Amplius Living (202332714)

Decision
Case ID	202332714
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported recurring damp and mould coming through the chimney breast and living room wall. She raised concerns about the landlord’s response to her reports in July 2023 and made a further complaint in March 2024. She told us that the condition of the living room affected her ability to use the space until November 2025. The resident is deaf and uses a hearing aid.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the damp and mould

4. There was a delay in the completion of an inspection and an extensive delay after the initial works did not rectify the root cause of the damp and mould. There was a failure by the landlord to monitor and coordinate its contractors, and it did not provide frequent updates to the resident about the progress of repairs, or the quality of the works. This caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord accepted that its actions did not meet its expected standard of service and offered compensation, but it did not do enough to put things right for the resident.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord did not respond to the initial complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure. While it took some steps to apologise to the resident for the identified service failings, it did not provide sufficient redress to put things right.

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 03 March 2026
2	Compensation order In addition to the amount of £850 offered during its complaints process, the landlord must pay the resident a further £1320 (a total of £2170). The additional compensation is made up as follows: £970 for the loss of use of the living room over 29 months. £250 to recognise distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the repairs. £50 to recognise the resident’s time and trouble in chasing repairs. £50 to recognise distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.   This brings the total amount of compensation to £2170. 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. Please note that the amount reimbursed by the landlord for flooring costs has been disregarded from these figures.	No later than 03 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 June 2023	The resident reported damp and mould to the living room on the wall, chimney breast, and skirting boards.
7 July 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said: A contractor tried to cancel on the day of the scheduled works without prior notice. When the contractor did attend, they said the job was too big and rescheduled for 43 days later. She had taken time off work, moved furniture and curtains to accommodate the appointment, and paid a deposit for decorators.
1 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint, in which it said: It apologised it had not met the expected standard. It set an action for a member of the team to contact the resident after it completed scheduled works on 8 September 2023. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint. It expanded its complaints team to provide a better service in future. It offered compensation totalling £145 (£20 – missed appointments, £50 – overdue repair, £25 – overdue complaint, £50 – distress/inconvenience).
12 September 2023	The resident asked us to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said: The contractor attended with no materials to complete the job. The contractor did not schedule follow on works. Despite her repeated requests to the landlord, there was no date provided for remaining works. She said that damp and mould was returning.
19 September to 3 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgment to the resident and said: It noted repair works were incomplete. It requested to extend its stage 2 response twice to follow up on planned works to the chimney scheduled for 9 November 2023 before it provided its final response.
21 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated: There was service failure as the required works were outstanding. It apologised for the significant delay in completing the works. In addition to compensation awarded at stage 1, it offered £150 compensation for the delay. It said it was unable to complete its investigation as works were outstanding. As such, it could not consider further compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 29 December 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied the landlord failed to provide a satisfactory resolution. She said damp and mould repairs remained outstanding, citing delays, incomplete work, and poor workmanship. She said the landlord had identified damp and mould in the loft and chimney, but it had still not resolved the issue. She asked for the landlord to prioritise completing the works and sought compensation for distress, inconvenience, and disruption to her Sky TV service.
22 March 2024	The resident made a further complaint that damp and mould to her living room returned.
17 May 2024	The landlord issued a further stage 1 response to the resident. It said: It upheld her complaint and apologised for the failure in service. It acknowledged interior living room repairs were outstanding to the chimney breast and skirting boards and scheduled works for 10 June 2024. It offered compensation totalling £355 (£25 for overdue complaint, £50 for overdue repairs, £80 for limited use of Sky, £100 for lack of use of living room and £100 for distress and inconvenience).
11 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 June 2024. She said the contractor did not attend to complete works on 10 June 2024. The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said: It acknowledged that it failed to complete outstanding repairs on the dates it had agreed in its stage 1 complaint response. There was poor communication about appointment dates and what works it would carry out and when. It apologised for the significant delay and poor communication throughout. The landlord apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. It said it would monitor the next appointment scheduled for 24 July 2024 to ensure it goes ahead. It offered compensation totalling £200 made up of £100 for further inconvenience, £50 for communication issues about the required works and £50 for the delay in completing works.
	The final amount of compensation offered by the landlord following its internal complaint process was £850, made up of £295 (stage 1 and 2 between September and November 2023) and £555 (stage 1 and stage 2 between March and July 2024). This amount comprised of the following redress: Distress and inconvenience: £250. Delayed repairs and communications: £350. Missed appointments: £20. Loss of use of living room: £100. Loss of sky services: £80. Complaint handling delays: £50.
Post Internal Complaints Procedure	On 18 December 2025, the landlord told us that the damp and mould repair works, and skirting board repairs was finalised in November 2025. It also said it had paid to the resident £697.82 for new flooring and fitting. On 16 January 2026, the resident told us the landlord had offered an additional £1000 in compensation for the delayed repairs.

