Amplius Living (202305231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305231

Amplius Living

10 July 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. A damp and mould inspection and responsive repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in July 2018, and the property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has not indicated any vulnerabilities for the resident.
It is evident that damp and mould conditions have been reported to the landlord since at least 2018. The last recorded repair was in 2020, which involved a mould wash to the property.
On 22 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to her landlord. The resident said:
1. The landlord inspected the property in December 2022 for mould and damp and she was expecting further repairs.
2. She contacted the landlord on numerous occasions but had not received any communication or call backs.
On 24 March 2023, the resident wrote to her MP, she said repairs were required to her flat and that her landlord had not been helpful. Following a fire in the upstairs flat, there had been a leak into her flat and she had no lighting in her bedroom, living room, or kitchen. The landlord had scheduled an electrician, but they had not attended. The resident was also concerned about asbestos in the ceiling, which had been disturbed and the flat suffered with damp and mould. The MP contacted the landlord who replied on 29 March 2023 and said it was working as fast as possible to provide a resolution.
On 11 April 2023, the resident added to her complaint. She said following the leak she had many outstanding repairs and wanted to include them within her complaint as it remained unanswered.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the service the resident had received and:
1. Acknowledged that the damp and mould complaint was not responded to in a timely manner, that appointments had been missed, and that call back requests were left unactioned.
2. Provided an update regarding the resident’s repairs. It said:
  1. An appointment was scheduled for 5 June 2023 to replace the shower screen and tray.
  2. The smoke alarm was repaired on 30 March 2023.
  3. Appointments were scheduled for 7 July 2023 and 14 July 2023 for the ceiling repair and asbestos removal.
3. Offered £350 compensation, which comprised of:
  1. £100 for the delay in resolving the damp and mould complaint.
  2. £50 under the right to repair scheme for the damp and mould.
  3. £100 for inconvenience caused chasing the surveyor appointment.
  4. £100 for delays regarding the ceiling repair and inconvenience caused.
On 20 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident said:
1. The majority of the repairs remained outstanding because they could not proceed without the removal of the asbestos in the ceiling.
2. She had now been without a shower for 17 days, which she felt could have been avoided if the replacement shower screen had been correctly ordered. She said she had taken time of work to accommodate the many appointments.
3. The positive input ventilation unit (PIV) installer was unaware there was an asbestos issue and said they would wait for her to rebook once the asbestos works were completed. She felt that it was not her role to coordinate the works required to the property.
4. The landlord failed to attend a re-scheduled a damp and mould inspection.
On 19 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that the complaint was upheld and:
1. Apologised for the substantial delays to the repairs and for the lack of communication, which left the resident chasing updates.
2. Scheduled the following repair appointments:
  1. PIV Unit installation – 23 October 2023.
  2. Asbestos Removal – 18 September 2023.
  3. Plaster work – 23 September 2023.
  4. Decorating – 10 October 2023.
3. Promised the resident that it would complete all outstanding repairs to her satisfaction and that a member of the complaints team will monitor the appointments.
4. Concluded that there had been several service failures and in recognition of the findings, it offered a further £775 compensation, which comprised of:
  1. £150 for a delay in the complaint handling.
  2. £100 for a lack of communication and updates.
  3. £225 for further delay to the repairs.
  4. £300 for the impact and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that she has reported mould and damp to her landlord for approximately 6 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, the investigation will focus on the information evidenced to us from 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint up to the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident has informed us of further repair issues, which include the progress and completion of repairs carried out following an inspection on 26 May 2023. While this investigation has responded to the delay relating to the scheduling of the surveyor’s appointment, the further extensive issues relating to the progress of identified repair works following the inspection is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because these events occurred after the period of the complaint which has been through the landlord’s complaints process. However, the resident has the option to complete the landlord’s complaint process with regards to these concerns and refer to this service if she remains dissatisfied with its response.
What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests for an inspection and responsive repairs and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Repairs

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obligated to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement acknowledges this duty within its terms and conditions.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that repairs are split into 3 main categories according to urgency. There is a set response target time for each category:
1. Emergency repairs – attended within 4 hours and make safe.
2. Appointed urgent repairs – completed within 7 calendar days maximum.
3. Appointed routine repairs – completed within 28 calendar days maximum.
If contractors fail to keep, or need to cancel an appointment, the resident must be contacted by the contractor in advance of the original appointment and be offered another appointment.
The resident has raised several issues regarding her concerns about the surveyors visit in December 2022 and outstanding responsive repairs. For ease of reference, we have referred to each issue separately below and concluded with a summary.

