Amplius Living (202408765)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house since 2008. The landlord has recorded that she has impaired mobility. She told us she has fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. The landlord completed a survey of the resident’s property in July 2023. It recorded the kitchen sink unit was damaged and needed to be replaced. The resident complained to the landlord in February 2024 about the delay in completing repairs to her kitchen.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. shower, boiler and radiator repairs.
   2. a kitchen leak and the related repairs.
   3. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about shower, boiler and radiator repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. a kitchen leak and the related repairs.
   2. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Failed to ensure timely action to address a kitchen leak and related repairs.
   2. Did not address the resident’s concern that her dog may have passed away due to the issues.
   3. Did not well plan repairs raised following its stage 2 complaint response, resulting in a further delay to work.
   4. Provided an incorrect target for its stage 1 response and delayed providing a response.
   5. Did not clearly record or explain why some repair concerns raised in the initial complaint were not addressed.

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.

6. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord referred to a shower repair, the boiler not being boxed in, and that a bathroom radiator had not been replaced. However, the landlord’s complaint acknowledgements and the eventual stage 2 response set out only the resident’s concerns about the kitchen leak and related repairs.  We have seen no evidence the resident asked the landlord to extend the scope of its complaint investigation after it outlined what it was investigating. However, we have seen some complaint handling failings in its handling, which we have set out below.

7. The resident has told us that she reported kitchen leak/mould issues to the landlord several years ago. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints within 12 months of when they are aware of the issue. This is because evidence may be unavailable, making it difficult for a thorough investigation to be completed. Taking this into account, and the availability of evidence, we have focused on the period from 19 July 2023. This was the date the landlord surveyed the property and identified damage to the kitchen sink unit.
8. In her communication to us the resident said the condition of her property had a detrimental impact on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury or illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
9. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had significantly delayed completing work to the kitchen following its survey in mid-July 2023. This survey was completed by the landlord as part of work to identify damp and mould in its properties, rather than one prompted by a report from the resident. It identified work was needed to replace a kitchen unit. The landlord should then have taken steps to raise this work in line with timescales set out in its repairs policy. This says routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. But it took no action until early-January 2024. That was only after the resident chased progress. The delay in completing work was a failing. Since the resident’s complaint, the landlord said its surveyors now have access to tools to uphold inspections onto its system while on site.
10. After the resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2024 to report a leak under the kitchen sink, it took appropriate action to attend and resolve this following day. But it missed the opportunity to raise this work at an earlier date. The resident had said in her complaint of 5 February 2024 that she had been left with a “constant leak” and a stopcock that did not work. It should have acted then to raise the repair. That it did not do so was a failing.
11. The previous survey did not record an ongoing leak under the sink, or damage to flooring. But given the damage to the sink unit the survey had identified, it would have been reasonable for it to investigate the cause of this. Prompt work following the survey in July 2023 could have addressed and resolved any ongoing problems and prevented issues worsening. By the time the landlord reattended on 11 March 2024 it recorded that damage had “clearly got worse” since the last survey. It noted that flooring, a further unit to the side of the sink and the plinth now required replacing, as well as a potential mould treatment behind units.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response awarded the resident compensation in recognition of the delay in raising work and the upset and inconvenience this caused her. That was appropriate. She should not have had to wait so long, or make a complaint, for work to be completed. The £600 the landlord awarded in recognition of this was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Further it was appropriate that it awarded £350 towards the cost of a new washing machine.
13. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident outlined concerns that her dog had passed away due to unresolved mould issues in the kitchen. The landlord told her it would “mention this during the review”. But it did not address it at all in its eventual response. This left the resident’s concern unresolved.  That was a failing. In line with its compensation policy, it should have explained to the resident how she could approach its liability insurer. It could also have explained that she could consider court action. We have ordered that the landlord apologise for this and provide information about how she can refer the matter to its liability insurer.
14. The resident told us that work was completed to resolve issues in kitchen following the landlord’s final complaint response. Records show repairs completed to flooring and kitchen units in May and August 2024.  However, we have seen evidence of poor planning of this work by the landlord. Its stage 2 response set out that work would be completed to the floor on 17 April 2024, and to replace kitchen units and complete a mould treatment on 3 May 2024.  But when the resident contacted the landlord on 18 April 2024, she said she had been inconvenienced again. She said its operative attended the previous day but did not completed work to the floor, as advised. Instead, they attended to treat the mould, which could not be done until units had been removed. She said she had cleared her kitchen in advance of the work she had expected the floor. 
15. The landlord should have appropriately planned and scheduled the work. It had noted previously that kitchen units needed to be removed prior to any mould work. Further, it had incorrectly advised the resident that flooring work was to be completed on 17 April 2024.  Its failure inconvenienced the resident, who had made herself available and spent time preparing for the work. It also further delayed completion of all work.  With consideration to the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £200 in recognition of further failings we have identified.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in February 2024, the relevant Code was the April 2022 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the relevant Code in respect of timescales.
    2. Its attempts at early resolution were completed with agreement of the resident, in line with the Code.
    3. It took appropriate and timely steps to register the formal complaint at stage 1 after attempting early resolution.
    4. Its stage 2 response was provided within the 20 working day timescale set out by Code and its policy.
17. The landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 13 February 2024 confirming it had now registered the complaint at stage 1 of it process. But the timescale it provided of 20 working days for response was not in line with 10 working day timescale set out by its complaints policy or the Code. That it set out the correct timescale for response was a failing. The landlord then requested a further 10 days to respond to the complaint on 11 March 2024. It noted the resident had declined this and wanted the complaint to be escalated to the next stage. It acted on the resident’s request and did so. But it should reasonably have provided a timely stage 1 response. The Code set out that the complaint response should be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding actions required to address the issue are complete. The landlord had identified by 19 February 2024 that repairs from July 2023 were still outstanding. It should reasonably have provided its stage 1 response outlining actions it would take to resolve this. Its delay in doing so ultimately resulted in the resident not having her complaint fully considered through both stages of its complaints process.
18. The resident’s initial complaint referred to concerns about boiler, shower and bathroom repairs. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement at both stage 1 and stage 2 set out only issues relating to the kitchen leak repairs, and its eventual complaint response only addressed these concerns. It is unclear from records why other issues were not included. It had completed attempts at early resolution of the complaint, but its records do not detail that other repair concerns had been addressed or resolved. To avoid any confusion, the landlord should have made clear records to explain this as well as clearly setting this out to the resident. That it did not do so was a failure. Further, had the landlord provided a response at both stages of its complaints process, the resident would then have had the opportunity to raise any outstanding concerns in her escalation request.
19. The landlord has awarded the resident £200 in recognition of delays in its complaint handling. This goes some way towards recognising the impact of its failings. However, we have ordered that it make a further award to her of £100 in recognition of the further failings we have identified. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have also ordered that it contact the resident to address any outstanding concerns she has about shower, boiler and radiator repairs.

Learning

20. The landlord should consider whether changes it has since made to how its surveyors upload inspections will prevent oversights outlined in this report from reoccurring.
21. The landlord should ensure repair work is planned appropriately to avoid delays and inconvenience to residents.

Communication

22. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident to explain what would happen after the survey in July 2023. Further it failed to communicate effectively about the schedule of work after the stage 2 complaint response.