Amplius Living (202435047)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 4 children. She said 3 of her children have disabilities. The landlord replaced her bathroom and in October 2024 she complained about the standard of the work. She called the landlord to report over 10 issues with the bathroom, and it did not return her initial call, so she raised a complaint. 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s bathroom replacement.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement

4. The landlord failed to treat the repairs with the urgency they required. It offered compensation but this was not proportionate considering the delays and the impact the resident said this had on her and her children.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within its policy timescales.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident raised concerns about the impact she said the issues had on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Therefore, the courts are the most effective place to raise these issues. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If she wants to pursue a claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
7. The resident asked us to order the landlord to change its contractors. It is not our role to make this kind of order as it is for the landlord to decide who it employs to carry out works. We will therefore not consider this issue.

What we have considered

8. The resident complained to the landlord twice and it responded to her second complaint on 30 April 2025 under stage 1 of its complaints procedure. The resident has not escalated this second complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. We normally only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the landlord failed to ‘put things right’ within a reasonable timeframe which led to the resident complaining again. This is not in line with the Code. As the complaints are closely linked, we exercised our discretion and considered the landlord’s handling of both complaints to bring this matter to a close.
9. The landlord raised works to complete the resident’s bathroom installation on 2 October 2024. The resident asked the landlord to inspect the bathroom before doing further work, but it did not contact her about this within the timescale it set. She chased the landlord for a response on 9 October 2024. The landlord replied to her complaint on 11 October 2024 and acknowledged its communication failure. It also inspected her bathroom and found 23 issues which it agreed to resolve. The issues included a poorly fitted washbasin and gaps in the silicon sealant.
10. The resident chased the landlord 10 days after her complaint. She said it had not contacted her about the repairs. The landlord responded promptly to her concerns and asked the contractor to book in works. It offered her an appointment of 24 October 2024, but this was inconvenient for her, so it changed this to 30 October 2024. During this visit it agreed to complete the works in November 2024.
11. The landlord’s final response to the resident’s first complaint on 18 November 2024 was partly in line with its policy. It agreed to monitor the standard of the outstanding repairs, apologised, and offered further compensation. Its total compensation offer up to this point was £315 and included £100 for its “poor workmanship” and £150 for the upset and inconvenience it said it had caused. 
12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord did not put things right as it did not fully monitor the repairs after its contractor said it had resolved them on 23 November 2024. The resident asked the landlord to inspect the works again, when she reported her shower was leaking on 27 November 2024.
13. The landlord attempted to resolve the issues by agreeing to recall the works on 6 December 2024 and ‘make good’ the poor installation of the bathroom. Its contractor carried out remedial works between November 2024 and February 2025. However, when the landlord inspected the work on 18 March 2025 it acknowledged the finish was “very poor”. It agreed with the resident what works it would do. 
14. When escalating her complaint to us, the resident said the landlord failed to fully consider the impact the repairs had on her and her household. She said the issues had particularly affected her autistic son who had been unable to have a shower at times, which was part of his usual routine. She said she continually had to chase the landlord to get the repairs done and this affected her mental wellbeing. 
15. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issues which led to her second complaint in April 2025. She said it had not repaired the silicon around her bath in the timeframe it promised and this was causing leaks. The landlord acknowledged its service failed in its complaint response. It agreed to do the interim repair and offered £100 compensation. It said the other repairs were complex and it had scheduled to start these in May 2025 which was within its policy timeframe of 90 days.
16. The landlord failed to pay due regard to the household’s vulnerabilities when responding to the resident’s complaints. The resident informed the landlord in November 2024 that the issues were particularly impacting her autistic son, as he was unable to shower. The landlord identified repairs in its recall inspection in March 2025. However, it did not consider starting them sooner, which was not in line with its policy. This says it will consider prioritising works where the household’s occupants may be more affected.
17. Overall, the landlord took too long to fully resolve the bathroom issues, which were having an impact on the resident and her family. This was not in line with its policy, which says it will consider prioritising repairs where there are recall issues and/or vulnerabilities within the household. It said it completed all the works on 10 July 2025. However, there is no evidence it inspected these works to ensure they were completed to an acceptable standard.
18. The landlord recognised some of its failings in its complaint responses and it attempted to remedy the complaints. However, we found maladministration as its overall compensation offer of £415 was not proportionate to the scale of our findings, in line with our remedies guidance. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £275. We considered the resident’s time and trouble chasing the repairs and the overall distress and inconvenience she said the issues had caused.

19. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).  
20. The landlord acknowledged and responded to resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2024, which was 2 days after she complained. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord acknowledged this within its policy timescale of 5 working days. It then responded within 14 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The landlord’s responses were therefore in line with its policy timescales.
21. When the resident complained again on 23 April 2025, the landlord responded within its policy timeframe. The landlord was aware at this point that the resident had escalated her first complaint to us. It was appropriate that it acted in line with the Code by providing our details to her again.
22. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling as it responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its policy timescales.

Learning

23. The landlord has outlined some of its learning from this complaint. It said it has weekly meetings with its contractors to review performance and ensure repairs are being completed within its expected timescales. It says where it fails to complete repairs within its timescale it will discuss the reasons why and how this can be avoided in future. It said it inspects works over £500.  
24. The landlord made some positive attempts to remedy the resident’s complaints. It offered compensation and scheduled in the works. However, it failed to fully consider the impact the repairs were having on the household because of their vulnerabilities. The landlord would benefit from ensuring it pays due regard to this in future when managing repairs, in line with its policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s records were limited. It did not record all its contacts with the resident and missed one of her call back requests. There is also no evidence it recorded any of the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities. The landlord would benefit from keeping more thorough records to enable it to provide a good service and inform its complaints team when things go wrong.  

Communication

26. The landlord’s communication lacked customer focus, as the resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions for repairs appointments. This resulted in her complaining again to the landlord. The landlord should improve its record keeping to more efficiently manage its communications and enable it to manage residents’ expectations.