Amplius Living (202410747)

Background

1. The resident had been a tenant of the landlord since August 2006 in a 3‑bedroom house. At the start of the tenancy, he was a single parent with 5 children, and the landlord’s records indicated that he had limited mobility. His tenancy ended on 18 March 2024. In April 2024, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his boiler repairs, garden fence repairs, and his request for an over‑bath shower installation. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and brought his complaint to this Service.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of fence repairs.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an over‑bath shower installation.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

6. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fence repairs.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an over‑bath shower installation.
   4. No maladministrationin the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.

7. The landlord carried out Gas Safety Inspections which confirmed that the boiler and flue were operating safely. However, the internal flue collar was missing, which the landlord accepted as an oversight. This contributed to the resident’s concerns about the boiler installation, which caused avoidable anxiety. The landlord did not offer compensation for the distress caused, nor demonstrate evidence of learning.

Landlord’s handling of fence repairs.

8. The landlord responded to the fence repair request in line with its repairs policy. It reviewed the resident’s concerns and arranged to carry out a new assessment.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an over bath shower installation.

9. The landlord took around 12 months to install the shower following an Occupational Therapist referral. These delays caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident, and the work should have been prioritised far sooner. There was also no evidence that the landlord identified learning or took steps to prevent similar delays from occurring in future.

The complaint handlings

10. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within, or close to, the timescales set out in its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Although its acknowledgements were given verbally rather than in writing, the landlord addressed the issues it could reasonably deal with and offered suitable redress. The shortcomings identified had only a limited impact on 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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

What we did not investigate and why

11. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic boiler problems, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issue arising. In the interests of fairness, and given the passage of time, this investigation focuses on events from April 2023 onwards.
12. The resident said that aspects of his complaint had a direct impact on his household’s wellbeing. It is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any actions or omissions by the landlord.

What we found

13. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for ensuring that the boiler was maintained in a safe condition.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that routine appointed repairs will be completed within a maximum of 28 calendar days.
15. We acknowledge that the boiler remained fully functional throughout the period covered by this Service’s investigation. The landlord’s records show that it completed Gas Safety Inspections in line with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations.
16. A new boiler was installed on 4 August 2023 as part of the landlord’s Planned Works programme. A Gas Safety Inspection took place on 22 March 2024 and recorded the appliance as safe to use. Following the resident’s continued concerns, the landlord arranged an independent audit on 7 June 2024, which confirmed that the boiler and flue were operating safely. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s safety concerns.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to a manufacturer’s safety notice relating to certain boilers produced between August 2022 and January 2024. The resident reported that he received this notice in March 2024, shortly before he moved out. The notice confirmed that appliances remained safe to use and that replacement parts would be provided where needed.
18. While there was a dispute over the safety of the boiler, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the professional opinions and accreditation of its contractual operatives in the circumstances. The evidence shows that the internal decorative flue collar was not fitted at installation, which the landlord accepted as an oversight.
19. In its complaint response, the landlord reassured the resident that the boiler was safe to use and that any carbon monoxide issues would have been detected during inspection. Gas safe inspection records indicated that parts of the installation potentially required follow‑up and monitoring in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
20. The manufacturer’s safety notice contributed to the resident’s uncertainty about whether the boiler met expected standards. This was likely to have caused avoidable anxiety for a period. The landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the advisory aspects in its Gas Safety Inspections and in particular act to reassure the resident in timely manner.
21. The landlord did not offer compensation for the understandable distress caused by the resident’s concerns, and there was no evidence of learning to prevent similar failings. Taking the above into consideration, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure. To reflect the distress caused, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

What we did not investigate and why

22. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic fence repairs, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issue arising. In the interests of fairness, and given the passage of time, this investigation focuses on events from April 2023.

