Amplius Living (202422555)

 

Decision
Case ID	202422555
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident moved into a new build 2 bedroom bungalow in December 2022. She is disabled. She complained about multiple defects in the property and was unhappy with how long the landlord was taking to rectify them. She also felt the compensation offered was too low.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Defects to the front door.
   2. Repairs to the back light.
   3. Defects affecting the garden and gate.
   4. Defects with the roof tiles.
   5. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of defects to the front door.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the back light.
   3. The landlord provided reasonable redress to its handling of defects to the garden and gate.
   4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defects with the roof tiles.
   5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of defects to the front door and back light

4. The landlord delayed in replacing the front door. While it acknowledged this in its complaint response, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. 
5. The landlord failed to complete the repair to the back light in line with its repairs policy. While it acknowledged this in its complaint response, its offer of compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances. 

The handling of defects to the garden and gate

6. The landlord delayed investigating the resident’s concerns with the garden and the gate. However, it put things right in its final complaint response.

The handling of defects with the roof tiles

7. The landlord completed this repair within a reasonable timescale.

The handling of the complaint

8. The landlord delayed in providing its complaint responses. While it appropriately acknowledged some failings in handling of matters, there was a lack of clarity around the remedies it had offered.

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 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the door defect. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the light repair. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. 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.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 compensation it offered in recognition of repair failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because we made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis it paid this.
The landlord should remind complaint handlers about the importance of including breakdowns of compensation amounts in complaints where there are multiple issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 March 2023	The resident complained that the landlord had not fixed her front door despite her reporting this “months ago”.
November 2024	The landlord/developer carried out a defect inspection. It considered concerns about the roof tiles, the garden and the gate amongst other issues which are not part of this complaint.
11 January 2024	The resident made a formal complaint. She was unhappy that the door repairs remained outstanding. She also complained about a broken light at the back of her garden
14 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: It had repaired the light in the back garden on 19 February 2024. It was waiting for the developer to fit the correct door after it ordered the wrong one. The developer inspected the garden and did not find any defects, but the landlord would send its own surveyor to inspect the garden.   On the same day the resident escalated her complaint as she felt the landlord had failed to resolve the defects in line with its published timescales. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint and said it would consider compensation as part of its stage 2 investigation.
18 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It did not raise the light repair as a defect, but instead as an in-house repair. The developer said the roof tiles were lowered but they were secure and would not cause any structural damage. As a result, there was nothing further it could do as it was considered to be aesthetic. Its own surveyor inspected the garden and the gate on 17 April 2024. It advised that there was no “fundamental issue” with either to warrant any further works. Following further delays and another incorrect door order, a new door was installed on 11 June 2024. It would complete a post-inspection to ensure it was fitted correctly. It wanted to learn lessons from its handling of complaints, and it was expanding its teams and contractors to meet and deliver quality services. It offered compensation comprising of: £50 for a late stage 1 response. £150 for a late stage 2 response. £200 for delays with the door. £400 for overall distress and inconvenience caused for pending repairs.
18 June 2024	The developer inspected the door and confirmed it was operating as expected with no difficulty.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was not satisfied the landlord resolved the issues relating to the garden and the gate. She also felt the landlord’s offer of compensation was not enough compared to the distress and inconvenience caused.
24 November 2025	The landlord has confirmed it will raise further repairs for: Readjustment of roof tiles. Front door overhaul, adjusted and renewal of draught excluders. Garden to be levelled as much as possible. Soakaway extended to the length of the property.

