Amplius Living (202334695)

Background

1. The resident reported that water was coming in through his window into his spare room. He chased the landlord for updates and subsequently complained about its handling of the repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged some failings in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak. However, we have identified some further failings and as such, we have found that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough to put things right.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response outside its policy timescales and failed to take steps to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident told us that he reported water ingress into this home in 2022. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that he referred to us for investigation. Therefore, this assessment has focussed on the period from August 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the residents’ complaint.
8. Following the contractor’s August 2023 report that the leak was coming from the roof, the landlord raised orders to carry out an asbestos test and assess the roof. While the orders were raised within a reasonable timeframe, the evidence does not suggest that any further action was taken.
9. It was only after the resident made a complaint in October 2023 about its lack of action that the landlord took some steps to look into the matter. The landlord was not proactive in its approach, and the resident was caused distress and inconvenience as a result.
10. When the landlord reviewed the matter on 26 October 2023 it said that its contractor had not yet investigated the source of the leak. It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion, as the evidence shows an inspection had taken place approximately 2 months earlier. However, as the landlord was unaware of this at the time, it then spent several weeks trying to establish what had happened. This is indicative of poor repairs management and record keeping.
11. Once it was confirmed that the contractor had already attended, the landlord asked for a second opinion on 16 November 2023. While the request for a second opinion was not unreasonable, the landlord had already delayed in resolving the matter. Therefore it would have been reasonable for it to explore how it could expedite matters.
12. In December 2023 it was confirmed that the leak was coming from the roof. However, further delays occurred in early 2024. This was due to miscommunication internally and between the landlord and its contractor. For example, both parties considered that the other was responsible for obtaining scaffolding permits and the landlord had issues approving the works. On 21 February 2024 the works had yet to be approved.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays and offered the resident £400 compensation. However, the resident explained in his stage 1 complaint that due to the leak his bathroom heater had been disconnected therefore the room was cold. There is no evidence that the landlord looked into whether it could offer a temporary solution while it progressed the repairs. That was unreasonable, in particular because of the time of the year there was no heating in the bathroom. There is also no evidence that it took into consideration the impact the absence of the heater would have had on the resident when it offered its compensation. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of being without a heat source in the bathroom.
14. The miscommunication internally and between the landlord and its contractor continued after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. This caused further delays and the repair remained outstanding. The landlord acknowledged this in November 2024 and offered £1,000 compensation for the further delays since it issued its stage 2 response. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the further detriment to the resident and we consider that this was a proportionate offer at the time. However, the works were not completed until approximately 2 months later. As such, the resident was caused further distress and inconvenience. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 to put things right.
15. While the landlord took some appropriate steps in response to the resident’s concerns, we have identified some additional failings. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.
16. The resident told us that he has asked the landlord to confirm that the works to resolve the leak were completed in early 2025, however it has not responded. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to contact him.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. While the reason that the landlord told the resident that it would respond to his stage 1 complaint within 20 working days is unclear, that it did so was a departure from its complaints policy. If it was the case that the landlord needed additional time and could not respond within 10 working days, this should reasonably have been made clearer. Further, in accordance with the Code, an extension should have been agreed with the resident.
18. If this was an error, the landlord failed to identify it and put things right at stage 2. However, in either event, the resident was caused inconvenience as a result of the stage 1 response being delayed. Therefore we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and ordered it to the pay the resident £50.
19. The landlord took approximately 3 months to respond to the resident’s escalated complaint. Given that its stage 2 response timescale is 20 working days, this was a significant delay. It is acknowledged that the landlord took some steps to provide updates and requested extensions during the time its response was delayed. However, as it failed to progress the complaint in a timely manner, the resident contacted us for assistance. This may have been avoided if the landlord responded within its policy timescales, and if it had agreed extensions in accordance with the Code. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the delayed response and offered the resident £150 compensation. Given the length of the delay the offer was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The investigation highlighted that poor recording keeping contributed to the delays in resolving the leak. Therefore the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.