Amplius Living (202430094)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202430094

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Amplius Living

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

20 October 2025

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house with her son. Her son has autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The resident reported a leak in her bathroom. She brought the complaint to us following the landlord’s stage 2 response, as the leak was still active.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s
    1. Response to a leak in the bathroom.
    2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found that:
    1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to a leak in the bathroom.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to a leak in the bathroom

  1. The landlord missed opportunities to fully investigate the leak or seek a second opinion as to the cause of the leak, which overall delayed a resolution. It did not keep the resident updated, and it did not consider how the delays in fixing the leak had affected the resident’s son. It did not complete all the follow on work in line with the commitments made within the stage 2 response. However, the landlord recognised and acknowledged its failings. It apologised and offered proportionate compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and fixed the leak.

The complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not act in line with its own complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) when it sent the resident a stage 2 review letter.

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:

  • The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

 

No later than

17 November 2025

2           

Compensation order

 

The landlord must pay the resident:

  • £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

 

No later than

17 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,000 compensation it offered within its stage 2 and stage 2 review responses.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

22 July 2024

The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said the landlord’s contractors had cancelled her appointment to fix the leak twice and they did not call her back on 19 July 2024 as promised.

12 August 2024

The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the service she had received. It said its contractors were due to fit a new shower screen on 14 August 2024. It found that there had been a lack of communication with the resident and some miscommunication. It said it would monitor the repair and contact her after completion to confirm her satisfaction. It offered £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience due to poor communication.

21 August 2024

The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she said the leak had not been resolved.

15 October 2024

The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged its contractor had failed to resolve the leak on several occasions and failed to book follow on works. It said the failures resulted in an overall delay in the completion of the works. The landlord apologised for the poor service and any distress and inconvenience caused. It said it had raised an order to complete the follow on works on 29 October 2024. It offered the resident increased compensation of £250. This was made up of £100 for the delays in completing the repairs and £150 for distress and inconvenience.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation on 17 February 2025. She said she wanted the landlord to fix the leak, repair the bathroom flooring, and pay compensation for distress and inconvenience and the time taken to resolve the issue.

13 May 2025

The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 review letter following the completion of further works to resolve the leak. It said it had been unable to complete the repairs on 29 October 2024 as the leak was still active. It apologised for the delays in completing the works and for any distress and inconvenience caused and it offered additional compensation of £750 for the delays, distress, and inconvenience.

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 response to a leak in the bathroom

