Amplius Living (202230894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230894

Longhurst Group Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs that were included in a disrepair claim.
2. The resident’s reports about his stop tap and toilet.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and he lives in a 3 bedroom house with his family. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s home.
The resident moved into his home around 12 September 2022. Between 21 September 2022 and 9 January 2023, the resident reported multiple repair issues including damp and mould.
Between 13 January 2023 and 22 February 2023, the resident complained that:
1. The landlord’s contractor had missed multiple repair appointments and no repairs had been done.
2. A damp and mould inspection had been booked for 21 March 2023. This was too long to wait as the mould was a hazard and he had vulnerable children.
3. The landlord had not responded his reports that the heating was inadequate or his complaints.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 10 March 2023 which said:
1. Its contractor had attended on 3 March 2023 but found the toilet was not leaking. The moisture was caused by condensation.
2. It had attended on 14 December 2022 and found no fault with the storage heaters he had reported. It had replaced the bedroom heater on 14 February 2023.
3. Its contractor had attended to repair the lounge floor on 24 January 2023. No repair had been done because a different tradesperson was needed.
4. It acknowledged that appointments to create access to the stop tap had been rearranged. The contractor had attended on 24 February 2023 but he had not been at home.
5. It had arranged an appointment to seal gaps around the windows.
6. It had told him that plastering the pantry walls was his responsibility.
7. It acknowledged he had reported the damp and mould to environmental health and that his son could not use his bedroom. It had booked a damp and mould inspection for 21 March 2023.
8. He had reported the asbestos on 21 September 2022 and told it that an air test had been booked for 13 March 2023.
9. It acknowledged that he was dissatisfied with the time the repairs were taking and wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 immediately.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023 which said:
1. It had found no leak from the toilet and no further repair was needed.
2. It had repaired the heating. His home was due for a heating and energy efficiency upgrade but it could not give a timescale for the improvement work.
3. It no longer needed to seal the gaps around the windows as it planned to replace them.
4. The contractor had visited on 24 February 2023 to create an access panel to the stop tap. No work had been done because he had not been home.
5. The contractor had visited on 29 March 2023 to repair the pantry floor. No work had been done as he had not removed his belongings. It was reviewing its decision about plastering the pantry walls.
6. It had inspected the damp and mould twice and ordered repairs that were not part of this complaint. He had declined to give access for the repairs on his solicitor’s advice.
7. Removal of the lounge floor tiles was on hold due to him making a disrepair claim.
8. It acknowledged repairs had not been done in a “timely manner”. It had considered moving him temporarily but felt it was not necessary.
9. It was now considering the scope of repairs needed in response to his disrepair claim. It would also reconsider if he needed to move out temporarily.
10. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £150 for the delay in responding to his complaint.
11. It would now close his complaint and deal with the repairs through his disrepair claim.
When the resident asked us to investigate in November 2023, he wanted the landlord to complete repairs it had agreed to do following his disrepair claim. Since then, the agreed repairs were completed and the landlord also carried out improvement work in March 2024. The resident is now seeking for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The scope of our investigation and assessment is repairs the resident reported from 21 September 2022 until he made a disrepair claim on 3 May 2023. This is because they were the subject of his complaint which completed the landlord’s process on 23 May 2023 and was brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of doing so.
The disrepair claim does not prevent the Ombudsman investigating as legal proceedings were not started. However, the settlement of the claim around 22 August 2023 influences our decision and orders. The resident had legal representation and access to advice when deciding to agree the settlement. We must take this into account in our decision.
The resident believes that the damp and mould affected his children’s health. We cannot make conclusions about any impact on health conditions. Allegations of damage to health are more appropriately addressed by the courts or by way of a personal injury claim against the landlord’s liability insurance.
We understand that the resident made a claim to the landlord’s insurer after receiving a shock from a socket in March 2023. We cannot comment on the outcome of his claim as we do not have jurisdiction over decisions made by insurance companies.
We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of a complaint the resident made on 8 December 2023 about his belongings being damaged in storage. This is because the evidence suggests the landlord resolved the complaint and it did not complete the landlord’s complaint process.
Similarly, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and improvement work from March 2024 are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because they are separate matters.
We have only referred to matters outside the scope of this investigation where necessary for context.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

We identified a common theme of inadequate information management in the areas we investigated in this case. We have given examples in our assessments below.
The landlord’s inadequate knowledge and information management affected its ability to effectively respond to the repair issues and resolve the resident’s complaint.
We have made similar findings in previous cases. In case 202208215, we ordered the landlord to review its approach to information management. The landlord sent us the outcome of its review in July 2024 and its plan for implementing an improved approach.
As such, we have made no further orders from the failings identified in this case. We will use our future casework to monitor the landlord’s progress in improving its approach.

