Amplius Living (202413428)

Decision
Case ID	202413428
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a sheltered bungalow with an alarm system connected to a support provider. This allows residents to request medical assistance, if required, and allows the support provider to contact residents to carry out welfare checks. The resident advised that she did not have the need for the support services provided and asked the landlord to remove the associated charges. It declined to do so, and she remains unhappy with its response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with the support service and charges.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with the support service and charges.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with her support services and charges.

5. The landlord’s response was in line with good practice. Considering the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, and no evidence to suggest it is an option for residents to decline the support service included, the landlord’s advice was reasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint which delayed the start of its investigation. It is, however, noted that the landlord’s prompt investigation and responses meant there was no overall delay in completing its internal complaints process. This demonstrated the landlord’s customer focused approach in resolving the issue for 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	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 15 January 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. 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 15 January 2026

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and discuss her contact and support preferences going forward.
In recognition of the record keeping issues identified during this investigation we recommend that the landlord reviews our Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already done so since this complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and discuss her housing options.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 April 2024	The resident raised her complaint about the support services and charges. In summary she said: She was not told at the start of the tenancy that there was a support charge in her rent and did not realise this until her first year’s rent review. A warden visited to discuss the support offered but she did not answer her questions, rather, they discussed fire alarms and visits. She has had warden visits, but she did not ask for these. She did not want or need support and asked the landlord to stop charging her for it.
7 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
14 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It: Said the resident had signed a tenancy agreement in 2008 and enclosed a copy of this displaying the support charge in addition to the weekly rent. Explained that the resident had agreed to annual contact and listed the contacts and services provided by the support provider in the last year. Noted that the resident had requested the cancellation of this service on other occasions. Explained that on those occasions, she had been told that because the property was designated for older people with support needs, the charge was compulsory and in her contract.
7 August 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint via telephone. The landlord records set out that she said: She did not want the support service and wanted it removed from her rent. She had been receiving a discounted rate from when she was on the board but that was no longer applied. She felt the support provided had reduced. She had two alarm systems in her property as the old one had been left when replaced with a new one.
7 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
12 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Confirmed the resident had opted for annual contact and had declined its offer of increasing this to 3 times a week. Apologised that she had not been made aware of the support charges when she signed her tenancy. Explained why the discount had been removed but confirmed that she was still on the lowest charge available. Confirmed that it was unable to disconnect the alarm in the property and remove the charges. The landlord explained this was because the property was designated for use by older people and came with a compulsory alarm and support charge as detailed in the tenancy agreement.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident came to us, she said she would like the landlord to turn off the alarm system and remove the support charge, as she did not require this service.

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 response to the resident’s concerns with her support services and charges.
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns that the support provided is not good value as she receives ‘minimal support’. However, complaints that relate to the level or reasonableness of service charges, and whether they provide value for money, are better suited to investigation by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). As such, the resident may wish to contact the FTT or seek independent advice.

What we did investigate

8. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations for both parties. It confirms that the resident’s weekly rent includes “support and counselling fees” and provides a guide of the type of support this could include. Support and counselling fees are considered service charges.
9. The resident is obligated to pay the weekly rent and service charge in line with her tenancy agreement for the property. The tenancy agreement is a contract and when the tenancy commenced, the resident agreed to the terms contained within it. We note the resident’s comments that she was not informed of the charges at the start of the tenancy. We also note that the landlord later apologised for this within its stage 2 response.
10. It is unclear why the landlord apologised. The evidence we have been provided with does not demonstrate that it investigated the sign-up process or identified any failings that occurred during this period. It is also noted that the tenancy and property belonged to a different landlord at the time that it began. As such, the landlord was not responsible for the sign-up process. While it would have been reasonable for it to have assumed responsibility if it found a failing, we have not seen evidence that this was the case.
11. Even so, given the passage of time, it is not possible for us to investigate what occurred when the tenancy began. However, the tenancy agreement clearly refers to support and counselling fees. Clarity about what this was, or what it entailed, could reasonably have been sought prior to the tenancy commencing.
12. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it appropriately explained why it could not remove the service, and why the charge would remain payable. In addition to this, the landlord documented that it also signposted the resident for financial assistance, which was declined.
13. It is unclear whether the landlord had any discussions with the resident about what she could do if she felt the property was not suited to her needs. This was a shortcoming and a missed opportunity to try to resolve her concerns. We have therefore recommended that the landlord takes such action now.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
15. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
16. The resident raised her complaint on 28 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 June 2024, 27 working days later. This was 22 working days later than required, to comply with the Code’s timescales. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the reason for this delay in its complaint responses to the resident and this was a failing.
17. The landlord has since identified this and told us it ought to have offered £100 compensation for the impact this failure had on the resident. This is a proportionate amount of compensation and in line with our remedies guidance.
18. However, the landlord failed to make this offer as part of its stage 2 response, and it is unclear why. It also failed to make the offer until 6 months after its final response was issued. Therefore, while the amount was proportionate, we cannot find that it was resolution focussed and took appropriate steps to put things right at the earliest opportunity. For that reason, we have found service failure.
19. Once it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint the landlord’s service improved, and it issued both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses in accordance with the Code’s timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Within our investigation, we did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping in this case. However, the resident has advised that there are some inaccuracies in its complaint responses. This included the number of visits made during the covid pandemic and its record that it issued an extra alarm pendant. We have, therefore, made a recommendation accordingly.

Communication

21. Communication with the resident has been positive. The landlord’s complaint responses have been empathetic and its offer of face-to-face meetings with its local warden have demonstrated its commitment to maintaining a positive relationship with the resident.