Amplius Living (202347273)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord she had not been given window keys when she moved into the property in 2020 and also reported several repair issues. She was unhappy at how the landlord responded to these reports. The landlord is aware of the residents disability and also note that there is a household member who is a wheelchair user.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s concerns about the locks for the windows
   2. the repair for the roof leak and the associated damp and mould
   3. the repair for the shower
   4. the resident’s concerns about the front door
   5. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the locks for the windows
   2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair for the roof leak and the associated damp and mould
   3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair for the shower
   4. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the front door
   5. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the locks for the windows

4. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress. The compensation offered aligns with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the repair for the roof leak and the associated damp and mould

5. The landlord did not act on the resident’s earlier reports and did not follow its own damp and mould policy, which added to the delay in resolving the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the repair for the shower

6. The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the shower. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability but did not treat the works as priority, and in line with its policy. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in carrying out the repair, it failed to recognise the impact this delay had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s concerns about the front door

7. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress. The compensation offered aligns with our remedies guidance, and the landlord apologised.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

8. While there were delays during the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord recognised this and offered appropriate compensation in its stage 2 response.

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 said she had no keys for any of the windows since she moved into the property and was unable to open the windows because they were all locked. We have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until December 2023. In the interests of fairness, and taking into the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from October 2023, which were addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
10. On 27 October 2023, the resident told the landlord she had never received window keys and asked for help. The landlord told her to try a hardware store for replacements. However, it is unclear whether the landlord checked its record, confirmed its responsibilities, or explained its position. The advice offered a resolution, so it was partly reasonable, but the landlord should have clarified responsibility and, if it accepted that no keys were provided at the start of the tenancy, and if it should have offered to cover the cost of replacements.
11. The resident chased the issue on 28 November 2023 and again on 13 December 2023. She said the fire service told her it was the landlord’s responsibility. On 15 December the landlord agreed to order new window locks and raised the order on 19 December 2023.
12. While the landlords decision to replace the window lock was reasonable, it took several weeks from the first report in October 2023 and only happened after repeated contacts and a complaint. As the resident said she could not open the windows for years, the landlord should have recognised this as a safety concern and acted sooner.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it replaced the window locks on 8 January 2024. This was incorrect and could have confused the resident. The resident told the landlord on 18 January 2024 that the appointment had not taken place. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its repair notes, it gave no evidence that it checked the resident’s report or reviewed the missed appointment. This was a failing on the landlord.
14. The landlord carried out works to replace the window locks on 23 January 2024. This exceeded the 28‑day target for routine repairs in its repairs policy.
15. The landlord offered £970 in total (£150 for repair delays, £500 for inconvenience, and £320 for loss of enjoyment). It did not explain how this amount related to the 4 issues (the window‑lock concerns, the roof leak and damp and mould, the shower repair, and the front‑door concerns).
16. To keep the approach simple and fair, we divided the £970 evenly across the 4 issues. This gave £242.50 for each issue, which we consider a fair and reasonable way to apportion the compensation.
17. The landlord recognised this delay, apologised and offered compensation for the upset and the inconvenience it had caused the resident. As apportioned £242.50, which is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where failures had a significant impact.

What we have not investigated

18. The resident has complained that damp and mould has affected her health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.

