Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Amplius Living (202423616)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423616

Amplius Living

5 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
    1. Resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 27 November 2006. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat. The resident has complex personality disorder, mobility issues, dexterity issues and asthma, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 13 August 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about grounds maintenance; the key points were as follows:
    1. The grounds had not been cut and looked a mess. Brambles were overgrown and pushing the fence, bushes were overgrown, and the edges were never trimmed back.
    2. He wanted the gardens cleared and maintained to a reasonable standard.
    3. He wanted reimbursement of the service charge for missed visits.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 August 2024 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2024; the key points were as follows:
    1. Its grounds maintenance contractor attended on 16 July 2024. The contractor had technical issues logging visits on its electronic devices, which meant it did not log all visits. It next planned to attend on 6 and 20 September 2024, weather permitting.
    2. It had asked the contractor to complete the full specification of works, leaving the areas clean and tidy afterwards. The grounds maintenance specification was a ‘cut and mulch service’.
    3. There had been many missed visits, for which it apologised. It would not make any financial adjustments for these until it reviewed its annual service charges.
    4. Its estates and services team would monitor the contractor’s performance via audits and onsite inspections. If it identified any issues, they would be rectified immediately.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2024; the key points were as follows:
    1. He was unhappy with the way the grounds were cut during the last visit.
    2. He was unhappy that the landlord would not reimburse service charges or provide a goodwill gesture for inconvenience caused.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 5 September 2024 and issued a stage 2 response on 11 September 2024; the key points were as follows:
    1. The contractor had resolved several issues that had impacted its service. This included appointing a subcontractor to enable it to complete the visits and work required until it recruited an additional permanent team, which it hoped to have in place from October 2024.
    2. The landlord was recruiting an additional estates officer to provide a better service to residents, including more site inspections to monitor the performance of contractors and ensure a high-quality standard of work.
    3. It had to follow its policy and procedure regarding service charge refunds. It would make any adjustments as part of its annual service charge review but could not issue direct refunds.
    4. It apologised for the poor service received and the distress and inconvenience caused.
    5. The resident could contact this Service if he remained unhappy.

Post Internal Complaints Process

  1. The resident referred his complaint to us on 11 September 2024. The complaint became one that we could consider on 11 March 2025.
  2. In response to our evidence request to the landlord on 26 March 2025, the landlord has told us that it has no evidence that it completed site visits to monitor grounds maintenance. Also in response to our evidence request, the landlord has stated it would like to offer the resident £250 compensation, comprising of £150 for its record keeping and £100 for potentially failing to provide grounds maintenance.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s grounds maintenance schedule says contractors will attend 18 times during the spring/summer season from April to October and 4 times during winter, from November to February.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. On 13 August 2024, the resident complained about the standard of grounds maintenance. A landlord is entitled to rely on information provided by its contractors. It said its contractor had attended a few weeks prior and would next visit on 6 and 20 September 2024. However, the contractor had not been able to record all visits due to technical issues. The landlord explained the service that the resident should expect and apologised for many missed visits. It said it would monitor the contractor’s performance and rectify any issues immediately, which was reasonable in the circumstances. We consider that the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns and explaining how it would ensure that grounds maintenance was of the expected standard moving forward.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to refund service charges for grounds maintenance visits that had not taken place. The landlord said it would make any adjustments as part of its annual service charge review. This was in line with its variable service charge policy, which says it will review actual costs against the budget once a year and provide residents with annual accounts showing any surplus or deficit amount carried forward. Therefore, we are satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s refund request.
  4. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said he was unhappy with the way the grounds were cut. The landlord explained that the contractor had experienced several issues but had appointed a subcontractor to help complete grounds maintenance until it recruited an additional permanent team. To ensure that residents received a high-quality service, the landlord was also recruiting an additional estates officer to inspect grounds maintenance work. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to monitor and resolve the issue.
  5. Although its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses committed to completing site visits to monitor grounds maintenance, the landlord confirmed to this Service in response to our request for evidence on 26 March 2025 that it has no evidence that it did this. Also in response to our request for evidence, the landlord confirmed it would like to offer the resident £150 compensation for its poor record keeping and £100 compensation for potentially failing to provide grounds maintenance. The total of £250 compensation falls in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact. However, the landlord’s offer, whilst welcome, was in response to our request for information and has therefore not prevented a finding of maladministration given its failure to demonstrate learning from the complaint and embed this in its processes going forward.
  6. The landlord has since told us that it has changed its grounds maintenance management team to ensure that regular visits do take place. Where visits are missed, it will ask the contractor to make these up before the end of the financial year. If this is not possible, it will ensure that residents have not paid for any missed visits when it completes its annual review of service charges. We are satisfied that this demonstrates that the landlord has learned from failing to embed a process that it had previously committed to. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further determination on this point.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded to the initial complaint and escalation requests within its policy timescales, which was appropriate. However, in the resident’s escalation request, he requested a refund of service charges as the service was not delivered and, further, he was not offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it can consider offering compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to its action or inaction. Its lack of grounds maintenance prompted the resident to complain, which likely caused him inconvenience. When the landlord reviewed this during its complaints process, it should have considered awarding compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. In not doing so, the landlord failed to comply with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where available.
  2. Both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses stated its estates team would conduct site visits to closely monitor the performance of contractors and ensure the full specification of works was delivered to a high standard. However, the landlord has confirmed in its response to our evidence request that it has no evidence that it completed site visits to monitor grounds maintenance. Section 7.3 of the Code sets out that any remedy proposed by the landlord must be followed through to completion. That the landlord subsequently failed to monitor the performance of its grounds maintenance contractors despite the assurances provided in its complaint responses is a further failing, which has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the standard and frequency of grounds maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Confirm when the resident can expect the outcome of its review of annual service charges including any adjustments made in relation to failed grounds maintenance visits, if it has not already done this.
    3. Pay compensation totalling £350, comprised as follows:
      1. £150 for its record keeping failure.
      2. £100 for potentially failing to provide grounds maintenance.
      3. £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failure.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.