Amplius Living (202522366)

Background

1. The resident complained about delays by the landlord to complete repair work following a leak in her wet room. The landlord is aware that the resident has limited mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the wet room.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak from the wet room.
   2. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak from the wet room

4. The landlord’s apology and compensation offer was proportionate redress for the failings we found in our investigation.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Code. Its apology and offer of compensation was proportionate redress for its identified complaint handling failure.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident said that she slipped and fractured her leg due to the leak from the wet room. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. Following the resident’s report of a leak from the wet room the landlord took proportionate action and arranged for a surveyor to inspect the issue. It identified repair work including, replacement bathroom flooring to correct improper drainage issues and repair of a faulty shower pump. It raised this work on its systems in a timely fashion and agreed to attend on 23 September 2024. This was within the 28-day timescale set out in its repair policy for a routine repair.
8. The landlord’s repair records show that it was unable to complete the scheduled work as the resident informed it that she had been admitted to hospital due to fracturing her neck. It subsequently cancelled the repair job on its system. It demonstrated a proactive approach by conducting a welfare check with the resident. It went on to make weekly calls to her to check her progress and wellbeing whilst she was hospitalised. It demonstrated good practice by liaising with her appointed representative to attempt to re-arrange the necessary repair work.
9. The landlord attended to complete repair work to the shower pump 3 days outside of its published timescale of 28 days. However, further delays ensued in the repair work to replace the wet room flooring. Its records show that it chased its contractor 3 times between 18 October and 3 December 2024 to attempt to arrange a date to complete the work.
10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised for its delay to complete repair work. It said it had asked the resident for photographs of the damaged flooring to consider reimbursing her costs. As these were not provided it was unable to consider this. It directed her to her contents insurer. It offered £125 compensation for delays and inconvenience. It said its contractor would attend on 4 December 2024 to measure the flooring and then provide a date to carry out work.
11. The landlord’s compensation offer was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident. It acted in line with its compensation procedure by demonstrating it had considered reimbursing the resident’s costs for damaged flooring. It was reasonable that it directed the resident to her contents insurer in relation to this matter.
12. That said, further delays in arranging the flooring repair work ensued. The resident chased the landlord 5 times between 16 December 2024 and 18 January 2025 due to a lack of updates on the matter. When escalating her complaint on 7 January 2025 she told the landlord she had slipped on water from the wet room floor and fractured her leg.
13. In its final response the landlord apologised for the further delays to complete the repair and inconvenience. It confirmed it had completed the flooring repair on 20 January 2025. This was 67 days outside its policy timescale of 28 days. It offered a further £650 compensation which brought its total compensation offer to £775. It should have directed the resident to its insurer as she had reported a personal injury. We are aware that its internal review of the complaint later identified this omission as a learning point.
14. In summary the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were proportionate and in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. Its responses and overall approach demonstrated an awareness of the resident’s vulnerabilities. We welcome the learning points and actions highlighted as part of its internal review into the matter. These include repair case discussions and closer liaison with contractors to facilitate the completion of repair work within policy guidelines.
15. We are aware that following the landlord’s final response the resident reported a new leak from the wet room. She has subsequently told us that the landlord has resolved the matter and there are no current outstanding repair issues.

16. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages within its policy timescales.
18. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for its failure to monitor actions it had agreed to at stage 1. It offered £50 compensation for this failure which is in line with our remedies guidance. It highlighted the importance of effectively monitoring action set out in its complaint responses as learning. It passed this information to its learning and improvement officer to implement improvements in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s overall knowledge and information management was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

20. The landlord failed to consistently communicate delays throughout the repairs process with the resident. It is important that it effectively manages residents’ expectations about how it intends to respond to concerns and that it keeps them informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.