Repairs – Damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy state that the landlord is responsible for condensation, mould, and damp repairs. It will conduct surveys, clean affected areas with fungicidal wash, clear blocked air vents and install extractor fans. It will also provide guidance on how to prevent condensation and mould. These appointments are completed within 28 days.
The resident said that the landlord’s surveyor attended on 12 December 2022 and completed a damp and mould inspection. She said she had not received any further information and had chased this with the landlord on 4 occasions between 30 January 2023 and 22 March 2023. She said the surveyor who had completed the inspection had since left the landlord’s employment and the repairs identified had not been completed.
On 11 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident regarding her complaint and arranged a damp and mould inspection for 18 April 2023. The resident reported that the surveyor failed to attend. It is evident that a further 2 appointments were scheduled by the landlord and were subsequently unattended without the relevant cancellation notice provided to the resident. The missed appointments were not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s policy. Further, the resident said she was upset and frustrated as she had taken time off work and had already spent time and trouble chasing the landlord.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord said that it was unable to locate the completed survey from the December 2022 inspection, but it had found a schedule of works for the property. Given the time which had passed since the first inspection, the landlord suggested it should reinspect the property to understand the full extent of the disrepair. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to re-inspect the property. The inspection was carried out 26 May 2023.
It is evident that the surveyor leaving the landlord’s employment resulted in missing inspection notes, which were not added to its internal systems and left the landlord unaware that repairs remained outstanding. The landlord should have robust systems in place to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs or agreed actions. The failure to create and record information accurately has resulted in the landlord not taking appropriate or timely action, which has had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The resident first chased the outcome of the December 2022 inspection on 30 January 2023. This was the landlord’s first opportunity to understand that the inspection had not been logged or actioned. Yet, it was not until 11 April 2023, that the landlord looked into the resident’s repeated concerns and booked a re-inspection. The re-inspection subsequently failed on 3 occasions before the inspection proceeded on 26 May 2023, almost 4 months after the resident first raised her concerns in January 2023. This was a failing on the landlord’s part to recognise the poor service and act upon it accordingly. Further, the timescales involved for the re-inspection went beyond the landlord’s expected 28-day timescale according to its policy, which was inappropriate.

Repairs – Lights

On 15 March 2023, it was reported that an electrician was required to inspect and ensure the safety of a light fitting following a leak from the flat above. The landlord’s evidence suggests that it attempted to gain access on the same day on an emergency repairs timescale but failed. Nonetheless, the electrician attended the next day and identified the faults. It “made safe” the light fittings in the bedroom and kitchen; however, it recorded that further works were required.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord scheduled a repair appointment to reinstate the lights, this was scheduled for 21 March 2023. The electrician did not attend the booked appointment and therefore the resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 and 23 March 2023 to request a further appointment. On 30 March 2023, the landlord’s evidence suggests that it installed new lights to the living room, kitchen, and bedroom.
The landlord took approximately 15-working days to resolve the resident’s lighting repairs. The landlord’s repair timescale states that it should be attended to within 7-working days and it is noted that if the landlord had attended as scheduled on 21 March 2023, this would have significantly reduced the timeframe the resident was without overhead lighting. The landlord did not complete the repairs within its set timescale as per policy and it did not provide a cancellation notice to the resident regarding the missed appointment, this was inappropriate.

Repairs – Smoke detector

On 17 March 2023, the resident reported that the smoke detector to the hallway was not working. The landlord attended; however, it was unable to change the mains smoke alarm because further works were required. This included an asbestos scrape to the ceiling around the fire alarm.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably, it informed the resident why it could not complete the works, provided a temporary fire alarm, and agreed a further appointment for the completion of the works before it left the property. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy.