What we investigated

19. The resident reported a roof leak affecting the back bedroom on 27 October 2023. The landlord attended on 11 November 2023, 15 calendar days later which met its 28‑day target for routine repairs and in line with its policy.
20. During that visit, the contractor said it could not complete the repair because it found rodent droppings in the loft. The landlord appropriately arranged pest‑control attendance for 17 November 2023, 7 days later, which was reasonable.
21. The landlord raised another repair, said it attended on 16 December 2023 but could not gain access and closed the repair.
22. Under the landlord’s no‑access procedure, contractors must:
    1. call the resident before carding
    2. leave a no‑access card with a new appointment date if contact cannot be made
    3. take a time‑ and date‑stamped photo of the front door, and
    4. after a second no‑access, request cancellation and record “no access” as the reason
23. The landlord has not shown that this was a second no‑access visit or that it followed its no access- procedure. Closing the repair without these steps was a failing by the landlord. It also meant the resident experienced delay, had to raise the repair again, and was not made aware that the landlord had cancelled the job. This also meant the landlord no longer had the repair under its active monitoring, which contributed to further delay and uncertainty for the resident.
24. The resident reported a roof leak again on 18 January 2024. The landlord raised a repair and attended on 4 February 2024, 17 calendar days later, to inspect and it found no leak was present at the time. The attendance was within the landlord’s 28‑day routine‑repair timescale and was reasonable.
25. The landlord attended on 16 February 2024 to inspect the property. Although it said the visit was arranged for the front door, the inspection also identified further works for the damp and mould in the rear bedroom, including a mould wash, stain‑blocking, re‑laying the loft insulation after finding cold spots, and refixing the rear downpipe. It was reasonable for the landlord to pick up these issues during the same visit rather than arranging another inspection.
26. The landlord raised these works on 21 February 2024, 5 days later, and attended on 1 March 2024 to complete the mould wash and stain‑blocking. It then carried out the loft‑insulation works on 4 March 2024. These timeframes were reasonable for routine repairs.
27. However, the landlord’s complaint investigation was a key opportunity to put things right, and it did not demonstrate a thorough review of the repair history. It did not acknowledge that the resident called on 20 December 2023 to report that the 16 December roof appointment had not taken place. This was a missed opportunity to reassess the damp earlier.
28. By the time of its stage 1 response, the landlord had already completed the 16 February inspection and identified the works needed to resolve the damp. None of the complaint responses explained this to the resident or linked the findings to her earlier reports. This left the resident without reassurance or clarity about how the damp was being addressed.
29. The landlord’s handling also fell short of its damp and mould policy, which commits to:
    1. a zero‑tolerance approach
    2. a proactive response to ensure issues are not seen as acceptable
    3. providing clear support and guidance to residents
    4. and being responsive to vulnerabilities
30. The complaint response did not show that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability or provided the proactive support expected under this policy.
31. It was positive that the landlord offered a decorating pack and £250 towards decoration costs, showing some recognition of the impact. However, the landlord’s apology and compensation for delay did not reflect the full inconvenience caused by missed appointments, unclear communication, and the distress linked to damp and mould. We do not consider the compensation offered proportionate, and an additional award is required to put things right.

32. The resident said she reported shower problems in October/November 2023. The landlord’s records only show contact on 5 December 2023 about the residents report of intermittent hot and cold water. No evidence has been provided by parties of reports earlier to 5 December 2023. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
33. The landlord attended between December 2023 and April 2024 to repair the shower, carrying out several visits, changing parts, and at times resolving the issue temporarily. However, the resident often called back the same day to report the same fault had returned. The failures identified are:
    1. the landlord did not log a repair on 5 December 2023 even though the resident had reported clear problems in the home
    2. it did not take ownership of coordination, passing the issue back and forth between boiler and plumbing contractors
    3. it did not combine trades for joint testing at an early stage, leading to repeat misdiagnosis
    4. it shifted diagnosis between boiler and shower without evidence of end‑to‑end checks
    5. it waited around 51 days to recategorise the repair to urgent despite knowing the resident was disabled and had explained she was traveling to family to use their bathing facilities
    6. it exceeded both its urgent (7‑day) and its routine (28‑day) completion timescales after the recotegorisation
    7. it did not act on the resident’s same‑day repeat reports, leading to avoidable delay
    8. it failed to provide a clear plan, single point of responsibility, or realistic timescales
    9. it replaced the shower in April 2024, around 4 months after the December 2023 escalation. This was outside its 28‑day repair timescale and not in line with its policy.
34. The landlord offered compensation for the upset, inconvenience and the delay in completing the repair. However, this did not fully address the impact on the resident. The resident is vulnerable and relies on adapted bathroom facilities, so the delay had a greater effect on her daily living and wellbeing. The landlord did not recognise this additional impact or reflect this in its response. As a result, the steps it took to put things right did not go far enough.

