Amplius Living (202517681)

Decision
Case ID	202517681
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

The resident has physical health conditions, including a respiratory condition. The resident’s son acted as her authorised representative to the landlord. He reported a leak that affected several rooms in the property, particularly the resident’s bedroom. The resident also raised concerns during the complaint process repairs needed for damp and mould that were not related to the leak.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Water ingress including damp.
2. Damp and mould repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Water ingress including damp.
2. Damp and mould repairs.
We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not act with urgency when arranging temporary measures or progressing the solar panel repair that caused the leak. It did not show consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its communication was poor, and the resident spent significant time chasing for updates.
There was a delay of around 6 months in completing the damp and mould repairs. This was not consistent with the need for timely action in damp and mould cases. There is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment in line with its policy, and it did not take proactive steps to progress the repairs. This included maintaining oversight to ensure the works were completed and communicating with the resident.
The landlord did not investigate all of the matters the resident raised in her complaint. It missed the opportunity to put things right for the resident.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1300 made up as follows: £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of water ingress including damp. £200 for the distress and inconvenience cause by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 13 March 2026
3	Contact The landlord must give the resident a single point of contact until all required repairs are completed. The landlord must confirm in writing to the resident who the contact is.	No later than 13 March 2026
4	Timeline of works The landlord must write to the resident with a comprehensive update on its plan to repair the leak. This must include: A schedule of works with proposed timescales. Any support that can be offered to the resident.	No later than 13 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If the landlord has not already done so, we recommend it writes to the resident providing details on how she can make a claim for damage to her belongings via its own liability insurance.
Once the repair is complete, the landlord should confirm its position on whether further compensation is due to the resident. It should consider the period from the date of our decision to the date of repair. The landlord should write to the resident to explain its decision. If no additional compensation is offered, it should provide clear reasons.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 May 2025	The resident’s son complained to the landlord. He said: On 24 May 2025 he reported flooding caused by a hole in the roof. An electrician attended the same day. He was told someone would assess and make the roof safe on 27 May 2025, but an electrician attended again instead, and the roof was not assessed. On 30 May 2025 he added to his complaint that: He had received no contact from a roofing contractor. Furniture had been damaged by the water. His mother could not sleep in her bedroom due to damp and mould smells affecting her breathing and was sleeping on a sofa.
17 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It: Confirmed an electrician attended on 24 and 27 May 2025 and reported a risk of power loss during rain, noting this should have been identified at the first visit. Said the resident declined the offer of a temporary move. Said the resident cancelled a damp and mould repair appointment and wanted the roof repairs first. Said it attempted to install temporary tarpaulin, but the roof was too steep. Internal tarpaulin was then agreed but a contractor attended without arranging an appointment and nobody was home. Said the roof repair was categorised as routine and booked for 17 June 2025. Advised the resident to make a claim through her contents insurer for damaged belongings. Offered £200 compensation, broken down as: £50 for failing to address the electrical issue at the initial appointment. £50 for delays in completing works. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
17 June 2025	The resident’s son escalated the complaint. He: Said the stage 1 response was inaccurate and did not address the complaint. Said the landlord should have provided a date for the roof repair. Disagreed that the electrician had made the property safe.
22 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: Said a contractor said tarpaulin had been installed but there was no evidence of it. It said tarpaulin would be installed by 28 July 2025. Said scaffolding was required for the roof repair, and that contractors would contact the resident within 5 working days of the tarpaulin being fitted. Said it would inspect and repair any damage or damp and mould once the roof was repaired. It offered a total of £700 compensation, broken down as: £200 offered during stage 1 complaint £100 for delays £50 for failure to complete emergency repair £50 for lack of communication £300 for distress and inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary, the resident told us that the leak repairs and the separate damp and mould works were still outstanding. She said the situation had affected both her physical and mental health.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of water ingress including damp
Finding	Maladministration

