Amplius Living (202219931)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the way the landlord has handled repairs to her property. She says it has deliberately tried to cause her more problems and she feels victimised. She wants it to complete repairs and pay her additional compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

5. The landlord failed to carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy. Its poor record keeping hindered it using its Tenancy Management policy to progress the work.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. We previously determined a case for the resident (202116910) about the landlord’s handling of pest control. We made orders for the landlord to carry out repairs in relation to this issue. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of repairs that we have not already investigated.
8. The resident raised previous complaints to the landlord about repairs which she did not escalate and did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. This investigation has focused on the events starting from 12 months before the resident raised her complaint in December 2023.

Repairs

9. An inspection was carried out on 12 February 2023. It is not clear from the records provided whether the landlord or the resident arranged this inspection. This noted that following the landlord previously removing loft insulation, there were cold spots and mould in the property. It also identified problems with dripping taps, a caved in bedroom ceiling, a draughty window and a roof leak.
10. Between March and July 2023 there was a lot of communication between the landlord and the resident’s solicitor. The landlord tried to arrange work, including to install new loft insulation. However, the resident was unhappy with sanitation of the loft it had previously carried out following the previous complaint about pests. It said it was satisfied with the sanitation but agreed to further cleaning to satisfy her. It asked her to obtain quotes, which the landlord received on 13 July 2023.
11. The landlord’s internal records of August 2023 state that it was trying to arrange installation of a new boiler, but the resident was not allowing them to book an appointment. We have seen no further evidence of any contact between the landlord and the resident or her solicitor until the landlord acknowledged the complaint in December 2023. It is not clear whether the landlord ever acted on the quotes it received for cleaning in July 2023.
12. In its stage 1 response of 11 January 2024 the landlord said it had contacted the resident on 13 December 2023 to try to arrange an inspection. She declined the appointments it offered and asked for all contact to be via her solicitor. She also said she wanted it to raise repairs based on a report from 2022. The landlord explained that it needed to carry out a new report due to the time that had passed, which was reasonable.
13. The landlord said it had completed works in March 2023, following inspections it conducted in October and December 2022. It said that some works were delayed as pest proofing needed to be completed first, which was included in orders we made in May 2023 under the previous case. After correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s solicitor, it agreed to pay her to arrange the proofing work herself, and it paid this money on 15 December 2023.
14. The resident had told the landlord she felt victimised by its handling of repairs. The landlord said it had investigated this concern and found no evidence of victimisation. It said that most of its communication had been through her solicitor and that much of the delay in repairs was due to it struggling to get a response from them. It demonstrated that it took her concern about victimisation seriously and provided a reasonable response to this.
15. The landlord conducted an inspection on 15 January 2024, in which it identified a list of required repairs. It said that the resident needed to first arrange the pest proofing work before repairs could go ahead. As this work could have caused further damage, this was a reasonable approach. It received confirmation from her on 26 March 2024 that this had been completed.
16. In its stage 2 response of 26 March 2024 the landlord said that it agreed a schedule of work throughout the property on 21 March 2024. It asked the resident to engage with its contractor to provide access for work. It said that throughout the process there had been delays caused by her solicitor not responding to correspondence. However, it did acknowledge there was a delay in it raising repairs following the inspection and it offered £200 compensation for this. Based on the evidence available we are unable to determine whether this offer was fair at this stage.
17. We have seen some evidence that between April 2024 and March 2025 the landlord made attempts to book in and carry out repairs. However, it is unclear what work, if any, it carried out during this time. The landlord has recently told us that it recognises its record keeping has been poor in this case. It said it has had difficulty booking appointments and the resident refused access to its contractors on many occasions. However, it says its poor records mean it is unable to evidence this fully. It notes that it could have been more proactive in considering alternative ways to gain access to the property.
18. We have seen no evidence of contact between the resident and the landlord after March 2025 until a new inspection was carried out on 10 December 2025, which set out a new schedule of works. In January 2026 it offered her £300 additional compensation for ongoing delays. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 May 2026 to try to arrange an appointment. It said she refused to give access and told the landlord to speak to her solicitor. It is unclear if any other contact was made between January and May 2026.
19. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she must provide access to her home for the landlord to carry out repairs. Its Tenancy Management policy allows the landlord to consider formal options if access to a property is refused. Its repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
20. We appreciate the landlord has had significant difficulties in contacting the resident and her solicitor, and its contractors have been refused access on several occasions. However, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it made reasonable attempts to book in and rearrange appointments and ensure the work was completed. It missed many opportunities to be more proactive, in line with its policies, and consider alternative approaches to gaining access to the property.
21. These long delays have left the resident living with outstanding repairs for a protracted period. This includes the property having no loft insulation since 2022, which she has said has left the property cold and damp.
22. Considering the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s total compensation offers of £550 did not reflect the distress, frustration and time and trouble incurred by the resident. The required repairs were first set out in an inspection report more than 3 years ago and most, if not all, remain outstanding. She has repeatedly told the landlord the situation was causing her and her family distress, including disruption during her child’s GCSEs. To address this, we have awarded £1,000 to replace the landlord’s offers. This is in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

23. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint the day after it received it (6 December to 7 December 2023) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 22 working days after acknowledging the complaint (7 December 2023 to 11 January 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the escalation request the same day it received it
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 15 working days later (5 March to 26 March 2024) – in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days
24. The landlord contacted us on 13 December 2023 to say it had tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint, but she had requested it liaise directly with her solicitor. It said it had told her on this call it would need more time to investigate and would send its stage 1 response by 11 January 2024. Its policy allowed it to extend the response by 10 additional working days.
25. This meant that overall the landlord sent its stage 1 response within the total 25 working days its policy allowed for acknowledgment and response, with an extension. And it also responded at stage 2 within its policy timescale. So, it responded to the complaint reasonably.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord has recently identified that its record keeping was poor, leading to it failing to take reasonable action to resolve the access issues and complete repairs. It is positive that the landlord has recognised this failing. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure that it identifies failings and takes appropriate steps to put things right during the complaints process, rather than some time afterwards.

Communication

27. The landlord faced significant challenges in this case in terms of communication. The resident asked for communication to be via her solicitor, who did not always respond to it in a timely manner. Its poor record keeping has made it hard to assess the overall quality of its communication. There does appear to have been long periods without any communication, which likely contributed to repair delays. The landlord should ensure its processes allow for accountability and responsibility for responding to communication it receives and providing regular updates.