Amplius Living (202440895)

Background

1. The resident and her husband are joint tenants of the property under a rent-to-buy agreement. For ease, we will refer to the joint tenants as “the resident” throughout this report. The resident reported an ongoing leak in the shower area to the landlord. She is unhappy with how the landlord handled this and does not believe it to be resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of a leak.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not carry out the inspection agreed in its stage 2 response. It did not resolve the underlying issue and failed to respond to emails.
6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its own policies and the Complaint Handling Code.

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 have not looked at

7. The resident first reported the shower leak in June 2023 and raised a stage 1 complaint about this in July 2023. As that complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal process, we cannot assess its findings. These historical issues provide context for the current complaint. However, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 2024 onwards, which were considered in the landlord’s completed complaint response.
8. The resident told us that her husband’s mental health has been impacted by the ongoing issue with the shower. We acknowledge the resident’s comments, but it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We’ve not investigated this further. We will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

What we have looked at

9. On 19 February 2024 the resident reported leaking behind the tiles in the bathroom and told the landlord this was not the first time she had raised the issue. The landlord booked a repair for 27 February 2024 but this was cancelled due to staff absence. The landlord called the resident and rebooked the appointment for 5 March 2024. While we understand the frustration caused by a late cancellation, the landlord rearranged the appointment quickly and attended within the 28-day timescale set out in its Repairs and Maintenance policy.
10. On 5 March 2024 the landlord attended and noted a small watermark at the side of the shower. It could not locate a leak and advised the resident to monitor the situation. It was reasonable for the landlord not to carry out further work at this stage because no leak was identified.
11. On 16 April 2024 the resident called to report that the shower screen bolts had water marks, and she could smell damp in the bathroom. The resident thought there was water behind the tiles. The landlord attended on the 21 May 2024 and noted staining to the side of the shower but said there was no change since the previous visit. A follow-on appointment was raised to check the tiles. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange further checks given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
12. On 19 June 2024 the contractor attended a follow-on appointment. They removed the shower screen and sealed it to the wall after identifying the issue: water was getting behind the shower screen and through screw holes in the wall. The job note says the tiles appeared to be in good condition, but the resident wanted them removed and replaced. At this point, the contractor noted that redecorating was needed, including flaking paint and skirting that might need replacing. There is no evidence the resident was told this was her responsibility as detailed in her tenancy agreement and the Repairs and Maintenance policy, and this was raised in a later complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the problem and treat the area it believed the leak was coming from. However, as the resident was told the follow-on works would check behind the tiles, the landlord should have explained why it did not do this, as required by its Repairs and Maintenance policy, which aims to achieve high standards of customer care and satisfaction.
13. The resident raised a complaint about ongoing water damage in the bathroom since moving in. During the landlord’s acknowledgement call the resident said she wanted to buy the property under the rent-to-buy scheme and needed the issues resolved before making this commitment. Although the timing of the resident’s decision to purchase the property was outside the landlord’s responsibilities, the resident’s intention to buy the property made timely resolution more important to them.
14. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it had attended repair appointments promptly and efficiently. It also confirmed it would arrange a surveyor inspection to see what other works were required. While it was reasonable for the landlord to propose a surveyor visit to review the situation, the response did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about repeated issues or the impact these had on her plans to buy the property. This lack of recognition caused frustration and left the resident feeling her concerns were not fully understood.
15. After the stage 1 response, the resident asked for copies of contractor reports because she believed the wrong trade had attended on more than one occasion. There is no evidence these reports were shared with the resident, or an explanation was provided if they could not be shared. This lack of information reduced her confidence in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
16. On 28 November 2024 the surveyor visited and inspected the bathroom. The notes state that all repairs were completed in June 2024 and that there were no further watermarks since then. The landlord believed the leak was resolved and suggested monitoring the damage for 3 months. If no further damage appeared, the landlord would provide a decorating pack. After the visit, the resident emailed the landlord and shared images she felt showed increasing water damage. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these emails. While it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend monitoring based on its inspection, it should have responded to the resident’s follow-up concerns and photos. Failing to address this left the resident feeling her concerns were not taken seriously.