Repairs – Ceiling/Artex

On 20 March 2023, the resident reported a large crack to her ceiling. Upon inspection the contractor said it required re-boarding, skimming, and re-decorating. However, as it contained asbestos, it required this to be removed before works could start.
It is evident that the resident called the landlord 16 times between 20 March 2023 and 18 September 2023 regarding the asbestos removal. The landlord’s records show that it recorded the following information:
1. On 19 May 2023, the landlord’s plasterer identified that the asbestos works had not been fully completed and therefore the works could not proceed. The landlord explained to the resident the reason for the failed appointment.
2. On 23 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged that all associated works were delayed because the asbestos report and works remained outstanding. It said the resident had chased the repair works for at least 6 weeks.
3. The asbestos works were completed on 18 September 2023, plastering works completed on 23 September 2023, and the ceiling was re-decorated on 18 October 2023.
The landlord took approximately 127 working days to complete the testing and removal of the asbestos within the living room and a further 22 days to complete the remainder of the works. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s targets within its repair guide. The landlord acted inappropriately.
The resident requested clarification from the landlord regarding if it was safe for her to remain in the property, and if so, why could the contractors not attend to carry out the other remaining works. The landlord confirmed that the asbestos was safe if it remained untouched and encapsulated; however, if works proceeded there was a risk that the asbestos may be disturbed. While the delay to the repairs was frustrating for the resident, this was a reasonable explanation from the landlord.
It is noted that the resident had a significant amount of involvement regarding the asbestos repairs and removal over a period of 6 months. She chased appointments, requested updates and call backs. If regular updates had been provided, this would have managed the resident’s expectations and reduced her overall frustration.

Repairs – Shower

On 17 March 2023, the resident reported repairs required to her shower. She said the shower tray was cracked and the sealant around the base had a gap, which resulted in a leak.
The landlord’s records showed the following information:
1. On 4 April 2024 and 18 April 2024, the resident chased the repair works. She was informed that the shower screen would be fitted on 21 April 2024, and the remainder of the works would be completed on 15 May 2024.
2. On 2 May 2023, an issue with the shower screen size was identified.
3. On 15 May 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended, measured the shower, and ordered the required parts.
4. Following a call from the resident, the contractors confirmed that the works would be completed on 5 June 2023.
5. On 5 June 2023, the contractor attended to complete the works; however, it was evident that the wrong shower screen had been ordered. The screen was re-ordered.
6. On 9 June 2023, further remedial works were identified and the required parts placed on order.
7. On 20 June 2023 and 21 June 2023, remedial works were completed. The shower was reconnected, tested, and was reported as working.
8. On 27 June 2023, further remedial works were completed.
9. On 10 July 2023, the shower screen door was fitted and works completed.
The evidence showed some confusion around the dates for the repair appointments between the landlord, contractor, and the resident, which resulted in the resident contacting the landlord seeking confirmation. It is evident that the landlord attempted to provide answers regarding the resident’s queries on the first call, but it was noted that the contractor was not always available to take the call. This resulted in requests for the contractor to call the resident, which was not always actioned and led to frustration for the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord, in the knowledge of the significant delay to the works, considered or offered any interim arrangements for the resident to have access to washing facilities. Given the repair was delayed for a considerable period of time, this would have been reasonable.
The landlord took approximately 78 working days to complete the repairs to the shower. It said that it had difficulty sourcing the parts for the shower, which accounted for the delays. However, this was neither a reasonable timeframe as stipulated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 nor in keeping with the landlord’s targets within its repair guide. The landlord acted inappropriately.