 

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	Defects to the front door
Finding	Service failure

9. The resident complained about issues with the front door in or around December 2022 shortly after she moved into the property on a defects list. The landlord misplaced this list which added the delay in dealing with this issue. It was not logged by the landlord as an issue until the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 31 March 2023. While it raised a job for this repair quickly, it was not until 19 May 2023 that it agreed to inspect the property. It is unclear why the landlord could not complete the inspection sooner. As a result, the repair remained outstanding nearly 6 months later.
10. On 23 May 2023, the developer informed the landlord that the door and frame needed adjusting. However, when the landlord chased the developer for updates on 14 June 2023, it was notified that it was waiting for a new door which would take 8 to 10 weeks. Therefore, it appears a decision was taken that a new door was needed. The landlord appropriately updated the resident with this.
11. The landlord appropriately chased the developer for updates about the door in July 2023 and August 2023. There was some confusion about an appointment scheduled on 28 August 2023, which was a bank holiday. However, the developer confirmed an appointment had been made on 28 September 2023. Again, the landlord appropriately updated the resident about this. However, there is no information about what happened on 28 September 2023. Later records suggest the developer did not take correct measurements and it needed to order another door. This error added to further delays as the lead time from the manufacturer was 10 weeks.
12. The landlord proactively chased the developer for updates about the door in October 2023 and November 2023. The developer said it would replace the door on 24 November 2023. However, this did not transpire, and the resident informed the landlord that no job had been booked in. The landlord appropriately chased the matter, and the developer attempted to fit the door on 4 January 2024. However, the handle was on the wrong side, so again a new door had to be ordered for a second time adding a further 10 week delay.
13. The landlord appropriately chased the developer on 14 February 2024; however, it advised that it had ordered the wrong door again. It subsequently confirmed that the door was expected in early May. The landlord continued to chase the developer for updates about the door in May. The door was replaced on 11 June 2024. This was almost 18 months after the resident raised the issue. This represented a significant delay and was not in accordance with its repairs policy.
14. The overall handling of the repairs was largely impacted by the developer’s errors. We appreciate the landlord faced challenges with the developer and many of the delays were outside of its control. It was positive that the landlord:
    1. Regularly chased the developer for updates.
    2. Considered making a complaint against the developer.
    3. Explored other options such as contacting its own repairs team and considered sourcing the door elsewhere.
    4. Contacted the resident to update her about the door.
15. However, we are unable to find that the landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaint because we do not consider its offer of compensation to be proportionate. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we will order a further £200 compensation to in addition to the £200 it offered. This is to recognise the lengthy delay and the impact on the resident who has vulnerabilities and found it difficult to operate the door.
16. We also understand that the new door does not operate as it should. We have not assessed the landlord’s response to this given that the events are recent and were not part of this complaint. However, the landlord has told us it has agreed to do an overhaul of the door and renew the draught excluders. If the resident remains unhappy with the situation, she may wish to raise a new complaint accordingly.

Complaint	Repairs to the back light
Finding	Service failure

17. The resident first reported an issue with her motion sensor back light on 20 September 2023. This was within the defects period, however there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this or why it did not log the repair at this point. This was a failing because the resident also raised concerns about security due to the light being faulty.
18. The resident raised the issue again on 9 January 2024, in her complaint and then again on 6 February 2024. It was after this that the landlord raised a repair and fixed the light on 19 February 2024. In line with its repairs policy, it should have completed this in 28 calendar days. It was unreasonable for it to take 5 months to complete a routine repair and there is no evidence to suggest this delay was unavoidable.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and awarded £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience for all the outstanding repairs. While this was reasonable, without a breakdown, it is not possible to know how the landlord apportioned this or establish what factors it considered to arrive at a figure of £400. We have therefore made the decision to replace the landlord’s offer and have ordered £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the light repair. This takes into account the length of the time taken to complete the repair and the impact of this delay on the resident. 

