Amplius Living (202414643)

Decision
Case ID	202414643
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her children. The tenancy started in December 2021. The resident complained that she found asbestos in her garden, the garden needed repairs, and that her front door was damaged.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the removal of asbestos from the garden.
   2. repairs to the garden.
   3. repairs to the front door.
   4. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of:
   1. the removal of asbestos from the garden.
   2. repairs to the garden.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. repairs to the front door.
   2. the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. It took the landlord repeated visits to remove the asbestos from the garden over a 2-year timeframe. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the overall delays and communication.
6. The repairs to the garden took too long and the landlord failed to appropriately communicate about the delays.
7. The landlord competed the replacement front door as promised. However, it did not explain or acknowledge the delay to raising the work.
8. The landlord took too long to respond at stage 1. It failed to remedy this in its complaint responses.

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 16 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident further compensation of £600 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the removal of asbestos from the garden. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the garden. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the front door. £50 for its poor 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 16 December 2025
3	The landlord is to inspect the garden and obtain a certificate of reoccupation issued by an independent third-party laboratory in line with the compliance activities set out in its asbestos management procedure. The landlord is to ensure that: It confirms with the third party how to take the sample from in the garden, if that service is not provided by the laboratory. The outcome is shared with the resident. This is to include an action plan, in the event of asbestos still being present, setting out the steps it will take, including a risk assessment, and the timescale to obtain the necessary independent certificate of reoccupation	No later than 16 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 June 2022	The resident reported finding asbestos in her garden. The landlord’s contractor removed it in July 2022 but further work was needed to clear more potential asbestos. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint that month, which the landlord did not uphold.
March 2023	The landlord completed further work. This included turning over the topsoil to expose asbestos debris and remove; levelling the garden; and removing overgrown shrubs, greenery and a tree.
26 May 2023	The landlord paid the resident £750 compensation and closed a stage 1 complaint from April 2023 which included repairs to the front door and the garden work.
31 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about the delays to the garden repairs and requested compensation.
5 September 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said it would complete repairs to the garden on 20 September 2023. It would then complete an inspection to identify any damage to the path and raise any work to rectify.
4 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because the issues in the garden were not resolved. She said it was unsafe for her child due to asbestos debris, and she had an issue with the front door.
4 July 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response stated it raised works whenever issues were reported, including some outside its responsibility. Additional work required quotes and approval, causing delays. It noted the front door was repaired in May 2023, and no further issues were reported until April 2024. The landlord admitted poor communication about garden works and confirmed further asbestos removal and garden levelling were arranged. It had paid £700 compensation in a previous complaint and offered an additional £200 for distress and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the final response and brought the complaint to us. She told us the garden works and front door were completed in September 2024. She remained unhappy with the compensation offered. She said the garden had not been safe for her child to use, and the damaged front door was draughty resulting in higher heating bills.

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	Handling of the removal of asbestos from the garden
Finding	Maladministration

9. The HHSRS identifies 29 common hazards, including those from the presence of asbestos. Landlords must ensure homes are hazard-free and are legally required to manage asbestos.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it attended whenever the resident reported the issue to it. On 28 June 2022, the resident’s contractor found broken asbestos tiles in the garden. The landlord accepted responsibility. The landlord’s asbestos management procedure does not specifically deal with asbestos found in gardens. However, there are steps of the procedure the landlord should have applied. It says that all suspicious materials will be treated as asbestos without testing and removed under controlled conditions by a licensed asbestos removal contractor. The landlord arranged for a licensed contractor to remove the asbestos on 28 July 2022, in line with its procedure.
11. Its asbestos procedure says it will carry out an initial inspection for damage and disturbance of materials and take immediate action to control these. The first attendance by a contractor on 28 July 2022 should have sufficiently assessed the extent and risk of asbestos and adequately resolved the matter. This did not happen. The resident had to make repeated reports and the landlord made repeated visits.
12. It’s unclear when the landlord agreed work with the resident to turn over the topsoil and remove remaining asbestos following its initial attendance. Records show it requested a quote in October 2022, raised the job in January 2023, and completed it in March 2023. There is no evidence it updated the resident about these delays.
13. On 4 June 2024, the resident reported more asbestos in the garden. The landlord inspected on 19 June and arranged removal. Records show its contractor completed the work on 17 September 2024 alongside garden repairs.
14. It took the landlord over two years to fully remove asbestos from the garden. In its final response. It explained asbestos appeared during garden works and denied any evidence of poor previous removal. Contractor reports and certificates confirmed all asbestos identified was removed each time it was found. However, it is not clear if reoccupation certificates were provided by independent third-party laboratories in line with the compliance activities in the landlord’s asbestos procedure.
15. There is no evidence the landlord knew about asbestos in the garden before the resident’s report. Its earlier asbestos management surveys show no assessments of the garden area, or records of asbestos in that area.
16. In its final response, the landlord said the asbestos likely came from broken cement roofing and posed very low risk. It assured the resident that any further debris would be removed and disposed of. This was in line with the information currently on its website about the action it will take if asbestos is reported. It is unclear if the landlord told the resident the asbestos found and removed was low risk before its final response. The resident said the garden felt unsafe for her child. The landlord should have shared this information earlier, along with the contractor’s findings about the type of asbestos and a risk assessment. Its asbestos procedure says it will carry out a risk assessment. The landlord did not provide evidence it did this.
17. The landlord took over two years and repeated visits to fully remove asbestos from the garden. While the landlord assured the resident that any further found would be removed and disposed of. It could not guarantee that she would not find further debris. Its contractor provided reoccupation certificates for the asbestos removal in July 2022 and March 2023. However, there is no evidence the reoccupation certificates were issued by independent third-party laboratories or following the work in September 2024.
18. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged communication failures and the distress caused. It offered an extra £200, noting £700 had already been offered at a stage 1 in 2023, though it was unclear how much of that related to asbestos issue. Additional compensation has been ordered in line with our remedies guidance for where compensation is not proportionate to the failings we have identified.