 

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 response to damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. We have not investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about damage caused by scaffolding contractors during damp and mould works. This issue did not form part of the original complaint, and the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond through its final internal complaint procedure. The resident may raise a separate complaint if dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
7. The resident complained that the delays affected her mental health. We cannot consider whether the landlord’s actions had an impact on health. The resident could seek independent advice about pursuing this through another civil process or the courts. While we cannot consider impact on health, we can consider the impact of any failings by the landlord.

What we have investigated

8. The resident referred the complaint to us on 29 December 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord issued two separate complaint responses for the issues she reported between June 2023 and July 2024. We consider the issues form a continuation of the same problem. Therefore, we have taken the decision to investigate both sets of concerns raised about damp and mould in the living room. In line with our resolution-focused approach, it is fair and proportionate to consider the complaints together. We confirmed this approach with both parties before proceeding.
9. Both the resident and the landlord have confirmed the landlord completed final works in November 2025. The recurring damp and mould and repair works continued for a prolonged period after the landlord issued its final complaint response. Therefore, the extensive delay in the landlord’s completion of the damp and mould works is not in dispute. Given the work is now complete, in line with our resolution-focused approach, we consider it is fair and proportionate to consider the appropriateness of the redress offered by the landlord up to the date of the completed works in November 2025.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy (2022) set out it aimed to complete routine appointed repairs, such as damp and mould works, within 28 days. The resident reported damp and mould on 2 June 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord completed its first inspection on 23 June 2023. It scheduled the initial damp proofing plasterworks for 7 July 2023. However, the landlord completed this work 3 months later, on 25 September 2023, meaning the landlord’s initial actions fell outside of the timescale it set out in its policy.
11. The resident said she told the surveyor she did not believe the extent of the proposed works was sufficient to resolve the damp and mould. The evidence shows the surveyor said it would re-assess the position once planned works were complete. The resident raised concerns about the cost of redecoration if damp and mould were to return. However, works went ahead in September 2023. Before contractors had completed the works the resident reported damp and mould returned. It was unreasonable for the landlord to discount the resident’s concerns and to delay a further inspection. It is not clear whether the landlord had a specific damp and mould policy at the time. However, in its response to us, the landlord set out its action plan in response to our Spotlight report “It’s not lifestyle” (October 2021). In response to our recommendation number 16 – landlords should ensure its staff and contractors have the appropriate expertise to properly diagnose and respond to reports – the landlord said its surveyors had received specialist damp and mould awareness training by December 2023. It was not reasonable for the landlord to discount the resident’s concerns by addressing visible mould without exploring the underlying cause. The landlord has since introduced its damp and mould policy (July 2024) which sets out it will ensure sufficient training for its staff to diagnose and respond to reports of damp and mould.
12. Despite the resident’s repeated requests for a further survey, the landlord delayed its work order to inspect the chimney. This was raised on 13 October 2023. The inspection took place on 9 November 2023. Following its inspection, the landlord raised a work order to cap and repair the flashing to the chimney. In its stage 2 response on 21 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay to works and offered compensation. However, it did not set an action plan for future works. Contractors completed the chimney repair on 7 February 2024. This was an unreasonable delay because there was no communication about the delays and the resident continued to chase the repairs. The resident has told us this eroded her trust in the landlord and its contractors’ ability to resolve matters.