Complaint	Defects in the garden and gate
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The resident reported concerns that her garden was sinking, and the gate post was loose on 25 August 2023. She repeated these concerns on 14 January 2024 adding that the lawn gets “waterlogged”. She felt because the garden sloped, it was not draining well. She added it was also impacting her use of the garden, as she had slipped and fallen. These issues appear have been considered during a defect inspection in November 2023. However, we have not been provided with this inspection report, so it is not clear what conclusions, if any, were reached at this inspection. A later note suggests the landlord agreed to revisit the area when the ground was not frozen. While it was reasonable for it to do so, it is unclear why it did not tend to these issues when they were reported in 2023, before the onset of the winter months. This was a missed opportunity for it to address the resident’s concerns sooner.
21. Records indicate that the developer informed the landlord that it inspected the garden and deemed it to have no issues. The developer stated it completed the gate post repair on 18 March 2024. There is no contemporaneous evidence relating to this visit. However, the resident disputed that the issues were resolved. Following this the landlord appropriately arranged for its own surveyor to look at both issues on 17 April 2024. This showed that despite the developer’s findings, it was taking her concerns seriously and was prepared to investigate the matter itself.
22. The surveyor reported that the garden had sunk around the edges by about 5 inches and explained that these issues can happen with properties of such an age. The surveyor stated that there was no “fundamental” issue with the garden or the gate and that the property should be reassessed by the housing team if the sloped garden was not suitable for the resident’s needs. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its surveyor. We appreciate there was a period where the ground was frozen which added to the delay in investigating this issue. However, we do not consider 8 months to be proportionate delay for the issues at hand. 
23. It was positive that the landlord identified failings and attempted to put things right by offering £400 in its stage 2 response. As mentioned, it is unclear how the landlord reached this figure – and it is noted that it took into account the other repair issues that had been raised. However, we consider £400 to be proportionate level of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of this matter specifically. It is also broadly in line with an award we may have otherwise made under our Remedies Guidance for maladministration.

Complaint	Defects with the roof tiles
Finding	No maladministration

24. It is not clear when the resident raised concerns about her roof tiles. However, it appears there was a defect inspection in November 2024 which included roof tiles that were lifting and not sitting flush. The landlord attended on 13 December 2023. The tile was lowered but it could not be fixed to sit completely flat. It was noted that the tiles were secure and that it would not cause any structural damage. The issue of the tiles was considered to be aesthetic only, meaning while it did not look flush they were working effectively.
25. We understand that the resident did not accept this resolved the issue. However, the landlord inspected the roof within a reasonable period and confirmed it not to be an issue. While this was disappointing for the resident to learn, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of the inspector. Furthermore, when the resident explained she was concerned about it causing a leak, the landlord responded reasonably by advising her to report it as a repair, if that were to happen. As a result, we have found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this repair.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. 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 April 2022 edition for the stage 1 response and the 2024 edition for the stage 2 response. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It states that it will issue its stage 1 response in 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
27. The landlord did not comply with these timeframes at either stage. It took 41 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 57 working days to issue its stage 2 response. It also took 8 working days to provide a stage 2 acknowledgement. The landlord also contacted the resident to obtain extensions on a number of occasions before issuing responses. While the delay was extensive, it was good practice for it to request extensions and keep the resident updated.  
28. However, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress as its total offer of compensation was to cover all the pending repairs and there is ambiguity over how much was apportioned to each defect/repair issue. Instead, we will make a finding of service failure. Where a complaint refers to multiple repairs or defects, we would encourage the landlord to provide a breakdown as to how any compensation has been calculated. Not only is such practice transparent, but it demonstrates the factors that have been taken into consideration and may result in a complainant feeling more accepting of any offers that are made.
29. The landlord appropriately acknowledged delays in its stage 2 response. It offered £50 compensation for the stage 1 delay and £150 compensation for the stage 2 delay. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that the overall amount offered was proportionate to the delays and the failings identified. Therefore, we do not order it pay anything further.

Learning

30. The landlord faced challenges in getting updates and communicating with the developer. It is positive that its development team is continually reviewing the developers’ performance.
31. Where a complaint refers to multiple repairs or defects, the landlord should consider providing more specific breakdowns for compensation in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

32. The landlord’s record keeping and communication in this case was mostly appropriate. It was positive to see the landlord sharing updates with the resident in a timely manner, especially when the news was not positive. However, it should consider what evidence it requests from developers when they inspect defects which the landlord may subsequently rely on.