Complaint	Repairs to the garden
Finding	Maladministration

19. After a previous stage 1 complaint in April 2023, the landlord arranged to re-bed a manhole cover, renew rear gully surrounds, and remove the rear path and patio, infilling with topsoil.
20. In its final response on 4 July 2024, the landlord said it completed garden work in April 2023 which was normally the resident’s responsibility. Including removing trees, shrubs, and levelling. It considered this when calculating compensation. The tenancy and repairs policies state residents are responsible for gardens, including hedges and trees. However, as noted earlier, the landlord had to turn over topsoil and remove asbestos. Internal correspondence from January 2023 confirmed the quote included this additional work as part of this.
21. The landlord said it had not received a formal assessment or request from an Occupational Therapist (OT) about the resident’s request for a flat surface for her daughter to access the garden safely. It confirmed it raised repairs to resolve the issues with the path and patio on 14 June 2023 following a query from an OT about the work being a repair on 9 June 2023. We have not seen this correspondence. The landlord’s repair policy says it is responsible for pathways to provide access for the back door. The work was completed on 25 September 2023. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with this and said the garden remained uneven and unsafe.
22. There was no evidence of the landlord receiving formal recommendations from an OT. However, the resident had provided an email from a physiotherapist in April 2023. This explained her child’s difficulty with uneven surfaces and requested a path/flat surface for them to access the garden safely. The landlord did not act in accordance with its disability adaptions, assistance and equipment policy. This says it will help residents understand how to reach out to OT services.
23. The landlord acknowledged that it missed an opportunity to investigate any adaptions needed. In its final response it offered a visit by its accessibility team to discuss support with an OT assessment.
24. In its stage 1 response on 5 September 2023, the landlord said garden works would be completed by 20 September. It said it would then assess the path for damage. There is no evidence it completed this. The landlord failed to prioritise works as promised at stage 1. This was a failure particularly given the resident’s concerns about safety.
25. The resident chased the landlord for updates after an inspection on 4 December 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an update on the work until its final response on 4 July 2024. The work to the garden was completed in September 2024. The timeframe was excessive and communication was poor. The resident told us she lost the use of her garden while the work was outstanding.
26. The landlord said additional garden works required internal authorisation, causing delays. In its final response, it admitted its communication fell below standards and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £200 relating to the garden works and also the asbestos. It said it had also considered the £700 compensation previously paid in a stage 1 response in May 2023. Overall, the compensation offered did not go far enough to reflect the failings we have identified.

Complaint	Repairs to the front door
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

27. The resident made a previous stage 1 complaint in April 2023 about a repair to the front door raised in March 2023. There is no evidence the resident raised this complaint to stage 2. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

What we did investigate

28. The landlord did not provide evidence of the resident’s initial report about the front door. Its notes from a call with the resident on 26 May 2023 stated she was happy with the repair to the front door raised in March 2023. There is no evidence that the resident raised the issue again with the landlord before April 2024.
29. In its final response on 4 July 2024, the landlord said it raised a job to replace the front door on 14 June 2024. This was over two months after the resident reported the issue on 4 April 2024. It stated the work would be completed by 21 October within planned timescales. The resident said the repair was done in September 2024, making the overall timeframe five months.
30. The landlord’s repairs policy excludes items beyond economic repair from responsive repairs. It lists external doors as major works under planned maintenance. However, neither its policies nor final response confirmed timescales for planned works. Given the door was reported as unsafe, it was unreasonable not to inspect or consider a temporary repair. The resident said the door was drafty during this period, increasing heating costs.
31. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord replaced the door as promised. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had acted within a reasonable timeframe following her reports in April 2024 about the front door.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

32. 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 is the 2022 and 2024 editions. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 within 10 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has a complaints procedure which complies with these timescales.
33. The resident previously raised a stage 1 complaint about asbestos and garden repairs. The landlord closed this on 26 May 2023 after she accepted compensation. When she complained again on 31 July 2023 about the continuation of the outstanding garden repairs and asbestos, the landlord opened a new complaint. There was no evidence of the resident asking to escalate her previous stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s policy does not state a timeframe for escalation requests. However, its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023 asked the resident to escalate this within a month.
34. Its final response on 4 July 2024 included the previous reports and complaints. This was in line with its complaints policy which says where the problem is a recurring issue, it will consider any older reports as part of the background.
35. The landlord raised the stage 1 complaint on 31 July 2023. There was no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days at set out in its complaints procedure and the Code.
36. The landlord took 26 working days to respond at stage 1. This did not meet the timescales in its complaint procedure or the Code. On 21 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension. However, it did not give an expected response timescale in line with the Code. As a result, the resident did not know when she would receive this. There is also no evidence the landlord acknowledged or updated the resident before this.
37. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 June 2024. It provided its stage 2 response 20 working days later. The timeframes were inline with its policy and the Code.
38. The landlord failed to acknowledge or remedy its delayed response at stage 1 in its complaint handling.

Learning

39. The landlord provided no evidence that it acknowledged the stage 1 complaint or gave a clear response timescale after agreeing to an extension. It should ensure staff understand the Code requirements, especially the need to acknowledge complaints

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord did not provide full records of the reports from the resident or the repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlords ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

41. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the progress and delays to the repairs and asbestos removal. A recommendation has been made for it to review its staff training.