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The resident first reported a leak from her bathroom into her kitchen on 26 January 2024. The landlord raised an emergency repair to make safe the kitchen light and a routine repair to trace the leak. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
  2. The landlord attended to the emergency repair the following day and made safe the light. A plumber attended to trace the leak on 8 February 2024. He removed and replaced the sealant and tested for leaks. The landlord completed both repairs within the timeframes set in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for emergency repairs (24 hours) and routine repairs (28 calendar days).
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2024. She said it was very wet under the bath and it smelt mouldy. She said the plumber had left the bath panel off so she could monitor the leak, but it was still very wet after 10 days.
  4. A plumber attended on 26 February 2024. This was in line with the 7 day timeframe set for urgent repairs within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The plumber checked for a leak under the bath and reported that he found no leaks. The landlord did not investigate further as to the reason why it was wet underneath the bath. Had it done so at this stage, it may have been able to resolve the issues for the resident more quickly and limit the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident reported damp patches in the bathroom and bubbling paintwork to the landlord on 2 May 2024. Its contractor attended on 29 May 2024. This was within the timeframe for routine repairs. The contractor confirmed that there were no leaks. He thought water was running down the wall when the resident was using the shower. He recommended replacing the shower curtain with a fitted shower screen.
  6. The landlord raised a repair to address the leak and a repair to fit a shower screen for 19 June 2024. However, the operative was unable to attend on the day due to scheduling issues and the job was rebooked for 17 July 2024. This was outside of the timeframe set for routine repairs.
  7. The contractor attended on 17 July 2024 and found no evidence of a pressure leak from the shower. He said water had leaked down the bath at the tap end as it was slightly damp. He said he could not fit a shower screen as the tiling did not reach the side of the bath. He recommended further works to strip the wall, reboard with waterproof boarding, and tile before fitting the shower screen.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2024 to see when it would complete the work. The landlord spoke to the contractor and told the resident that they would look at the operatives notes and call her back to book the appointments in. However, the contractor did not call the resident back.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 July 2024. She contacted the landlord by telephone on 24 July 2024. She said there was a crack in her kitchen ceiling and water in her light fitting. The landlord raised an emergency repair. The resident also chased the tiling and shower screen works. She told the landlord that her son had ASD and ADHD and he usually had 3 showers a day. She said he was not coping well with the situation.
  10. The landlord chased its contractors and said they would contact the resident directly to book the tiling works in and then the work to install the shower screen. The landlord noted, at the time of the resident’s call, that both jobs were showing as closed, but the contractor said the tiling job was still open on their system. This should have prompted the landlord to consider whether it needed to re-raise the jobs. Had it done so, it may have saved the resident time and trouble chasing the contractor. In addition, there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered how the delays were affecting the resident’s son.
  11. The resident spoke to the contractor on 25 July 2024. She mentioned the outstanding tiling work. The contractor said they had no open jobs for tiling on their system. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day. The landlord contacted its contractor who confirmed they were only authorised to install the shower screen. They said, if the landlord wanted them to do the tiling, it would need to approve the work. The landlord queried this internally and it confirmed that the contractor needed to raise the follow on works. The landlord then spoke to the resident and explained what had happened. It said it would update her by the end of the day. However, there is no evidence to show that it did this. There is also no evidence to show that it provided an update following a further request from the resident on 31 July 2024.
  12. The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 5 August 2024 to carry out an inspection. He said the wall had been inspected using a CCTV camera and no evidence of a leak had been found. He concluded that the contractors had explored all avenues to trace the leak, yet the issue persisted. He said the repairs system was showing that follow on works had been raised, but the contractor had not raised any further work. The landlord missed an opportunity at this point to consider whether it needed to take a different approach and carry out an invasive or more complex investigation into the cause of the leak.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 August 2024 to give her an update. It said it did not need to do the tiling work, it just needed to fit the shower screen, but it did not explain why. It said it would address the flooring as follow on work but the floor and kitchen ceiling would need to dry out first. The landlord said it had logged the work as an urgent repair.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 August 2024 as she had heard dripping while she was in the bath. She told the landlord she had called a plumber out and they said there was a leak under the bath. She said she felt very frustrated as the landlord had told her there was no leak. The resident asked for a call back that day. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord called her back.
  15. The resident chased the landlord again on 12 August 2024. She said she had paid for her own plumber to attend and they said the overflow was leaking and the grout was letting water through. The landlord said it had raised a repair for the shower screen. It said she must “trust the process and hope it resolved the issues”. It also said it would carry out the repair and “see what happens”. This was likely frustrating for the resident. Had the landlord completed further and more invasive investigations at this point, it may have been able to resolve the issues much sooner.
  16. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 12 August 2024. The landlord’s contractor did not fit the shower screen until 20 August 2024 as they had to order the screen. This was outside of the timeframe of 7 days set for urgent repairs.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 August 2024. This was because the leak was still active. She said she showed the contractor, who fitted the shower screen, how it leaked when the shower was on. She said he told her it was the taps. The resident said the landlord booked the job in for 12 September 2024. She said she told the landlord she was concerned as her son showered up to 3 times a day. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered the resident’s concerns.
  18. The landlord fitted new taps and silicone on 12 September 2024. It contacted the resident on 23 September 2024 and asked if anything was outstanding. The resident said it had not repaired the wall in the bathroom, the shower screen did not do anything, and the bathroom floor had lifted. The landlord said it would arrange for a post inspection of the works.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 September 2024. She said the leak had not been resolved as it was coming from the same place. The landlord booked an urgent repair. Its contractor attended on 3 October 2024 and resealed behind the taps, even though this had been done previously. The landlord post inspected the works on 4 October 2024. However, it has not provided any information relating to the post inspection. As a result, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether it was assured that it had fully resolved the leak, particularly as it had not completed any in depth investigations and the leak was intermittent.
  20. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 15 October 2024. Although it offered increased compensation of £250, acknowledged its contractors had failed to resolve the leak on several occasions and had failed to book follow on works, it did not take any accountability for any of its failings. It also did not confirm the outcome of the inspection, provide any conclusions as to the cause of the leak, or show any learning from the complaint.
  21. The resident reported the leak again on 23 October 2024. The landlord tried to fix the leak by replacing the sealant behind the taps again. The landlord’s contractor completed some of the follow on works on 29 October 2024. However, it did not replace the bathroom flooring.
  22. The landlord carried out some work to the bathroom on 10 February 2025. However, the resident reported further leaks on 27 February 2025 and 5 March 2025. It carried out repairs to the shower on 27 February 2025 and sealed behind the bath taps again on 19 March 2025. It completed the outstanding work to the bathroom floor on 20 March 2025.
  23. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 review letter on 13 May 2025. It apologised for the further delays since its stage 2 response and it offered the resident an additional £750 compensation, taking the total to £1,000.
  24. Where there are admitted failings by the landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s apology, the completion of the remedial work to the bathroom, and its offer of £1,000 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  25. Therefore, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within the 5 working days. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 12 August 2024 within the 10 working days set within its complaints policy.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within the required timeframes. It extended the date for a response on 23 September 2024 and sent the stage 2 response on 15 October 2024. This was within the timeframe of 40 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy, considering the extension request.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 review letter on 13 May 2025. This was almost 7 months after the original stage 2 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code, which says at paragraph 6.10 “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response”.
  4. Given the observations above, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

  1. Landlords should take accountability for delays caused by their contractors and intervene when a contractor is not able to fully establish the cause of an issue. Landlords should be aware of multiple reports to the same property for the same issue, even if the repairs are being attended to within published timeframes, and seek to establish a permanent fix.
  2. Landlords should also consider the individual circumstances and vulnerabilities of members of the resident’s household when responding to service requests and making decisions that are likely to affect them.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. There were no specific concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. It did not, however, provide a key document relating to the post inspection. Although this did not hinder our investigation significantly.

Communication

  1. The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were occasions when the resident contacted the landlord asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.