Amplius Living (202524480)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from her toilet to the landlord in March 2024. The landlord attended the repair by mistake because it did not recognise that this was the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder. The resident continued to report issues with the toilet to the landlord. The landlord noted that the resident had vulnerabilities including impaired mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:​
   1. Reports of sewage leaking under her bathroom floor and the associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was an offer of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of sewage leaking under the bathroom floor and the associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in carrying out repairs and it failed to communicate clearly with her. It made a proportionate offer of compensation in recognition of its failures.
5. It agreed to carry out all repairs despite not being responsible to do so, and rectified parts of the bathroom that had been damaged by the leak.
6. It failed to respond to the resident’s claim for reimbursement of surveyor costs in its complaint response, however this was no longer raised as an outstanding issue by the resident.
7. The landlord apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and made an appropriate offer of compensation.

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.

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.

8. ​The resident’s lease agreement says that it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to keep the interior of the premises in good repair and decorative condition. It says that the landlord is responsible to:
   1. Maintain the structure of the bungalow in good repair and condition.
   2. Keep the gutters, sewers and drains and other services serving the premises in good repair and working order.
9. The landlord wrote to the resident in June 2016 granting permission for her to install a new bathroom suite in the property. In the letter, it explained that this was permitted on conditions which included that the resident accepted responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the bathroom.
10. On 2 March 2024 the resident reported an uncontainable leak from behind the toilet to the landlord. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended the property the same day to complete the work. The resident reported further toilet issues on three occasions in 2024 and the landlord attended each time within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Further repairs were reported in 2025 which again the landlord attended in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
11. During its investigation, the landlord identified that the resident was a leaseholder and therefore she was responsible for the repairs she had reported. However, the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to complete the repairs on her behalf because it had failed to identify that she had responsibility for these repairs when she first reported them.
12. In its stage 1 response the landlord said its contractor caused accidental damage to the resident’s tiles when attending in 2024. The contractor did not follow this up, which left the issue unresolved. The landlord appropriately offered to repair the tiles as part of the works listed in its final response, and it recorded learning to prevent this happening again.
13. In its final response, the landlord agreed the following actions:
    1. Carry out repairs to the bathroom including replacing the floor tiles, replace the vanity unit and install new parts for the toilet.
    2. Pay £250 compensation for delays in completing repairs, £600 for inconvenience caused to the resident, and £50 for poor communication. This was in addition to the £200 it had offered in its stage 1 response.
14. The landlord told the resident that it could not provide a repair date at the time of responding at stage 2. It agreed to monitor the repair and keep the resident updated. The resident later confirmed that the repairs were completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord evidenced that it completed a post-inspection on 23 January 2026.
15. We are satisfied that the total amount offered by the landlord of £1,100 was appropriate and reflected the additional impact caused by the resident’s vulnerabilities. This offer aligns with our remedies guidance for a failure that had a long-term impact on the resident, where the landlord failed to provide the service it said that it would. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress because the landlord apologised to the resident and made a proportionate offer of compensation.
16. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to the resident and clarified her repair responsibilities. It said that she should not report such repairs to the landlord going forward and instruct her own contractor to attend. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take.
17. The resident told us that the leak damaged her wooden flooring outside the bathroom. There is no evidence that she raised this with the landlord during the complaint procedure. Because the landlord did not have an opportunity to consider this within its process, it is fair and reasonable to investigate only the matters known at the date of the final response. If this issue remains outstanding, we recommend that the resident raise it with the landlord so it can respond.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy says that when it receives a complaint, it will:
    1. Contact them within 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint.
    2. Provide a response within 10 working days.
    3. Acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 within 5 working days from the date the escalation request is received.
    4. Respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
    5. Explain any delay caused by exceptional circumstances and give a date when it will send the response.
19. The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 28 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 June 2025 which was 11 working days after she submitted it. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2025 which was in line with its complaint timescales.
20. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 the same day it received the resident’s request and acknowledged it within 5 working days. It responded on 12 August 2025 which was within 20 working days as per its policy. This was appropriate of the landlord.
21. In her initial complaint, the resident asked to be reimbursed £280 for the cost of an independent contractor assessing the bathroom damage. She has not provided proof of this cost to us, and we have seen no evidence that she submitted it to the landlord.
22. In its correspondence with us after it completed its internal complaint procedure, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to this point raised by the resident. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has recognised this, it would have been appropriate to have identified this during the stage 2 investigation. However, it has demonstrated that it has captured learning to prevent this from happening again. There is no evidence that the resident wished to pursue this further.
23. In its initial response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within its 5 working day timescales at stage 1. It apologised to the resident and awarded her £50 compensation and it identified learning. These actions demonstrated a resolution-focused approach and align with our dispute resolution principles. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord.

Learning

24. The landlord recognised that it failed to check the resident was a leaseholder, or its repair responsibilities before arranging to attend repairs. The landlord has since carried out a ‘lessons learned review’. It told us that, as an outcome, it planned to conduct a full review of leasehold responsibilities across its stock which would enable its staff to access accurate information at the first point of contact.
25. It said that following its complaint handling failures, it would implement audits and deliver targeted training to improve complaint handling and ensure that all points are addressed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We found that the landlord had kept good records of its repairs.

Communication

27. The landlord recognised that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, and it would review this to maintain proactive updates and strengthen protocols for vulnerable residents.