Amplius Living (202321541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321541

Amplius Living

15 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct in his home during a gas safety inspection.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident is registered disabled and has impaired mobility which the landlord is aware of.
3. The landlord’s contractor completed a gas safety inspection at the resident’s property on 25 August 2023.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023. He said:
   1. The contractor had a “couldn’t care less” attitude and left his home in a mess.
   2. The operative had not placed dust sheets on surfaces, stood on his chair to access the boiler, and used his knife as a tool, which was damaged as a result.
   3. His experience had caused serious effects to his health.
   4. He wanted the landlord to give him assurances its contractor would act appropriately when it returned to replace the boiler.
5. The landlord issued the resident with its stage 1 response to his complaint on 11 September 2023. It investigated the matter with its contractor and said:
   1. It acknowledged the resident was registered disabled and that he was on a lot of medication.
   2. Dust sheets were not used because its contractor only opened the casing of the boiler.
   3. The resident had offered the contractor his knife to use, and it was sorry it was damaged.
   4. It was sorry for the upset caused to the resident by its contractor standing on his chair.
   5. The contractor’s operative disputed they had a negative attitude.
   6. It would ensure it contacted the resident after the boiler instillation to check he was happy with the work.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2023 and said it had contacted him by phone when he had previously asked it to contact him by letter or email only.
7. The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process on 11 October 2023. He said he was dissatisfied with the outcome and felt his complaint was “being swept under the carpet.” He said he had to refuse the instillation of a new boiler until his health had improved.
8. On 17 October 2023, the contractor wrote to the resident to apologise for the upset caused to him by its visit. It acknowledged its operative had not treated him or his property with respect. It gave him assurances that it would bring any equipment it needed with it on future occasions.
9. On 20 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it had recently had a monthly meeting with its contractor and raised the issues of the resident’s complaint with its management. The landlord told the resident it had reminded the contractor to be respectful in the resident’s home, to wear shoe coverings, not to leave a mess, use their own equipment and not use resident’s own in future.
10. The landlord also issued the resident with its stage 2 response to his complaint on 20 October 2023. It said it had not given him enough reassurance that his home would be treated with respect on future visits and this had resulted in the resident not feeling comfortable with the contractor attending his home. It said it hoped it had now given enough assurance to the resident on the matter and could begin to restore his confidence in its service.
11. The resident has told the Ombudsman he does not feel the landlord acknowledged his disabilities when responding to his complaint. He said the landlord’s handling of the matter has left him feeling seriously ill and he will not let the contractor back into his property until he is feeling better.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the contractor’s visit on his health and said the landlord failed to acknowledge and consider his disabilities. We acknowledge the resident’s experience has negatively impacted him. The Ombudsman can consider the distress any identified failings may have caused, but it is outside our role to determine effect on the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, he can seek independent legal advice.
13. We are aware the resident also raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of a number of issues separate to the gas safety inspection including its handling of parking, his requests for a kitchen light to be fixed, and the conditions of the communal bin area and the presence of pests. These matters were not included in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, and we have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these as part of our investigation. The landlord must first be given the chance to investigate and respond to these issues through its complaints process before we consider them. The resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord if he wishes to pursue his concerns further. If he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, he may be able to then refer the new complaint to us for consideration.

Policies and procedures,

14. The landlord’s code of conduct applies to both employees and contractors of the landlord. The code of conduct states all individuals involved in the delivery of the landlord’s services are expected to deal politely, professionally, humanely, courteously, and respectfully with residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct in his home

15. The landlord contacted its contractor once it received the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its operative and asked it for its account of events. This was appropriate as it demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and this was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to be fair by seeking an understanding of events from both parties’ perspectives. The landlord shared the outcome of its investigation with the resident, which showed fairness and transparency.
16. The landlord demonstrated it sought to learn from the outcome of the complaint as it met with the contractor to remind it of the standard of customer service it expects when visiting resident’s homes. This was positive from the landlord as it made attempts to reduce the risk of the same thing happening again and was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes.
17. The landlord could have taken steps to further understand the resident’s personal circumstances and how its contractor’s conduct had impacted upon them. However, it did acknowledge the impact in its complaint responses and referred to the resident’s health conditions, showing it was aware of them. Overall, the landlord took responsibility for its contractor’s actions and apologised to the resident for its conduct. It was also positive that the contractor wrote to the resident separately from the landlord to apologise. This demonstrated that both parties sought to put things right for the resident with an apology and is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right.
18. The resident asked the landlord for it to contact him by email and letter only, but it attempted to call him on 3 occasions during the complaints process. This was a mistake by the landlord as it failed to adhere to the resident’s communication preferences and caused the resident distress. Whilst we acknowledge the landlord’s actions caused the resident distress, it was not a significant failure as it did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. After this, it did remind staff to contact the resident by letter and email only and placed an alert on his account with his contact preferences. These were reasonable steps to avoid a similar error in future.
19. The landlord did not offer the resident any financial compensation although it recognised there was a failure by its contractor to act appropriately in the resident’s home during the gas safety inspection. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation, recognises that in some circumstances, an apology is all that is required, and compensation is not always appropriate when the landlord has made an error. The guidance states that when making the apology the landlord should acknowledge the failure, accept responsibility for it, express regret, and explain how it will ensure it will not happen again. We are satisfied the landlord did this in its response to the resident’s complaint and although the resident has said his experience has negatively affected his health, we cannot make a determination on this. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation and offered an apology for the failure.
20. As such, we have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct in his home.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct in his home during a gas safety inspection.