Amplius Living (202506821)

Decision
Case ID	202506821
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported problems with the fit of her front door to the landlord in June 2024. The landlord’s handling of the repair led to her complaint in February 2025. She lives at the property with her young child.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of front door repairs

5. The landlord did not repair the front door within its repair policy timescales and did not maintain effective oversight of the repair process. Weaknesses in record keeping contributed to avoidable delays, repeated appointments, and prolonged inconvenience and distress to the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, offered proportionate compensation, and committed to making service improvements.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord did not recognise or record the resident’s early expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. This delayed the formal complaint process and resolution, resulting in avoidable time and trouble for the resident. It did not evidence learning from this failure or provide appropriate redress for the shortcomings in its complaint handling.

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 30 May 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450, made up as follows: £350 previously offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses dated 13 February 2025 and 25 April 2025, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the front door repairs £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings 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 30 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord told us the resident has recently told it that she continues to have concerns about the front door. We recommend the landlord consider commissioning a specialist inspection to assess the current safety and functionality of the door. If the inspection identifies that further works are required, the landlord should set clear and reasonable timescales for completing the works and communicate these to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2025	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said: she was dissatisfied with ongoing front door repair issues, which she said remained insecure despite repeated works over a number of years the landlord declined to replace the door and had instead carried out temporary repairs, despite her understanding that contractors had advised it needed replacing she felt unsafe, particularly as a young child lived at the property.
13 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within it the landlord said: contractors completed multiple temporary repairs and adjustments to the front door dating back to December 2022 while some operatives had suggested further assessment or replacement, it considered that a full door replacement was not required it accepted a service failure where a repair raised following an inspection on 8 January 2025 was not completed within the 28‑day target it also acknowledged poor record keeping and the prolonged nature of the issue. it apologised for the failings, awarded £200 in compensation, and confirmed it had arranged further works, with a follow‑on appointment scheduled for 19 February 2025
24 March 2025	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. The resident said: the front door issue remained unresolved, despite repeated repairs, a missed appointment on 19 February 2025, contractors advising the door required replacement, and no call back after it raised a repair task she continued to have safety concerns, explaining that her young child could now reach the handle and thumb turn, and the security chain could not be used
31 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
25 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. Within it the landlord said: although a contractor attended on 19 February 2025, it did not properly review the operative’s notes, which identified bowing to the front door and frame and recommended replacement rather than repair an inspection on 9 April 2025 confirmed ongoing issues with the door, including bowing, a temperamental lock, and child safety concerns contractors attended on 22 April 2025, during which they replaced 2 hinges and changed the lock to a key‑operated lock it had arranged further inspection on 7 May 2025 it offered a further £150 in compensation for the failure and its impact on the resident
21 May 2025	The resident contacted this Service because she remained dissatisfied with the repairs to her front door. She wants the landlord to fully complete any further necessary repairs. It told us it has completed more works and arranged a further inspection for May 2026.

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 front door repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate and why

7. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic window repairs, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issue arising. As such, this investigation focuses on events from February 2024 onwards.

What we found:

8. The landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for maintaining the front door so that it remained safe, secure, and fit for purpose. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
9. In June 2024 the resident reported that the front door was misaligned and bowed, causing draughts and damaging the carpet. She also raised concerns the door was the wrong size for the frame and had not been properly inspected to identify the cause of the issues. The resident chased the landlord by telephone on 24 October 2024 and 23 November 2024. It did not use these repeated contacts as a trigger to review or progress the repair.
10. When the security chain snapped in December 2024, the landlord did not complete the repair scheduled for 2 January 2025 as planned, causing further delays.
11. Following an inspection on 8 January 2025, the landlord raised a routine repair for extensive works to the front door, including realignment, an overhaul of the door, and repairs to the locking mechanism. When the specialist contractor attended on 6 February 2025, they could not complete works due to the bowed door. They identified further follow-on works.
12. The landlord’s operative attended a follow-on appointment on 19 February 2025. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not fully review operative notes from the appointment. The notes recommended a replacement front door. As a result, an inspection was not arranged sooner to determine whether continued repair was appropriate.
13. On 11 April 2025, the landlord’s repairs surveyor advised the resident that an urgent visit was required within 7 days. This took place on 22 April 2025, when it completed works to replace 2 hinges and change the locking mechanism to a keyed system. In line with its stage 2 commitment, the landlord monitored the inspection competed on 7 May 2025 and ensured it completed any further actions. It confirmed the outcome with the resident.
14. Over a period of approximately 10 months, the resident contacted the landlord on around 10 occasions about the front door. This included reporting an emergency repair, chasing routine repairs, and disputing incomplete works. She also made herself available for 5 repair appointments.
15. This shows the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations. It did not maintain sufficient oversight of the repair process and, as a result, did not progress the works to repair the front door within a reasonable timeframe.
16. The landlord also acknowledged weaknesses in its record keeping and its reliance on incomplete information from contractors. This delayed escalation of repairs and contributed to repeated inspections. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs effectively. It also caused the resident avoidable worry and distress, which was heightened by her ongoing concerns about the safety of the front door and of her young child.
17. The landlord offered a total of £350 compensation in recognition of missed repair timescales, poor record keeping, and the inconvenience caused to the resident. We consider this amount to be proportionate to the impact on the resident and consistent with the level of redress we would normally consider in the circumstances. The landlord said it would use the complaint to inform service improvement. It confirmed that it would provide internal feedback to ensure that it fully reviews operative notes and that any necessary follow‑up actions are completed within its expected timescales.
18. Having regard to the failings identified in this report and the actions the landlord took to put things right, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. This reflects the service failures identified, the landlord’s acknowledgment of those failings and its learning from them, and the level of compensation offered, which is in line with our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for their concerns to be treated as such. The landlord failed to capture the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 21 June 2024, when she said it had not adequately inspected or repaired the front door. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to consider and address the complaint at an earlier stage.
20. The landlord took approximately 10 months from the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction to issue its final formal response. This caused her avoidable time and trouble, as she waited longer for a resolution and had to spend additional time chasing updates.
21. It is positive that when the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 6 January 2025, the landlord provided a prompt and appropriate response. The timescales in its complaint policy are aligned with the Code. From when the resident complained in February 2025, the landlord responded to both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within, or close to, the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
22. The landlord’s complaint policy allows for financial redress where a service failure has had an adverse impact on a resident. In this case, despite the shortcomings identified in its complaint handling, the landlord did not offer any compensation. In addition, the landlord’s final response did not demonstrate learning from the complaint handling failures.
23. Consequently, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 to the resident, in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

24. The landlord could consider the importance of offering appropriate compensation and demonstrating meaningful learning where service failures have caused distress, inconvenience, or time and trouble to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. In this case, the landlord did not maintain effective oversight of a known repair issue. The landlord may wish to consider how it might ensure that repeated reports of the same repair issue are used as a trigger for further investigation, including timely inspection and escalation where initial repair attempts are unsuccessful.
26. The landlord could consider how it might improve record keeping and case oversight to ensure that contractor notes and recommendations are accurately reviewed, appropriately recorded, and acted upon in a timely manner.

Communication

27. The landlord may benefit from ensuring staff learn from its failure to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint.