      2. £150 in recognition of the delays in repairs.
      3. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £50 it offered in its final response in respect of its complaint handling failures.  The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on this being paid to the resident.