17. After the landlord’s inspection the landlord failed to respond to emails, and follow-up concerns. These delays created added effort for the resident, who had to chase updates several times by phone and email.
18. On 23 December 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had to contact the landlord several times to arrange the surveyor’s visit, disputed the findings of the visit, and had not received the requested repair reports or responses to emails it had sent. The landlord stage 2 response said it had reviewed the resident’s images and agreed with the findings that no further work was required. The landlord confirmed it would reattend in March 2025 to review the area, but at this stage, no additional works would be carried out. It stated there was no record of an agreement to decorate and that decorating is the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement. The landlord said it did not find any delay in arranging the surveyor’s appointment. It acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s emails, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to review the images and plan a further visit. However, its response did not address the resident’s concerns about the requested reports which likely caused frustration.
19. Throughout January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to say she was concerned the water damage was getting worse. She also disputed receiving the calls that were detailed in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord replied with copies of its call logs and passed the resident’s concerns to its surveyor. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide evidence of its call attempts and escalate the concerns to the surveyor. However, the resident’s repeated reports of worsening damage suggest she did not feel reassured by the landlord’s approach.
20. When the landlord responded to our evidence request, it acknowledged additional points. It said that despite multiple visits to address the reported leak, it could not identify the source or resolve the issue in a timely manner. The landlord accepted that the delay was not adequately considered during the complaint investigation and that it did not monitor where a re-evaluation investigation was carried out. The landlord confirmed it has completed a lessons-learned review to embed improvements in future service delivery. The resident told us the bathroom issues are still ongoing and that the landlord had not contacted her for some time. This left her without certainty about when the problem would be fixed and caused continued inconvenience in her home. The landlord contacted her on 13 January 2026 to arrange a new inspection, which is a positive step, but it came only after our involvement. This shows the landlord did not act proactively to manage the outstanding repair.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to reattend in March 2025 to assess if further works were needed, but it did not do so. This broken commitment prolonged uncertainty and undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaint process.
22. The resident told us she reported the issue again in June 2025 and that the landlord carried out some works after this. She said the problem is still not resolved. These works took place after the landlord completed its complaint process, and the landlord did not provide full records of what it did or what the outcomes were. As we do not hold this evidence, we cannot assess the landlord’s actions any further. If the resident has ongoing concerns about the more recent works, she can ask the landlord to review these as a new complaint.
23. Despite multiple visits, the landlord did not resolve the underlying issue or provide clear advice on next steps, such as confirming responsibilities for redecorating and giving timescales for any further checks. The ongoing lack of resolution and communication caused confusion and additional time and effort for the resident, including chasing emails, sharing photos, and taking time off work for repeat appointments.
24. On 13 January 2026 the resident told us the landlord contacted them and offered an inspection and £800 compensation. Its complaints policy says it will consider awards over £600 where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant. It would not be proportionate to order further compensation. However, this does not change our finding of maladministration because the landlord only made this offer after the complaint was escalated to us.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy meets the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). Our review shows that:
    1. the landlord issued its stage 1 response within 3 working days (5 November 2024 to 8 November 2024), which was within the 10 working days allowed under the Code
    2. the landlord issued its stage 2 response within 12 working days (23 December 2024 to 10 January 2025), which was within the 20 working days allowed under the Code.
26. The landlord told us it did not fully recognise the impact of the delay when it responded to the complaint. It has acknowledged this in its lessons‑learned review. We have assessed this issue earlier in the report.

Learning

27. The landlord should ensure commitments are monitored and delivered, to maintain trust and avoid prolonged uncertainty.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Whilst the landlord’s record keeping was good with details of repairs carried out and resident contact, the resident had to chase for copies of repair reports. There is no evidence these were provided. This gap undermines transparency and can reduce trust in the landlord’s service.

Communication

29. The landlord did not respond to emails or follow‑up concerns, and it did not provide clear explanations after inspections. These gaps in communication meant it missed opportunities to set out its position clearly and to manage expectations during the repair process. It is positive that the landlord has carried out a lessons‑learned review, which should help improve its communication and service delivery in future cases.