The landlord’s handling of repairs included in the disrepair claim

The evidence seen shows the resident reported multiple repair issues from September 2022 which were later included in his disrepair claim including:
1. Damp and mould in the lounge, kitchen, hall, bathroom and 3 bedrooms.
2. Floor tiles in the lounge which contained asbestos.
3. Faulty storage heaters and inadequate heating provision which meant the home was cold.
4. Faulty plug sockets and a faulty extractor fan.
5. Defective windows and external doors which were draughty.
6. Roof and drainage issues which were contributing to the damp and mould.
The landlord inspected in September 2022 and carried out some repairs including screeding the lounge floor, cleaning off mould and improving ventilation. The repairs did not give a lasting solution to the issues reported.
The landlord’s evidence shows multiple failings in its handling of the repairs between 21 September 2022 and 3 May 2023, when the resident made his disrepair claim, including:
1. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident about the presence of asbestos in his home before he moved in. This was contrary to the landlord’s Asbestos Management Policy which says it will do so.
2. The landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s reports. For example, it took 71 days to inspect damp and mould after the resident’s report of 9 January 2023. Similarly, it took 14 days to attend to a faulty storage heater the resident reported on 30 November 2022 despite its policy timescale being 7 days.
3. The landlord’s information management was inadequate. For example, the checklist it completed when the resident signed the tenancy agreement was not fully completed, and there were no proper records of inspections it had done.
4. In some instances, the landlord’s records do not confirm whether or not it attended repairs. For example, the resident reported draughty windows and doors on 30 November 2022. The landlord’s records show an appointment was made for 20 March 2023 but we saw no evidence of whether the contractor attended.
5. The landlord did not respond to some of the resident’s contacts. For example, there is no evidence it responded to 6 contacts he made between 3 February 2023 and 20 March 2023. Nor did we see evidence the landlord had responded to emails from an Environmental Health Officer.
6. There is no evidence the landlord completed risk assessments when deciding to refuse the resident’s requests to be moved out temporarily or when he raised concerns that his home was not safe.
7. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the family’s living conditions or the impact on the family at any point. This is concerning given the resident told the landlord the family were living in a cold and mouldy home and raised concerns about the impact on his children’s health multiple times.
8. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to co-ordinate repairs until it received his disrepair claim. This was despite it being aware of multiple issues that were affecting the family’s living conditions from 24 October 2022.
The evidence shows that the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations to keep the property in repair. Nor had it fulfilled its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess and minimise the risks in the residents home. It was also a significant failing that the landlord did not, at any point, properly assess whether the resident’s home was fit for habitation.
It should not have been necessary for the resident to make a disrepair claim to resolve the multiple repair issues. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
The resident’s emails to the landlord throughout explained the impact the disrepair had on the family over the 7 months until he made his disrepair claim. He explained that the repair issues meant the family could not unpack completely, decorate their home or lay a carpet in the lounge.
The family had lived with the bare floor and damp and mould which meant their home was cold and uncomfortable, and they could not use one of the bedrooms. The resident had raised multiple concerns about the impact on his children’s health and of the stress caused in trying to get the landlord to resolve the disrepair.
We acknowledge that the landlord paid £500 compensation in settling the resident’s disrepair claim. We do not consider that this was sufficient redress given the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the family’s living conditions.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation of £900. We have calculated this amount on the basis of £200 per month for the 7 months that the family’s living conditions were affected before the resident made the disrepair claim. The sum reflects the resident’s loss of enjoyment for parts of his home and the distress and inconvenience caused by having to chase the landlord to act. We have deducted the £500 compensation the landlord has already paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his stop tap and toilet.