13. Following the chimney repair, the resident again reported that damp and mould in the living room had returned. She said there was also water ingress due to missing roof tiles damaged by contractors when they removed the scaffolding. Following a missed appointment on 22 March 2024, the resident made a further complaint. On 3 April 2024, the records show the landlord recalled its contractors to complete internal plaster works and to replace the skirting, as well as to repair the damage to the roof tiles.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 17 May 2024 said contractors would attend to complete works on 10 June 2024. When this did not happen, the resident requested to escalate her complaint. In its stage 2 response on 11 July 2024 the landlord apologised for its failure to complete the outstanding repairs on the date it had agreed in its stage 1 response. While it acknowledged the service fell short, it failed to demonstrate it had learnt lessons given the matters the resident complained about was a continuation of the issues previously reported.
15. The landlord had set an action to monitor the works for the next appointment date of 24 July 2024. However, its contractor cancelled this appointment due to not having available materials to carry out the work, and it eventually completed the work on 2 August 2024. At this point, a period of 14 months had passed with works still outstanding which was unreasonable. The cancelled contractor appointment demonstrated a repeat of previous failings, which indicates the landlord had not learnt lessons.
16. The resident has told us the damp and mould returned, and she experienced the same delays until the completion of the works. Both the resident and the landlord confirmed the landlord completed the final works in November 2025, therefore the date of the completion of the works is not in dispute. This means the landlord delayed the repairs to the living room by another 15 months which was unacceptable. The resident said over the duration of the repair (29 months) she had suffered distress and inconvenience, and lost time to accommodate contractors which impacted on her work and caring responsibilities.  In all the circumstances therefore we feel the redress offered by the landlord should take into account the overall period.
17. The resident reported poor communication from the landlord and its contractors throughout. She said contractors would often miss appointments or attended but delayed works without providing sufficient notice. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that its contractor should provide a customer with a new appointment before leaving the property and notify all parties about any delays or supply issues. However, the evidence shows the resident had to continuously chase the landlord for appointments to carry out works and follow-on works. This is particularly evident throughout August and September 2023 and despite its stage 2 response (21 November 2023) the same issues recurred throughout March and July 2024. The resident said this resulted in delays in repair works and inconvenience to the resident due to avoidable time off work to allow access.
18. We also note the landlord did not consider reasonable adjustments in its communication with the resident despite being aware of the resident’s hearing loss. In its stage 2 response in July 2024 the landlord said its contractor left a cancellation voicemail for the resident on 7 June 2024. The resident denied receiving this and this prompted the escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord has not demonstrated it had considered the resident’s vulnerability or that it discussed her preferred method of contact. The landlord’s poor communication placed an unreasonable burden on the resident over a prolonged period and avoidable distress and inconvenience.
19. The resident raised concerns about the competence of the contractors throughout, which resulted in contractors being unable to complete works when they did attend. The evidence shows contractors had attended without knowledge about the nature and extent of the required works and how long it would take. It also shows contractors had attended without the sufficient materials, or the necessary skills to complete the required works. The landlord’s failure to communicate with its contractor to ensure it understood the nature and extent of its work order was unreasonable because the landlord is responsible for ensuring that its contractors are competent to complete the required works. This caused further avoidable delays and inconvenience to the resident.
20. The resident reported the poor quality of the work completed by the landlord’s contractors on several occasions. The evidence shows the landlord raised recall works to rectify poor plasterwork and damaged skirting boards in September 2023, March, and April 2024. The landlord’s post inspection on 22 September 2023 verified the residents reports of poor workmanship. In March 2024, the resident had also reported damage to the windowsill and roof tiles caused by the scaffolding contractor. This resulted in multiple contractor visits to complete works and caused avoidable delays in repairs which added to the resident’s frustrations and eroded confidence in the landlord.
21. The evidence shows there was a disconnect between the landlord and its contractor. This contributed to poor updates and delayed repairs. The landlord failed to use its knowledge and information (KIM) systems to collate and share information and is unable to demonstrate it had sufficient oversight of the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the importance of collating real-time updates about work orders which its contractor’s should provide while on-site including information such as before and after photographs, operative notes, and customer signature, to ensure it can effectively monitor repairs and performance. The evidence does not reflect that the landlord collated this information. Therefore, the landlord is unable to demonstrate that had sufficient oversight of its contractors’ progress and the quality of work.