In contact with us and the landlord, the resident said the property affected her physical health. While we understand the resident’s concerns about the impact on her, 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. However we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as:
1. Emergency repairs: completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs: completed within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs: completed within 28 or 90 days, depending on priority.
A surveyor visited the property on 27 May 2025 and identified that missing moulds on the solar panels were causing the leak. They reported that a bedroom ceiling was water‑stained but not structurally unsafe. The electrics had been isolated and made safe. They raised works for temporary tarpaulin installation and a roof repair. The landlord did consider a temporary move was necessary.
The landlord raised a job to install tarpaulin inside the loft because scaffolding was required for external access. The landlord did not manage the repair effectively and there was poor coordination between the landlord and contractors. It did not take appropriate steps to prevent further water ingress because:
1. The contractor attended without notifying the resident. The visit was recorded as “no access” and the job was closed.
2. The landlord did not oversee the repair to ensure the tarpaulin was installed. The evidence shows the landlord was unclear if the work had been completed.
3. When the contractor attended on 24 July 2025 they confirmed the installation was not possible due to the solar panels being on the second floor and the affected roof area on the third floor. Earlier progression of the repair would have identified this sooner and allowed alternative temporary works to be considered.
The landlord has not shown it acted with urgency in arranging the repairs needed to fix the leak. Its records on 6, 9, and 24 June 2025 note that scaffolding was required, but there is no evidence it progressed this. The landlord should have arranged scaffolding once it became aware it was necessary. By failing to do so, the landlord prolonged the delay. At the time of the stage 2 response, the resident still had no clear timescales for when the scaffolding would be erected.
The landlord did not act in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The policy sets out that the landlord commits to a proactive, tailored approach to support vulnerable people. Damp is a recognised hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), requiring prompt assessment, especially where vulnerabilities exist. The delays and lack of a priority response breached the landlord’s damp and mould policy and its HHSRS responsibilities. We have seen no evidence the landlord considered the impact on the resident. Some examples of the landlord’s missed opportunities are:
1. On 30 May 2025 the resident’s son told the landlord the resident could not sleep in her bedroom due to the smell of damp and mould affecting her breathing. She was sleeping on a sofa.
2. On 5 June 2025 the resident’s son reported concerns about the conditions his disabled mother was living in.
3. On 25 June 2025 the resident’s son said the resident’s bedroom was most affected, the conditions were unsuitable given her health needs, and she was sleeping on a makeshift bed. The landlord was told the resident had asthma.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The resident’s son repeatedly chased for updates, and the landlord did not provide an action plan or show clear oversight of the repair. The resident would have benefited from a single point of contact. This also would have helped landlord coordinate the works more effectively, preventing further delays.
The landlord did not follow through on its stage 2 commitments. Tarpaulin was not installed until 26 August 2025, and the job for the solar panel repair was not raised until 7 October 2025. The landlord attended on 21 October 2025 but the repair did not proceed because the resident did not agree to the lead apron. We acknowledge the landlord did attempt the repair and later explained its decision to the resident, but earlier and clearer communication would have set the resident’s expectations and avoided further delay.
The landlord has told us it has provided staff training to ensure insurance information is given in future. This is positive learning, but it is unclear whether the resident has since received the relevant details. We have therefore recommended that the landlord writes to the resident with information on how to make a claim for damage to her belongings through its liability insurance.
The landlord’s compensation offer fell within the “high effort and high impact” range in its compensation policy, and in our view was fair and reasonable at the time of the stage 2 response. However, there was maladministration because the landlord did not put things right promptly and there were further delays and gaps in communication after the complaint process concluded. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 in total compensation to fully recognise the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This includes the £700 it offered during the complaint process.
The landlord told us the resident has now agreed to the required works. To ensure that the parties are clear on what happens next, we have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan setting out the works to be completed and the expected timescales. We have also ordered it to give the resident a single point of contact until the leak and all related remedial works are completed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s damp and mould and condensation policy states it will risk assess individual cases and categorise cases in emergency, significant and routine.
On 19 March 2025 the resident reported damp and mould in several rooms. The landlord inspected within 7 working days in line with its policy. It identified multiple repairs needed to the hallway, bedroom, and shower room. It also noted that staining suggested a possible ongoing leak. There is no evidence a risk assessment was completed.
After the inspection on 19 March 2025, the landlord did not contact the resident to explain the findings, confirm the required repairs, or set out the next steps. This was a missed opportunity to manage expectations and maintain oversight of the case. The lack of communication meant the resident had to chase for an update.
When a contractor attended on 2 June 2025 the resident refused the repair because the roof leak had not been addressed. Although the repair did not proceed, the landlord remained responsible for completing the work. It should have contacted the resident to understand the concerns and work with the resident in progressing the repair.
There is no evidence the landlord took any further action until it re-raised the work on 4 August 2025. The landlord then provided the resident with a repair plan, outlining the work it would complete and when. This ensured the resident was kept up to date on the actions the landlord would take.
We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation. The landlord’s complaint policy meets these requirements.
The landlord did not act in line with the Code which states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. This is because:
1. In the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgment it stated the resident raised dissatisfaction with outstanding works relating to the shower room. It did not show it fully investigated this matter nor did it give any resolution.
2. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement and said there was damp and mould issues throughout the property which was not limited to the water ingress or upstairs shower. The landlord did not provide any response to these points in its stage 2 response.
The landlord issued its acknowledgement and formal complaints responses 1 working day outside the timescales set out in the Code. However, the landlord met the resident’s expectations because it kept to the timescales it told the resident. We consider that the minor delays did not cause detriment to the resident.

Learning

The landlord could improve its complaint handling by ensuring it meets the Code’s timescales for acknowledging and responding to complaints. Although the delays in this case were brief, they indicate that the landlord’s internal processes may not be robust enough to ensure consistent compliance. Strengthening its monitoring and escalation procedures would help it issue acknowledgements and responses on time in future.
The landlord has shown willingness to learn from this complaint by completing a lessons‑learnt review. It reflected on what went wrong and has taken steps to prevent similar issues. This includes introducing weekly contractor meetings, applying consequences when contractors miss repair timescales, and providing staff training on recognising and responding to customer vulnerabilities during the complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord provided adequate records to enable us to assess the issues within the scope of the investigation.

Communication

There is further learning for the landlord to take from this case around how it manages repairs in line with best practice. This includes implementing a clear action plan and ensuring consistent communication by providing regular updates to the resident.
As discussed, the landlord has identified ways to improve communication and monitor its contractors performance.