Repairs – PIV unit

On 26 May 2023, the landlord agreed to install a PIV unit into the resident’s property to ventilate the living room and kitchen area. It is noted from the landlord’s evidence that the resident chased the installation on numerous occasions. The landlord recorded the following information:
1. On 4 August 2023, the landlord placed the PIV unit on order.
2. On 19 September 2023, the resident called to chase the installation of the PIV unit and also reported further mould and damp to the kitchen cupboards. The landlord said it would complete a mould wash to the property once the unit was installed.
3. It scheduled the PIV installation date for 3 November 2023. This appointment was cancelled and rebooked for 21 November 2023.
4. On 15 November 2023, the landlord called and said the installation could not proceed due to the unavailability of the electrician. The landlord noted that the resident was upset and frustrated.
5. On 21 November 2023, the landlord attended and provided the resident with a full explanation of the works to be carried out.
6. On 27 November 2023, the resident called requesting an update on a date for installation.
7. On 15 December 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and scheduled an appointment to install the PIV unit on 18 December 2023.
8. On 22 December 2023, the landlord recorded that the unit had been installed, tested, and left working.
The landlord took approximately 146 working days to complete the installation of the PIV unit. This was an excessive delay, and it is noted that there was a delay from the initial inspection to ordering the PIV unit of 2 months. Given the ongoing delays, it could have considered an interim mould wash, which would have addressed the ongoing immediate damp and mould issues. The landlord’s repairs timescale state appointed repairs are 28-days, therefore the delay was unreasonable.

Repairs – Summary

Overall, there was failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould inspection and responsive repairs. It failed to undertake recommended works within a reasonable time frame or within its policy timescales and failed to communicate with its resident to manage her expectations.
It is evident that the significant delay to the removal of asbestos had an impact on the scheduling and completion of the other repairs. While we understand that complex repairs such as asbestos removal may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. Further, its record keeping was poor, which resulted in missed appointments and materials not being ordered either in a timely manner or correctly which caused further delays.
It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had a significant amount of involvement in chasing inspections or repairs and providing access for these appointments. This would have left her feeling unsupported, distressed, and frustrated.
It is noted that from the landlord’s records, it was aware of the impact the delays had on the resident and it attempted on many occasions to seek answers for her. It chased its contractor for updates and requested call backs on the resident’s behalf. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to put things right for the resident. However, the contractor is the landlord’s representative and therefore it should have taken steps to ensure that it maintained oversight of the actions of its contractor in relation to the repairs and overall contact with its resident.
In its formal complaint responses, the landlord recognised that the delays to the repairs and subsequent missed appointments had impacted the resident and as such it offered compensation. In such circumstances, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s compensation procedure outlines that its compensation can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the particular circumstances of the complaint. It states that its maximum awards of £600 and above would be offered in recognition of maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a long-term impact on the complainant.
In this case, the landlord offered £975 in compensation, which comprised of £350 at stage 1 for delays to repairs and the right to repair scheme and £625 at stage 2 for further delays to repairs, lack of updates, communication and for the impact and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was right of the landlord to recognise its failings and provide an apology and compensation.
The landlord demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles which are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Within the internal complaints process it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation. The level of compensation offered is proportionate to the acknowledged failings and is in line with its policy and the Ombudsman remedies guidance.
We therefore find that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs.
The landlord said that the findings with regards to this case will be used to improve the service provided to residents. It said that the demand on its contractors continue, and it works hard to resolve repairs. Therefore, it is working closely with its contractor to make improvements.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaint process. A formal acknowledgement from a complaint handler within 5 working days, then a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 review response within 20 working days. It states that at either stage, the landlord may need up to a further 10 days, but that it would let the resident know if this was necessary.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 22 February 2023 and on 27 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint it said a formal response would be provided by 27 March 2023. On 12 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord and instructed it to provide its stage 1 response. This should not have been necessary and is unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023, which was 65 days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures within the stage 1 complaint response and therefore did not identify learning or actions it would take to prevent a similar situation happening again, this was not appropriate.
Further, the resident experienced similar issues in attempting to escalate her complaint to stage 2, which she submitted on 20 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 25 July 2023 and on 12 September 2023, this Service instructed it to provide its stage 2 response. This should not have been necessary and is unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 September 2023, which was 66 days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy.
It was right of the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for a complaint handling failure within its stage 2 response. This demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident £150 redress for a complaint handling failure. This amount was in line with its own remedies guidance for a considerable service failure or maladministration and is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there was a failure, which adversely affected the resident. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints regarding a damp and mould inspection, and responsive repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered within the formal complaints process of £1,125.00.
Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
The landlord’s complaints staff should review the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure its compliance within its complaint handling function.