22. In addition, there was a lack of transparency and poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s inspections. The landlord completed several diagnostic and post work inspections over the course of the outstanding repair. However, we have not seen a copy of the surveyor’s reports or any evidence of the results. We do not know if the landlord shared the survey results with the resident. In the absence of these records, we cannot confirm the exact nature of, and the extent of the work recommended. The absence of this information means we cannot assess whether the landlord acted reasonably based on what it knew following each inspection. Therefore, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it acted appropriately.
23. The landlord has said it implemented an action plan to improve its response to reports about damp and mould in light of the recommendations we made in our Spotlight report, ‘It’s not lifestyle’ (October 2021 and February 2023). However, it has not demonstrated it applied the identified processes to its handling of the resident’s report.
24. The resident’s repairs remained outstanding for approximately 29 months between June 2023 and November 2025, which was unacceptable. The resident has told us she experienced loss of enjoyment of her living room throughout this period. She also said the repeated inconvenience due to time off work and time taken to chase the matters caused her significant distress and inconvenience. She said the uncertainty about an outcome took its toll on her mental health.
25. In summary, it is not in dispute that the landlord failed to complete remedial works within a reasonable period. A lack of an action plan, together with unreliable contractors and poor communication are issues that the resident has told us continued throughout. While the landlord recognised delays and apologised in its final complaint response, it did not demonstrate that it acknowledged the extent of the impact on the resident because of the recurring issues. It did not demonstrate learning from its handling of the initial repair or its oversight of its contractors. Therefore, the landlord did not demonstrate that it acted in line with our dispute resolution principles – to act fairly, to put things right and to learn lessons. This amounts to maladministration.
26. The resident has told us that she had a total loss of the living room over the period due to the recurring damp and mould and repeated plasterworks. We note the landlord’s compensation policy (21 August 2024) sets out that following the submission of suitable evidence it will consider compensation for the loss of a resident’s living room up to 10% of its weekly rent after 48 hours of the initial report while repairs are outstanding.
27. In its stage 1 response (May 2024) the landlord had compensated the resident £100 for the loss of use of her living room. By stage 2 (July 2024) the landlord had offered a total amount of £800 in compensation. This included compensation to the resident of £80 for a loss of sky services, for which we consider the redress was appropriate. However, we do not consider the redress offered of £350 for the delays in repair works and £250 for the inconvenience caused to the resident was sufficient to remedy the impact on the resident.
28. We recognise due to the KIM failings identified the landlord has not been able to demonstrate the extent and duration of the resident’s loss of use of her living room. However, the landlord did not fully acknowledge or apply its compensation policy in its final complaint response in July 2024. This was 13 months after the initial damp and mould report, and a further 16 months before the landlord finalised the works.
29. The landlord has told us that it has paid to the resident £697.82 to compensate for the flooring, including fitting. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this action having accepted its part in the resident incurring this cost. The resident has told us that the landlord made recent contact with her to offer further compensation outside of the complaints process for £1000 but we do not know how it has calculated this amount or if it has made a formal offer to the resident.
30. We consider the overall compensation offered up to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of £800 (11 July 2024) does not go far enough to reflect the duration of avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of repeated and prolonged failings by the landlord to rectify the damp and mould. It does not account for the loss of amenity. Therefore, in addition to this, and in line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £1270, broken down as follows:
