Amplius Living (202400542)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord for not providing a shower screen. She said it had previously recommended one in 2022 due to water escaping via the existing shower curtain. She remained unhappy with repair delays in relation to an associated leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A shower screen installation.
   2. An associated leak.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for the handling of a shower screen installation.
4. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of an associated leak.
5. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of a shower screen installation

6. The landlord acknowledged its failure to communicate its decision that the shower screen was the resident’s responsibility and offered compensation proportionate to the failure it identified.

The handling of an associated leak

7. The landlord inappropriately categorised the repair, failing to treat it as an emergency. It delayed in contacting her by 3 days and took over a month to attend and ensure the safety of the resident. It failed to acknowledge this failure and did not provide appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

8. The landlord failed to record and acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and provide complaint responses within its own policy time frames.

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.

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.

9. The resident told the Ombudsman that contractors had previously inspected the shower and leak issues and had recommended a shower screen be fitted. Although we can see it attending in June 2022, there is no available evidence to confirm the landlord had agreed to this at the time.
10. In the resident’s complaint she said the water leaks were due to the water bypassing the shower curtain and causing a flood. She explained that this occurred every time she takes a shower. She reiterated this again in a message to the landlord on 18 January 2024 asking for a shower screen to be fitted to resolve this issue.
11. The landlord’s repair policy states that shower curtains are the resident’s responsibility and as such the landlord would not be responsible for fitting a shower screen. This was the landlord’s position throughout the complaint process and it evidenced it communicated this clearly. This was a reasonable response and within its own policy and procedures.
12. The landlord committed to fit a shower screen in its complaint response on 31 January 2024 as a gesture of goodwill. This meant the resident expected the curtain to be replaced after the landlord had committed to do so, and within a reasonable amount of time.
13. We have seen that the job to fit a shower screen was raised on 25 January 2024 by the landlord, before it had issued the complaint response. Its contractor attempted to contact the resident to arrange to have the shower screen fitted. The contractor left voicemails on the resident’s phone on 25, 29 and 31 January 2024 but received no response. This was marked as “abandoned due to no contact”. The contractor could not be expected to continue to attempt to contact the resident indefinitely, therefore it was reasonable to stop trying after 3 failed attempts.
14. The landlord advised the resident of its failed attempts in its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024 and provided a number for her to contact to arrange the outstanding work. There is no evidence that shows when the resident made contact about the shower screen with the landlord, following the complaint response. Therefore, we are unable to determine whether the landlord’s response was appropriate at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to have placed the onus on the resident after it was unable to make contact.
15. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by it not communicating its decision that the shower screen was the resident’s responsibility and offered her £50 compensation. It increased this offer to £100, 10 days after the stage 2 complaint response. An apology and compensation were reasonable and proportionate to the failings it identified, and in line with our remedies guidance for minor service failure.
16. The shower screen was installed in September 2024. The delay of 9 months from when it first committed to make the improvement was not entirely due to failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue.

17. The resident made a service request on 18 September 2023 stating that there was a large leak from the bathroom which had caused a crack to appear and was getting into the electrics. The landlord’s repairs policy states that an emergency repair is one where it must make safe and remove the risk of immediate injury to people and major damage to a property. The risk of electrics and water together is a known safety risk, and its failure to consider the resident’s reported issue as an emergency was not reasonable.
18. The landlord said it tried calling the resident on 21 and 26 September 2023 and got no reply. This was beyond the required 4-hour response time for emergency repairs, set out in the repairs policy, and demonstrated the landlord’s failure to act in line with its responsibilities.
19. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023 as she was worried that the leak was causing damage to the property. The landlord arranged an appointment for 29 November 2023 to repair the leak. This was 26 working days beyond the 20 working days allowed in its repairs policy. The landlord also failed to appropriately identify the risks at this stage. This demonstrated a failure to act in line with its responsibilities and consider the safety of its residents in a property with a potential hazard.
20. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 October 2023 reiterating her concerns the water was entering the electrics. The landlord appropriately categorised this as an emergency and sent an electrician the same day, who deemed the electrics safe. A delay of over a month to ensure there was no danger to the resident was not reasonable and against the landlord’s repairs policy.
21. The landlord’s contractor assessed the bath and shower and found no leaks on 29 November 2023. It attributed the issue to water escaping from the shower curtain which we have already identified was not the landlord’s responsibility. It took 2 months to reach this conclusion and rule out other causes, which was not in line with the repair policy and not a reasonable response.
22. The resident remained unhappy about the gap behind the bath panel in her complaint to us. The landlord explained to her that this is a common feature and was not attributing to the flooding, which was a reasonable response. The contractor notes indicate there was no repair needed.
23. The resident was unhappy the contractor who attended on 18 January 2024 had not replaced the seal to the bath. The landlord was responsive to her complaint about this, however, was unable to contact the resident to schedule a contractor to attend. It said it had called the resident and left 3 voicemails between 19 and 25 January 2024. The resident responded to an online message and booked in the sealant job, which was completed in March 2024. This was a reasonable response.
24. The landlord has relied upon its specialist contractors on more than one occasion and it was reasonable for it to take their advice. The available evidence indicates that use of the shower curtain was the cause of the water escaping from the shower area. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to not agree to pay for replacement laminate and vinyl flooring. It clearly explained this was due to the reported damage not being caused by a repair issue.
25. In its complaint responses it agreed to have the property inspected for damage, which it did some time in February 2024. The job raised in response was for the contractor to refix the skirting board, check the mixer tap, remove bath panel and replace, as well as painting the damaged bathroom area and living room ceiling.  The landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident on 20, 23 and 28 February 2024 to have the work completed before cancelling the job in April 2024 as no response was received.  Again the contractor could not be expected to continue to attempt to contact the resident indefinitely, therefore it was reasonable to stop trying. It is unclear if the work identified in the inspection has since been carried out so we have made an order to resolve this part of the complaint.
26. Our remedies guidance says payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate when failures adversely affect residents but cause no permanent impact. The £350 we have ordered reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s repair delays, including failing to treat the initial reports as an emergency.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The policy requires the landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint were compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
28. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint at first. It only did this after the resident wrote again on 20 December 2023. The landlord’s notes showed that its resolution team took the complaint on 12 January 2024 and then sent a further acknowledgment that day, over a month after the resident had first complained. These initial delays and failure to record the resident’s initial complaint were not reasonable and were service failure.
29. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was 18 working days past the time set in its policy. It had asked the resident for an extension, but this was 16 working days after the response should have been sent. These delays were not reasonable or accounted for. The landlord failed to identify its failures and as such did not give an apology or offer any form of redress under its compensation policy.
30. However, the landlord showed that it had improved its complaint handling by acknowledging the escalation and providing its stage 2 complaint response within the time set in its own policy.
31. Our remedies guidance says payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate where there was minor failure by the landlord and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right. The £100 we have ordered reflects the time and trouble taken by the resident due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

32. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to identify and respond to an emergency repair. A further internal document or policy could be introduced to help its agents identify what situations could be deemed an emergency repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord should ensure that all complaints are handled within the timescales allowed in its complaint handling procedure. Robust monitoring processes may help prevent future delays. The landlord has published a new complaint handling procedure since the Code became statutory in April 2024 which should help it with this.

Communication

34. Although there were delays in the complaint responses, they were clear and explained why the shower screen was the resident’s responsibility and referred to its policy. The landlord was able to identify within its complaints procedure its failure to communicate its decision about the shower curtain being the resident’s responsibility.