The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it would attend to routine repairs within 28 days.
On 21 September 2022, the resident reported that he could not access the stop tap because it was behind a kitchen unit. The landlord’s evidence suggests it had raised an order with its contractor but there are no details of the initial appointment made.
The evidence shows that the contractor rescheduled appointments at least 5 times between 12 December 2022 and 22 February 2023. The last appointment referenced in the landlord’s evidence was on 24 February 2023.
There was no further reference to the stop tap repair in the resident’s emails after 24 February 2023. It is reasonable for us to conclude that the repair was completed on that date. This means it took the landlord 156 days to complete the repair which was far longer than the 28 day timescale in the landlord’s policy and was inappropriate.
The resident reported his toilet was leaking on 19 December 2022. An appointment was initially booked for 17 January 2023 which would have been within the landlord’s 28-day policy timescale.
On 16 January 2023, the resident called to say he could not be at home for the appointment. In line with its repair policy, we would have expected the landlord to have given him a new appointment date.
The resident called the landlord again on 19 January 2023 because it had cancelled the order. He confirmed the repair was still needed and the landlord raised another order and gave an appointment date of 14 February 2023. The contractor then rescheduled the appointment on 13 February 2023 and again on 28 February 2023.
The contractor attended to repair the toilet on 1 March 2023 but the resident was not at home. We did not see evidence that an appointment had been made with the resident.
The contractor attended again on 6 March 2023. While the contractor found that the toilet was not leaking, it was inappropriate that it had taken 77 days for the landlord to attend to the reported repair.
The evidence suggests that the landlord did not have adequate oversight of its contractor. This is because it failed to intervene when appointments were rescheduled multiple times and repairs were not completed in time. Nor did the landlord keep the resident updated with progress.
The lack of adequate records, including of when its contractor had attended to create access to the stop tap, further demonstrate failings in the landlord’s information management.
The landlord’s mishandling of the repairs caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. He had to chase persistently to progress the repairs and contact the landlord multiple times when its contractor missed appointments.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with our policy and guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy at the time said it would contact residents within 2 working days of receiving a complaint and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The landlord would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
It was appropriate that the landlord logged a formal complaint after a call from the resident on 13 January 2023. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in recognising his expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint.
In line with its complaint policy at the time, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 2 working days to discuss his complaint. We saw no evidence it did so within its policy timescale.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 January 2023 to complain about the damp and mould. It was reasonable that the landlord later decided to include the matter as part of the complaint it had already logged.
The landlord called the resident on 27 January 2023 to discuss his complaint and emailed him the same day to acknowledge it. The acknowledgement said it would give a stage 1 response by 24 February 2023.
This timescale was not in line with that specified in the landlord’s policy. Nor was it in line with the Code which required the landlord to give a stage 1 response by 3 February 2023.
Between 6 February 2023 and 22 February 2023, the resident asked for 5 further repair related matters to be added to his complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord did so and that it confirmed its position to the resident.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response in the timescale it had given. We saw no evidence that it had contacted the resident to acknowledge the delay or agree an extension to its response timescale. This failing caused the resident to ask for his complaint to be escalated before the landlord had given a stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 10 March 2023 was given 25 days later than the timescale required by the Code. While its response addressed the matters the resident had asked to be included in his complaint, it suggested that the landlord’s investigation had been inadequate.
For example, it summarised the orders it had raised and appointments attended by its contractor but did not address why the repairs had not been completed within its policy timescales. Nor did it address why some appointments had been rescheduled multiple times.
The landlord’s response did not put things right for the resident. For example, it acknowledged it had sent the wrong tradesperson to repair the lounge floor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have said it would rearrange the repair but it did not do so.
Similarly, it missed the opportunity to arrange another appointment for the stop tap repair, expedite the damp and mould survey and commit to following up with the resident after the asbestos air test planned for 13 March 2023.
The landlord’s response acknowledged that the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated. It did not clarify that it would do so.
The landlord acknowledged that it had escalated the complaint on 23 March 2023 and said it would give a stage 2 response by 12 April 2023.
The resident emailed on 30 March 2023 asking for the matter of the electric shock he had received to be added to his complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord decided not to do so. Its decision was in line with its complaints policy which excluded matters that could be settled through an insurance claim.
The landlord confirmed its decision to the resident promptly and explained how he could make an insurance claim against it. Its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord did not give its stage 2 response within the timescale it had given. Again, it failed to contact the resident to acknowledge the delay and agree an extension. This caused further inconvenience to the resident who had to ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response of 23 May 2023 within the timescale we had set. However, the delays up to this point meant the response was given 29 days later than the timescale specified in the Code.
The stage 2 response gave more detailed explanations of the actions taken in response to his repair reports. It gave explanations of the delays on some matters. For example, it explained that the repair of the pantry floor had needed to be rearranged because more time was needed to complete the work than had been allowed for in the initial appointment.
There were some mistakes in the landlord’s response. For example, it gave incorrect dates of when it had inspected the pantry and damp and mould.
Given the resident’s disrepair claim of 3 May 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord confirmed it would resolve the outstanding repair issues through its disrepair process. It was also reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failings in handling the complaint and offered compensation.
Overall, both the landlord’s responses were late and its failure to investigate adequately at stage 1 meant it missed the opportunity to put things right. Its failings amount to maladministration.
We do not consider the landlord’s compensation offer of £150 was sufficient redress for its failings. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our policy and guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord may deduct the £150 it offered through its complaints process if it can evidence it has already paid it.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Repairs included in the resident’s disrepair claim.
2. Resident’s reports about his stop tap and toilet.
3. Complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident and his family. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,400. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs later included in the resident’s disrepair claim.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about his top tap and toilet.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct the £150 it offered in its stage 2 response of 23 May 2023 if it can evidence it has already paid it.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider the failings we have identified and decide if it needs to change its complaint handling practices to ensure compliance with the statutory Code.