    1. £970 to recognise the loss of use of the resident’s living room for 29 months. This is based on a proportion of the rent between 2 June 2023 and 1 November 2025 at a rent of £112.80 (based on the Regulator’s average rent). We have deducted the amount already offered to the resident by the landlord of £350 for the delayed repairs and £100 for loss of use of the living room which must also be paid to the resident if it has not already done so.
    2. An additional £250 to appropriately reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
    3. An additional £50 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs.
    4. The order has not factored in the flooring or any additional offer of compensation made by the landlord after its final complaint response in July 2024.
31. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to significant delay in completing the work.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days, respectively. The Code allows an extension of no more than 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
33. The landlord was operating its February 2023 complaint policy at the time of complaint handling. This aligned with the Code on response timescales, but it allowed an extension beyond 10 working days, with the resident’s agreement, if it could not fully respond to the complaint. This is inconsistent with the Code. However, we note the landlord has since updated its complaint policy to align with the Code.
34. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023 within 10 working days. However, it took 48 working days to provide its stage 2 response on 21 November 2023. The landlord did seek approval from the resident to extend the complaint on 13 October 2023 and 7 November 2023, but the first extension was 21 days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was outside of its policy timescale, and the overall delay was unreasonable.
35. On 2 March 2024, the evidence shows the landlord said its customer service team had no further involvement in her repairs because the resident had asked to close her complaint on 21 November 2023 and had referred her complaint to us. It is unclear whether the landlord provided advice to the resident on how to make a new complaint.
36. The landlord’s response fell short of effective complaint handling and resolution principles. The landlord should have provided the resident with accurate information about how to make a new complaint. The Code encourages a positive a complaint handling culture is essential for effective dispute resolution.
37. On 23 March 2024, the resident made a new complaint which was a continuation of the original matter. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in 28 working days, which fell significantly outside of its expected timescale. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 12 working days within its expected timescale.
38. The extensions resulted in protracted complaint handling and confusion for the resident about when a complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. The evidence shows the landlord gave the impression that once a complaint had completed its complaints process the landlord had no further involvement in resolving future complaint matters raised by the resident. This advice was inaccurate, misleading and was likely to have caused confusion for the resident.
39. The landlord offered £50 for complaint handling failings during its investigation. We consider this was not sufficient to address the impact on the resident for the time and trouble, unreasonable delay, and its failure to manage the resident’s expectations about new complaints. The landlord has told us it has improved its customer service. However, it did not communicate its learning to the resident. Therefore, including the £50 already offered we order the landlord to pay £100 to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failures.
40. We also order the landlord to apologise for the failure to provide accurate advice about its complaints processes.

Learning

41. The landlord has shared its December 2023 Action Plan in response to the 26 recommendations made in our Spotlight report – ‘It’s not lifestyle’. The landlord has also since published its damp and mould policy dated 10 July 2024. The landlord should continue to review and update any associated processes and policies in accordance with Awaab’s law requirements.
42. The landlord has said it is working hard with its contractors to hold them to account when delays occur such as issuing fines. It should continue to monitor the performance, reliability, and competence of its contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord should ensure that it uploads survey results to its internal systems. It has stated surveyor’s now have access to tools to be able to complete surveys on site which they can upload to its internal system, which is positive.

Communication

44. The landlord should ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with residents about the actions it plans to take to resolve reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

45. It is positive the landlord has said it has delivered training to its customer service staff to make improvements in the service it provides to residents. The landlord stated it implemented new processes from April 2024, including operational leads assigned to each complaint to ensure actions are progressed. The landlord expects this will help to manage customer expectations.