Amplius Living (202335826)

Decision
Case ID	202335826
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. In January 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom. She was concerned about excessive condensation on the toilet and the exposed pipes.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about damp and mould.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
4. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to take prompt action, its poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. It has offered sufficient redress and taken steps to improve its service and prevent a repeat of its mistakes.
6. There were avoidable delays and a lack of updates in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. However, it has acknowledged its failures, offered proportionate redress, and taken steps to improve its service and prevent a repeat of its mistakes.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord paid £100 to the resident in March 2023. A recommendation is made for it to pay the remaining £900 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 and 16 February 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy she had to chase for appointments, which were then booked at times requiring her to take unpaid leave from work. She said appointments were missed, service was poor, and there was a lack of communication. She reported finding a Stanley knife, which an operative left behind after the last repair visit, where her children could have reached it.
21 February 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised sincerely for the below standard service and the carelessness of its operative; the matter was raised with the contractor to address. It summarised the repair actions taken and confirmed an upcoming appointment for the damp and mould issue. It offered £100 for the stress and upset caused.
29 June 2023	The resident escalated her complaint due to a lack of communication and progress. She was unhappy with the time being taken to deal with the damp and mould. She wanted a plan of action, and for the landlord to recognise the stress and upset caused and the impact of missed or ‘wasted’ appointments.
28 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and apologised for the time taken to respond. It set out a timeline of events and accepted work had not been raised when it should, the resident had needed to chase and did not receive callbacks when promised. It apologised, said all outstanding work was now completed, and offered £900 (£200 for the complaint handling and communication, £250 for the delays in dealing with the damp and mould, and £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She said the damp and mould had ruined her flooring.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident has told us about ongoing issues with the landlord. The landlord told us a second complaint about the same issue had been logged. We do not generally investigate live issues or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations. We can only consider issues which have first been addressed by the landlord through its internal complaint process. Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint, and once this has completed the landlord’s internal process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 November 2023.
8. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we’ve considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s concerns. She may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
9. It is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould or determine how to deal with it in individual properties. We rely on the expertise of surveyors and professionals who inspected the area. Our investigation, therefore, considers only whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the reports it received from the resident, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
10. The landlord has fully accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. Overall, our investigation found the same failings; there is nothing further we can usefully add to that. It has sincerely apologised and offered £800 compensation for its response to the damp and mould. This sum is higher than our own remedies guidance for mid-level maladministration. It has further continued to investigate the issue for ongoing reports. It has told us that, because of this complaint, it implemented improvements, completed additional staff training, introduced a new repair monitoring process, and started to fine its contractor for delays. This was a suitable response to the identified failures.
11. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, the question before us is whether these failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
12. The resident was told work needed to be done but then did not hear from anyone to arrange it. She had to chase the landlord and its contractors repeatedly, and they did not give prompt updates to explain the delays. The landlord experienced issues with its contractors arranging and attending jobs which, while beyond its control, adversely affected the resident. It should have done more to monitor its contractors and hold them accountable, and to then update her. There is no doubt the landlord’s failures caused the resident stress, upset, trouble, and inconvenience.
13. However, in identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
14. After the landlord’s stage 2 response, its contractor attended the property in February 2024 and confirmed the recommended work had been completed. They further recommended an inspection of the loft, which took place in March 2024, and more work was identified. In a recent update to us, the landlord confirmed that a survey in August 2025 noted the damp and mould had not returned. It noted there was some flaking of the paint behind the toilet so sourced a new damp and mould specialist to inspect this as a preventive measure. It said the resident confirmed she would not be available for this until February 2026. We are satisfied the landlord completed the identified work for the period covered by this investigation and took the right action to investigate further where needed.
15. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £800 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her concerns about damp and mould.
16. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £800 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents.”
18. The policy set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed). At both stages, if an extension was needed the resident would be advised and given a revised timeframe. If an extension beyond these timeframes was needed, it had to be agreed by both parties.
19. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged and responded to within 10 working days at stage 1. This was in line with the policy timeframes. However, her complaint was not escalated to stage 2 promptly. She reported in May 2025 that the appointment confirmed in the stage 1 response went ahead as planned, but she had not received an update since. The landlord noted the lack of repairs and escalated the matter internally, but did not escalate the complaint itself despite the resident continuing to express her dissatisfaction.
20. The landlord then asked the resident to explain in writing why she wanted to escalate the complaint before it was logged at stage 2 on 29 June 2023. It was acknowledged the next day, and the full response was issued 108 working days later. This was far outside the policy timeframes.
21. The resident should not have to put her request and reasons in writing. Her expressions of dissatisfaction, however communicated, should have been enough to prompt the landlord to proactively move the complaint to the next stage. An update was provided on 7 July 2023 advising that the response was delayed as the landlord was awaiting further information. The update said this was due to the matter being a complex issue. However, we have not seen evidence to explain what it considered to be complex about the issue.
22. A further extension update was not provided until 6 November 2023. The extension was not agreed with the resident as the complaints policy required. Again, there is no explanation for why the complaint was not handled or responded to within policy timeframes. The evidence suggests the landlord kept the complaint response on hold to deal with the underlying issue. This was contrary to our Complaint Handling Code, which says a complaint response should not be delayed while carrying out actions required to address the substantive issue.
23. However, the landlord has fully acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It has taken steps, such as introducing a new complaint handling and escalation process, to ensure it does not repeat those mistakes. It has apologised and offered £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This is in line with our remedies guidance and Dispute Resolution Principles. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is made.
24. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £200 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision.

Communication

26. The resident told the landlord multiple times that she was not available by telephone until after 4pm. However, staff across different teams continued to call her before this time. They then followed up with voicemails and/or emails saying they had been unable to reach her. This was particularly frustrating for her given she had repeatedly asked to be emailed during the daytime and only called after 4pm. The landlord is reminded of the importance of recording its residents’ contact preferences and adhering to them. Not only is this good customer service, but it also helps promote a positive landlord and tenant relationship, and minimises avoidable inconvenience.