What we found

23. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the boundary fence, and its commitment to arrange the repair confirmed this responsibility.
24. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that routine appointed repairs will be completed within a maximum of 28 calendar days.
25. The landlord did not dispute that the fence remained in disrepair when the resident ended his tenancy on 18 March 2024. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would assess whether improvement works were possible and to arrange any necessary repairs or raise a recall if previous work had not been completed satisfactorily. The landlord was entitled to decide how best to carry out the repair and was not required to replace the fence, provided it was left in a safe and functional condition. Its approach was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
26. This Service notes the resident’s concern that the fence was not secure during his tenancy, which he felt raised security issues. However, without evidence to support this, as noted above, this Service is unable to conclude that the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration. Based on the evidence, the landlord acted in line with its policies and obligations in its response to the resident’s request to repair the fence. This leads to a finding of no maladministration.

What we found

27. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy states that if a resident requires both a simple and a complex adaptation in the same room, or if the requests are related (for example, an over‑bath shower and grab rails in the bathroom), the works will be issued together to the contractor and treated as a complex adaptation. The policy also states that complex adaptations should be completed within 28 days of the order being issued. The policy states that the landlord will consider installing the adaptation where it is supported by a formal Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment.
28. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised the need for a shower in November 2021, asking whether a GP letter would be sufficient for the landlord to install a shower. The landlord advised that an OT referral was required for adaptations of this nature. The OT submitted the resident’s referral to the landlord on 29 April 2022, to install an over bath shower and grab rail due for his mobility needs.
29. After the referral, the resident contacted the landlord several times to ask for help progressing the installation. In July 2022, the landlord identified that its contractor had only ordered the grab rail and not the shower. The contractor told the landlord in December 2022 that the resident had previously delayed the work, but this did not align with the resident’s repeated requests for progress. The evidence indicates that the resident wished the installation to proceed.
30. The shower was installed sometime between 27 March 2023 and 18 April 2023. This means it took the landlord around 12 months to install the adaptation after the OT referral in April 2022, which it accepted represents a significant delay. During this period, the resident chased progress 4 times, and the landlord chased the contractor 3 times. The time taken was significantly longer than the 28-day timescale set out in the landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy, so the landlord did not act in line with its policy requirements.
31. The prolonged delay meant the resident was without the adaptation for considerably longer than necessary, despite the landlord being aware of his mobility needs. The resident told this Service that he felt unsupported by the landlord. He spent considerable avoidable time and effort chasing progress, which left him frustrated.
32. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the service failures and offered the resident £150 for the delay and inconvenience, and £50 for the lack of records relating to the installation. There was no evidence of specific learning to prevent similar failings. In such circumstances, reasonable redress was not achieved.
33. Taking the above into consideration, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £200 to the resident, as offered in its final response. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

What we found

34. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within or close to the timescales of its policy and the Code. However, the landlord’s acknowledgements of the resident’s complaints were given verbally rather than in writing. In its complaint responses, the landlord addressed the issues it could reasonably deal with and offered suitable redress.
35. In the resident’s complaint, he raised concerns about the welfare and behaviour of a vulnerable neighbour. This was a report for the landlord to take appropriate action, and the landlord would be expected to consider its safeguarding responsibilities when receiving such information. However, there was no requirement for the landlord to engage with the resident about any steps taken, as doing so would risk breaching the neighbour’s privacy and potentially the Data Protection Act. Although the landlord did not have to provide further detail, it could have reassured the resident by acknowledgement of its receipt of their report and that it would act in accordance with any safeguarding responsibility it identified.
36. While there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling, these had only a limited impact on the resident. Based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with its complaint policy and the Code when handling this complaint. This leads to a determination of no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. This case demonstrates the importance of ensuring that advisory issues identified during boiler safety inspections are clearly captured, tracked, and followed up in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
38. This case demonstrates the need for the landlord to consider the efficacy of its processes for managing adaptations, including ensuring accurate record‑keeping, timely coordination with contractors, and clear communication with residents, so that similar delays and avoidable frustration are not repeated. Of particular interest is the possible avoidance of OT assessment process for requested minor aides and adaptations.
39. The landlord should consider utilising its discretion to install minor aids and adaptations where appropriate, and act independently in a timely manner.
40. This case featured the use of verbal acknowledgements of an escalation request. The landlord should review this practice and ensure that a written acknowledgement is issued following any verbal confirmation, to provide a clear and auditable record.
41. The landlord should also ensure that it provides written acknowledgement of any safeguarding reports it receives, to reassure those making the report and to demonstrate that the concerns have been formally logged and understood.