Amplius Living (202440913)

Decision
Case ID	202440913
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property since 2014. The resident’s brother also resides at the property. Her brother has a disability, and the resident provides care for her brother. In or around mid-2022, the resident’s neighbour’s partner moved into the neighbour’s property. From this time onwards, the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) including loud noises, abusive language, improper use of shared areas, and damage to fences. The lack of a resolution led to the resident’s complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about ASB.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about external repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision

4. We have made a finding of maladministration relation to the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about ASB.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about external repairs.
5. We have made a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

ASB

7. During the period of this investigation, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy, create a clear action plan that it kept regularly updated, or conduct a risk assessment despite multiple opportunities to do so. There were also multiple instances where it failed to respond to the resident’s reports in a detailed or timely manner. While there is some evidence of working with partner agencies, it has failed to demonstrate the extent to which this engagement has been meaningful.

Repairs

8. The landlord initially inspected the fence but failed to provide a position on repairs and responsibility for an unreasonable period of time, despite the resident chasing it. It also failed to complete repairs to the door for which it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time.

Complaints handling

9. The landlord missed the opportunity to open a complaint following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. It also delayed in its acknowledgments.

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 to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. It 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 £1,200, made up as follows: £800 for its failings relating to its response to reports of ASB. £400 for its failings relating to the repairs. 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 15 January 2026
3	ASB action order The landlord is to take the following action: It must provide an up-to-date action plan on any ongoing ASB, drafted in accordance with its ASB policy. The action plan should include an approach to gathering evidence and an explanation as to what possible outcomes/action can be taken. This should also include a position on Good Neighbour Agreements. It must complete an up-to-date risk assessment using its risk matrix. It must reiterate its offer to attend the property to witness the behaviours reported by the resident. It must reiterate its offer of mediation.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
1	The landlord should provide an update regarding its position on the neighbour’s use of CCTV. This should include an assessment of the view of these cameras and whether this is acceptable under the landlord’s policies.

 

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Early 2023	It is not disputed that the resident made reports of ASB throughout early 2023. These reports included loud noises, banging, abusive language, and DIY work at antisocial hours. They also included completing motorcycle repair work in shared walkways, causing damage to fence panels, and blocking parking access. Further, they included the use of drugs and allowing dogs to fight in communal areas. It is evident that the resident provided recordings of noise through the landlord’s noise app and also provided photo and video evidence. The resident made frequent reports and requested responses. However, it is not evident that the landlord replied to each of these or otherwise made arrangements for how it would respond.
July 2023	It is evident that the landlord visited the parties in July 2023. The resident noted that following this visit, her neighbour began to make abusive comments about her brother’s disability. She enquired as to whether the landlord had disclosed this information to the neighbour. It is not evident that the landlord replied at this time.
15 August 2023	The resident requested an update about the ASB issues. She also noted damage caused to her door handle. She noted that a surveyor had attended in July 2023 regarding her fence and shared access area, but she had not received any further updates. Around this time, the landlord confirmed it was reviewing the recordings provided and that it was seeking to visit the parties again.
9 October 2023	The landlord advised it would ensure the parked car blocking access to the resident’s driveway would be removed. It also advised it was considering available tenancy enforcement options against the neighbour.
29 February 2024	The evidence shows a letter was sent to the resident setting out how the landlord will assess noise. This service has not been provided with a copy of this letter.
5 March 2024	The landlord sent a warning letter to the resident regarding the use of CCTV. The resident subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with this letter and explained she only had a ‘live view’ camera within her property. She also requested more information about counter allegations made by the neighbour.
2 April 2024	The resident raised concerns about the damage to her fence and door, the landlord’s warning letter about the CCTV, and its handling of the ASB and its possible disclosure of personal information. She requested that repairs be completed, ASB action be taken, and for the boundary of the shared access area to be clearly defined.
17 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged that it had received a formal complaint (which it referred to as having been made on 11 April 2024).
30 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response which included the following: It assured the resident it was taking her ASB concerns seriously and proposed a meeting to discuss the type of evidence needed for it to seek further action. It also noted it had previously offered mediation, which the resident had declined. It encouraged her to reconsider this option. It noted the resident wanted the shared area archway doors to be replaced, and for her fence to be maintained. It responded that it would respond to any repairs reported to its repairs services. It also advised it would not install a boundary fence separating the shared area of the property as this would obstruct the neighbour’s parking.
10 May 2024	The landlord advised that the noise recordings it had received did not meet the threshold for noise nuisance. It advised it had sampled 60 recordings as part of its investigation. It noted the duration of noise and the time the noise was occurring as factors in reaching its decision. It nevertheless advised it would talk to the neighbour about their use of DIY tools. It also noted it offered to visit to witness the noise but that the resident had declined this offer. It additionally noted it had offered to arrange mediation, but this had also been declined. In the absence of further evidence, it would therefore close the case. It also signposted the resident to relevant support services.
24 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint.
4 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
11 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response which included the following: It advised that it had not shared any personal information with the neighbour. It noted the resident had declined invitations for it to visit witness the ASB and had also declined offers for mediation. It confirmed the offer of mediation remained open. It considered it had responded to all correspondence within its timeframes. It noted the resident’s concerns that it stated it had been working alongside the local authority’s environmental health team (EH), but that EH had informed the resident it had not been involved since July 2023. The landlord advised the resident to raise this concern with EH directly. It confirmed it was continuing to liaise with the police about a Community Protection Warning that had been issued in relation to the neighbour. It concluded that there had been no service failure and encouraged the resident to engage with it regarding any further meetings to discuss the ASB.
19 August 2024	It is evident the parties discussed the issues in August 2024, which the landlord followed up in writing. It noted the resident’s concerns about its staff member showing bias towards her and confirmed its position that while it was unable to review the parties’ communications as the calls were not recorded, its position was that the staff member was experienced and fair in their general approach. It also noted the police had issued a Community Protection Warning in relation to the neighbour. It had reached out to the police to discuss this further. In the meantime, it reiterated mediation and advised it did not have enough evidence to seek tenancy enforcement action. Finally, it noted it would reinspect the resident’s door and fence.
14 November 2024	It is evident the landlord conducted a case review where it was discussed that the police had now issued a Community Protection Notice due to the neighbour’s abusive language. The landlord subsequently sent a formal warning to the neighbour in January 2025.
January 2025	It is evident that the resident raised a further complaint about the ongoing ASB. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 on 23 January 2025 and at stage 2 on 11 February 2025.

