Amplius Living (202431661)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202431661 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Amplius Living |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
12 December 2025 |
Background
- The residents have been tenants of the landlord since June 1998. Both residents have additional needs due to their health. In July 2023 the landlord visited the property after its contractors had raised safeguarding concerns. Following that visit it was agreed the residents would take steps to maintain the garden and declutter the property. After that visit the landlord attended the property several times to check on the resident’s progress to achieve these actions. However, during its visit in September 2024 it felt that no significant improvement had been made since the previous visit in May 2024. The residents were unhappy with the outcome of this visit and raised a complaint.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of its requests for the residents to declutter the property.
- This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of its requests for the residents to declutter the property.
- There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord correctly followed its hoarding policy when assessing the safeguarding concerns raised by staff due to the number of items at the property. It also allowed the residents a reasonable amount of time to complete agreed actions before they raised their complaint. However, evidence has not been seen to show the landlord referred the residents to support services in May 2024 nor that it chased any referrals.
- The landlord issued its complaint responses within its complaint policy’s timescales. It also addressed all the concerns raised by the residents.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 09 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Discussion order The landlord must have a follow-on discussion with the residents regarding the referral to support services. The aim of this discussion is to ascertain whether the referral to support services has been of any help to the residents. This discussion must take place by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the discussion and what it learned from it by the due date. |
No later than 09 January 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
12 September 2024 |
The resident’s raised their complaint. They said the house was cluttered due to their disabilities preventing them from being able to tidy the property. They also said that during the visit in May 2024 they were told to just tidy up as best they could, depending on their health, by the next visit. However, a week before the visit they received a letter which said everything had to be clear. They said that was not what they had agreed during the visit. The resident’s tried to tidy everything but this led to the resident injuring himself. |
|
26 September 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it was aware of the resident’s disabilities as well as that they have good and bad days. It said that on those good days it would expect they are able to make efforts to reduce the level of items in the property. It said it disagreed with the resident that the letter received before the September 2024 visit caused him to push and injure himself. It said this was because they had received a tenancy breach letter in March 2024 which set out the areas they needed to concentrate on. However, in the nearly 7 months since then there had been no significant improvement. It also confirmed it had referred the residents to wellbeing services and had chased these referrals. |
|
26 September 2024 |
The residents escalated their complaint. They said there are limited grabrails in the property so they use some of the items instead. They said they felt the landlord’s letters were full of threats and it had not taken into account all their difficulties. They also said during the visit in May 2024 they and the landlord had agreed a plan of action for them to do what they could when able. They said they felt they had upheld their part of this agreement. The residents also questioned what the landlord considered a reasonable time for them to tidy the property given their health. |
|
17 October 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed it had reviewed all the reports from its visits to the resident’s property and the follow on letters. It said the action plans and requests for the residents to declutter the property match. It said it had not seen significant improvement between May and September 2024 and it remained concerned about the level of risk this created. It said it was satisfied that it had taken proportionate action to ensure meeting a legitimate aim. It confirmed it had considered the residents’ physical and mental health. It said it had made reasonable adjustments of time and offered support. The landlord said it felt it had been justified in the actions taken given the level of risk the condition of the property created. |
|
12 February 2025 |
The residents confirmed that they wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. They said they were unhappy with the landlord’s responses and did not believe it had taken the Equality Act into consideration. |
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 |
Requests to declutter the property |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The residents’ tenancy agreement states that they must keep the interior of the property in good and clean condition.
- On 23 July 2023 the landlord visited the property following safeguarding concerns raised by its contractors. The concerns raised were in relation to the number of items in the property. The visit notes say the landlord had to enter the property through the back door because it could not access the front door due to the items in front of it. It also says the living room and hallway were cluttered. The notes say the residents acknowledged the property was cluttered and said they had plans to address this. The landlord explained the risks of the property being so cluttered and offered to refer the residents to a fire rescue team for a home visit. However, they declined this offer.
- The information provided by the landlord indicates that there were a significant number of items at the property. It also indicates these items impacted their ability to use the property and created fire safety risks. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with this under its hoarding policy. The landlord’s hoarding policy says that when it identifies a potential case of hoarding it will carry out a risk assessment with the fire service. It says the assessment will identify whether the customer struggles with hoarding, the degree of risk and the individual’s willingness to engage with support. It says the landlord will then decide on an appropriate co-ordinated action plan in conjunction with partner and support agencies. It also says that where a resident does not engage with this process, the landlord will consider tenancy enforcement action.
- The evidence seen shows that on 10 and 26 October 2023 the landlord conducted follow on visits to inspect the condition of the property. The visit notes say that during these visits it discussed the number of items the residents kept at the property. It also talked the residents through its hoarding protocol and ‘clutter’ rating system. The residents acknowledged the property was cluttered and they agreed to start disposing of items to clear the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to have visited the property on these occasions given the concerns raised by its contractors. It was also appropriate for it to provide the residents with the information it gave and agree an action plan with them.