35. The resident first reported problems with the front door on 27 October 2023. The landlord attended on 7 November 2023, 11 days later. This was reasonable and in in line with its routine repair timescales.
36. During the visit, the landlord noted that the door opened and closed properly but that the resident, who had recently had a stroke, struggled to use it. The landlord referred the case to a surveyor on 9 November 2024, and it also made efforts to involve its aids and adaptations service. This was an appropriate action, as it recognised the resident’s needs and sought specialist input.
37. The surveyor did not attend until 16 February 2024about 99 calendar days after the referral. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delay and it is evident the resident has chased this repair in between. This was unreasonable.
38. The inspection identified works to remove, reframe, and rehang the door. The landlord raised the work order on 21 February 2024 and completed it on 19 March 2024. From raising the order to completing the work took 26 calendar days, which was in line with the landlord’s 28‑day routine‑repair target in its repairs policy. However, the long delay between the referral and the surveyor’s attendance meant the overall progress took far longer than expected and caused avoidable distress and inconveniences to the resident considering her disability.
39. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delay with the repair and inconvenience caused to the resident. As apportioned above. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where service failures had a clear impact. We consider the apology and the compensation to be reasonable redress for the delay and its impact on the resident.

40. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when landlords must respond to complaints. The 2022 Code applied here, and the landlord’s policy complied with it.
41. The landlord’s complaint policy says that for new issues that can be fixed quickly, it uses an early‑resolution approach. This applies when the problem can be resolved straight away, within 2 working days, or within a timeframe agreed with the resident. If the issue needs more investigation, or if the resident asks, the landlord must record it as a formal stage 1 complaint instead.
42. The landlord provided its early‑resolution response on 15 December 2023, 2 working days later and in line with its policy.
43. In line with the landlord’s complaint policy, at stage 1, it must acknowledge within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If it cannot, it must explain the delay, keep the resident updated, and aim to resolve it within a further 10 working days. Any extension beyond 20 working days needs agreement from both sides.
44. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 18 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 8 January 2024. This was 12 working days later and not in line with its policy.
45. The acknowledgement said it aimed to respond within 20 working days. This was not accurate under its own policy and could have confused the resident.
46. The landlord extended stage 1 response twice (on 26 January and 9 February 2024) and issued the response on 19 February 2024. However, the landlord made the first extension after the response deadline. Therefore, its stage 1 handling was not in line with its policy.
47. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 27 February 2024, 6 working days after the 19 February 2024 request.
48. The landlord extended stage 2 on 15 March 2024 and issued the response on 18 April 2024 ,18 working days after the promised deadline of 29 March 2024.
49. The landlord offered £75 compensation for its failure to resolve the complaint at stage 1. It apologised and offered £150 compensation for its late acknowledgment and resolution at stage 2.
50. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says where there has been a failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident a payment of between £50 to £100 can be considered. The compensation offered fairly recognises the impact to the resident.

Learning

51. In the landlord’s complaint response, it offered compensation but did not explain how it linked each part of the offer to the 4 issues raised. This made it unclear how the landlord assessed the impact of each failure. The landlord may wish to consider it approach to compensation and showing how this relates to each issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord’s records on the date it attended to replace the window lock was misleading. Its stage 1 response repeated the same information. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the need for clear, accurate, up‑to‑date repair records. The landlord should log repairs, missed appointments, and follow‑up actions in real time so it gives correct updates and respond properly to residents and complaints.
53. In this case, the landlord did not demonstrate it reviewed the repair history/record when responding to the complaint.

Communication

54. The landlord should strengthen the way it communicates with residents throughout a repair and complaint. It missed several opportunities to give clear updates including explaining missed appointments, linking new findings to earlier reports, and confirming next steps in writing. Clear, timely communication would have helped reduce the resident’s uncertainty and ensured she understood how the landlord was managing the repair.