Amplius Living (202344683)

Decision
Case ID	202344683
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	29 May 2026

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. In 2022 the resident asked the landlord for permission to install an electric vehicle charge point (EVCP) on the outside wall of the building, near the estate parking bays. The landlord granted permission in April 2022. It said this would remain valid for 12 months. The resident later purchased a hybrid vehicle. In December 2023 he asked the landlord if its earlier permission remained valid. The landlord confirmed it did not and explained it had issued the earlier approval in error. The resident said he suffered a financial loss because he would not have purchased a hybrid vehicle if the landlord had not granted permission in 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make an alteration to the outside of the building.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There landlord offered reasonable redress for the failure identified in its handling of the resident’s request to make an alteration to the outside of the building.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make an alteration to the outside of the building

5. The landlord apologised for granting permission in error when the resident first made the request. This was proportionate in the circumstances because the original approval had expired by the time the resident asked to install the EVCP again. The landlord was under no obligation to approve future requests. Therefore, there is no evidence its earlier error affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord unreasonably delayed acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint. While it apologised, this did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the failures in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 December 2023	The resident replied to the landlord’s refusal to grant permission to install an EVCP. He said he had just bought a vehicle on the understanding he would be able to charge it at home. He confirmed he had paid for an EVCP and had an external company ready to install it. The resident said he was worried about his financial outlay.
15 January 2024	The resident submitted a complaint. He was dissatisfied the landlord had not responded within the timescales it had advised.
18 January 2024	The landlord spoke to the resident and apologised for not responding to his queries sooner. It confirmed it had previously issued permission for the EVCP in error, but this had expired. It explained the reasons for refusing permission in response to the resident’s recent request.
19 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident an early resolution complaint letter. It has not provided us with the contents of this.
29 January 2024	The landlord emailed the resident confirming the details of the phone conversation on 18 January 2024.
30 January 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 1 of the landlord’s process. He said the landlord had given him conflicting information which directly led him to decide to purchase a hybrid vehicle. He was also dissatisfied with the time it had taken to respond. The resident said the landlord had not provided any solutions and suggested it could easily convert a storage facility on site into a charging facility.
9 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint and said there has been no service failure. It apologised again for providing incorrect advice previously. It explained the reasons for refusing permission to install the EVCP, referring to clauses in the lease. The landlord also apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. It confirmed it had received it on 23 December 2023 and that its offices were closed during the festive period.
21 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said that the stage 1 outcome failed to address that the initial permission caused him to incur an expense he would not have otherwise undertaken. The resident also challenged some of the reasons why the landlord refused permission.
28 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint and reiterated its stage 1 position. It said that at the time the resident purchased his new vehicle, its previous permission had already expired. Therefore, he should have requested permission again before proceeding.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint because he disagreed with the landlord’s outcome. He said he has since traded in his hybrid vehicle as he was unable to charge it at home and suffered a financial loss in doing so. The resident is seeking compensation for this loss which he estimated to exceed £30,000.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make an alteration to the outside of the building
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The lease states that the resident cannot make alterations to the exterior of the building. It also states he cannot make electrical changes without the landlord’s permission. The property does not have an allocated parking space. The resident has the right to park on the estate on a first come first served basis. The resident originally requested permission to install an EVCP in 2022. On 25 April 2022 the landlord granted permission in writing. Its letter confirmed the approval would remain valid for 12 months and the resident would need to re-submit the request if he did not complete the work during this timeframe.
8. The resident purchased a hybrid vehicle at the end of 2023. On 21 December 2023 he asked the landlord whether its earlier permission was still valid. The landlord confirmed it had expired and it would review again. The following day, it refused permission, explaining that the lease did not allow exterior alterations. The resident challenged this decision on 23 December 2023. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it treated this as a complaint. Therefore, we have considered the timeliness of its response as part of the complaints handling section of the report.
9. The landlord explained the reasons for its refusal during a phone conversation and followed up in writing. It confirmed the main reason for this was the lack of allocated parking on the estate. The landlord discussed the resident’s proposed solutions and explained why it could not agree to them. It also responded to his queries about building regulations at the time of construction. While the resident disagrees with the reasoning provided, ultimately the landlord is under no obligation to permit external alterations.
10. The complaint centres on the change in the landlord’s position. The resident said he experienced a financial loss after relying on the earlier permission. However, by the time the resident purchased the vehicle and took steps to install an EVCP the original permission had already expired.
11. The resident said he could not charge the vehicle at home and later sold it at a loss. In line with our compensation guidance, we do not award compensation where a resident considers they have missed an opportunity to gain a benefit or avoid a loss. Such matters would require a legal finding of breach of contract or negligence, which only the courts can determine.
12. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging and apologising for erroneously issuing the initial permission. Its apology was proportionate to address any distress and inconvenience caused and put things right in the circumstances. There is no evidence the landlord’s error caused any other impact or affected the overall outcome for the resident. This is because the resident did not act within the timescale the permission was valid, and the landlord was under no obligation to approve any future requests.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

13. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure comply with the April 2024 Code.
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2023, challenging its decision. The resident’s email could be treated as an expression of dissatisfaction and therefore a complaint in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord confirmed it treated it as such as part of its stage 1 response.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 2 January 2024 and said it would respond within 5 working days. After 5 working days had passed, the resident chased a response on 3 occasions by phone, email and by submitting a complaint form on 15 January 2024. The landlord attempted early resolution of the complaint on 18 January 2024. This step was permitted by its complaints policy at the time if it could resolve the complaint within 2 working days. However, it had been 15 working days since the resident complained in December 2023.
16. It is unclear from the record of the landlord’s conversation with the resident whether it considered the complaint resolved at the early resolution stage. It wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024, explaining the reasons for its decision. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 1 the following day and later to stage 2. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its complaints policy timescales.
17. The landlord apologised for the initial delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. However, as the resident was compelled to chase on 3 occasions before the landlord responded, we do not consider the apology to be proportionate in the circumstances. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the likely time and trouble its complaint handling failings have caused.

Learning

18. Landlords should ensure that any complaints they receive are appropriately logged, acknowledged and responded to in line with the timescales set out in the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s records were adequate.

Communication

20. The landlord acknowledged the confusion caused by its original communication mistakenly giving permission. However, its subsequent communication provided clear reasons for its refusal and answered the resident’s additional queries.