- Between 26 October 2023 and 22 March 2024 the landlord was unable to visit the property to reassess the condition of the property. The records show that several appointments were rescheduled by the residents for health reasons while others were rescheduled by the landlord. On 22 March 2024 the landlord issued a breach of tenancy warning to the residents. It acknowledged that the residents had ongoing health issues and may not always be able to accommodate a visit. However, it said they had failed to provide access to the property since October 2023. It said it had serious concerns about the risks posed by the condition of the property and failing to provide access was a breach of the tenancy. The warning letter said the residents had not adhered to the action plan created in October 2023. It also set out actions that they needed to take before an appointment on 16 April 2024.
- The residents rescheduled the appointment booked for 16 April 2024 and it took place on 13 May 2024. The landlord attended with a member of the fire safety and rescue team. The records say that during this visit the landlord found there had been an improvement with regard to the number of items at the property. The report says the residents told the landlord that they had done what they could when their health allowed them to. The notes say the landlord’s agent acknowledged that that is all they could do as they were not receiving support from agencies. However, there were still a lot of items cluttering the property. The fire safety officer walked the resident through each room, they discussed their concerns and gave safety advice for each. The residents were also given a leaflet with information about services that could assist them. The notes say they asked the landlord to refer them to these support agencies.
- On 29 May 2024 the landlord spoke with the resident and then sent a follow on email. This email confirmed that as there had been improvements in the number of items at the property it would look to visit every 2 months. It said this would also allow time for the support agencies to put something in place to help them. It confirmed the next visit would take place on 7 August 2024. However, on 6 August 2024 the resident asked to reschedule this visit. The landlord contacted them on 14 August 2024 and gave a list of dates within the next 4 weeks for the residents to choose from. The residents responded on 18 August 2024 and confirmed an appointment for 12 September 2024.
- The residents have said that a week before the visit they received a letter which said all the items in the property needed to be cleared by the appointment date. They have said this contradicted what they had been told in May 2024. They said they were told they should clear as much as they could when their health allowed them to. However, no evidence of this letter has been seen. Rather, the only pre-appointment letter seen is dated 4 September 2024 and it only confirmed the appointment date.
- The landlord visited the property on 11 September 2024. The notes say it found there had been no significant improvement and it believed there were more items present. The record says that during the visit the landlord discussed the residents’ responsibility under the tenancy agreement to maintain the property. It also explained to the residents that the property’s current condition was in breach of that. The notes show the residents said they had been too unwell to make progress with the action plan agreed in May 2024. They also said they had previously asked the landlord for a copy of its equality and diversity policy but they had not received this information. The landlord told the residents that information could be found on its website.
- Based on the information seen, the landlord correctly followed its hoarding policy when looking into the safeguarding concerns raised by its staff. Between July 2023 and September 2024 the landlord carried out 5 inspections and agreed reasonable action plans with the residents at each.
- As part of the complaint the residents said the landlord did not take their vulnerabilities into consideration when asking them to clear the property. They have also said that it did not make any reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act to assist them in doing so. We appreciate that decluttering the property would not have been a quick or straight forward process for the residents due to their health. However, they have not explained what reasonable adjustments they think the landlord should have made to assist them. Before the residents raised their complaint, the landlord had allowed them over a year and 2 months to make significant progress in decluttering the property. So we can not conclude that it did not allow a reasonable amount of time for them to achieve this.
- That said, in its letter to the residents dated 29 May 2024 the landlord said the residents had confirmed they were happy to be referred to support services. As such, the landlord should have referred them at this time. However, it has not provided evidence confirming when it made these referrals. Furthermore, in its stage 2 response the landlord said the referrals had ‘again been chased on 17 September 2024’. However, it has not provided evidence to show that it chased the referrals before or on 17 September 2024.
- Therefore, the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show that it referred the residents to support services or, if it did, that it proactively chased these. This was unreasonable and indicates poor record keeping and monitoring on the part of the landlord. The landlord should have referred the residents as soon as they gave consent and proactively chased these referrals before the residents’ complaint. Had it done so, the residents might have received assistance in clearing the property much sooner. As such, we have found that there was a service failure by the landlord.
- In light of this, we order the landlord to apologise for this failing and to complete a follow-up discussion with the residents about the support services. The aim of this discussion should be to ascertain whether the referral to support services has been of any help to them. The landlord can then use this information to inform itself about the importance of making such referrals as soon as possible and monitoring them. On 2 December 2025 the residents confirmed to this Service that since the complaints process significant progress has been made in decluttering the property. They also said they were happy with the help they have since received from the landlord. For this reason we have not made any orders relating to this.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It also says the landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
- The residents raised their complaint on 12 September 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 19 September 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 26 September 2024. This was within its policy timescales.
- The resident’s escalated their complaint on 26 September 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 2 October 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response on 17 October 2024. This was within its policy timescales.
- Through its complaints process the landlord also adequately addressed all the concerns raised by the residents. As such, we have found there was no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord has not provided evidence of its referral of the residents to support services nor any chasers it may have sent. However, the records of the landlord’s visits to the property were well documented and detailed. These provided a clear picture of what happened and what was discussed during those visits.