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	ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

10. The period of the complaint referred to this service is taken to be the 12-month period prior to the resident raising a formal complaint until the landlord’s stage 2 response. That means that this investigation will go up until 19 August 2024, taking into account the landlord’s further related response following its stage 2 response in June 2024.
11. Some of the events following this date have been included for context; however, given that the period following the stage 2 response is the subject of a further complaint, it has been excluded from this investigation. These events and the resident’s further complaint have been separately referred to this service under reference number 202446183.

What we have looked at

12. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that when it receives a report of ASB, it will assess the vulnerability of the victims using a vulnerability matrix. It will also regularly update its risk assessment throughout the case. It will provide victims with a named case officer. It will agree an action plan, which will also be updated throughout the case. Furthermore, it will work with external parties to address ASB. Even where a report does not meet the threshold for ASB, it will still treat it as serious and take timely and effective action.
14. In this case, following the resident’s reports of ASB, it is understood that a case was opened, and the resident’s housing officer was given as the single person to communicate with about the reports. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy.
15. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the property. However, based on the evidence provided to this service, there was no vulnerability assessment conducted at any point. The first reference to a risk assessment comes as part of communications in 2025 relating to ongoing issues which are beyond the scope of this investigation. The landlord’s failure to conduct a risk assessment, despite being aware of vulnerabilities, was contrary to the requirements of its policy. It also meant it failed to document its understanding of the impact on the resident to help guide its response.
16. Additionally, it is evident that the nature of the ASB evolved to specifically target the resident’s brother’s vulnerabilities. This was a further opportunity for the landlord to keep its risk assessment updated, as per its policy. However, once again, there is no evidence it did so. It was not until its case closure letter some years later that it referenced support available to the resident. This was a considerable failing.
17. Following the initial reports, it is clear that the landlord discussed gathering evidence such as recordings. Such evidence greatly assists in it taking action, and it was reasonable that it requested this and explained about the use of its noise app. These actions form part of what should be expected in a formal action plan, as required by its policy. However, based on the evidence provided to this service, it did not complete or document a formal action plan following the initial reports. It is therefore not clear that it set the resident’s expectations as to how long the investigation would go on for, or what action it would consider based on the evidence. As a result, the resident was left to submit recording after recording and make report after report, without any direction as to how this evidence was being considered. This is a further considerable failing. Once again, it was not until later communications in 2024 and 2025 did the landlord start to seek to arrange a formal action plan.
18. Throughout late 2023 and early 2024, the resident sent over 20 reports. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord often did not respond. However, in its formal responses, the landlord insisted its responses had been in line with its policies. While it noted some instances of its responses, the resident’s experience, and the evidence we have seen show that its communication was not timely. When it did respond, it often left large amounts of the resident’s reports unaddressed, instead simply stating that it would pass the reports to its housing officer. Given the nature of the residents reports and the impact this was having on her, its infrequent and undetailed communication would have added to her distress.
19. Regarding recordings, it is clear that in May 2024, the landlord provided its position that these did not meet the threshold for noise nuisance. While this was not what the resident was expecting, it was appropriate that it explained its position to measure her expectations about what action it was able to take based on the evidence it had. It also noted it had sampled 60 recordings, which was appropriate and demonstrated it had been thorough. Furthermore, it noted it would nevertheless speak with the neighbour about the use of DIY equipment, which was appropriate. This was also in line with its policy to take action even where the reports did not meet the threshold of ASB.
20. It is clear that as part of its ongoing response, the landlord offered to attend to witness the noise. This was a reasonable offer and demonstrated it was seeking to support the resident and strengthen the evidence. Furthermore, it is clear it repeatedly offered mediation. The Ombudsman considers mediation to be an appropriate option in these circumstances, allowing the parties to be made aware of each other’s concerns and be more amenable to altering patterns of behaviour. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered and continues to offer to facilitate this.
21. However, the landlord appears to have relied on the fact that the resident has declined these steps as an explanation for why there is no further action it can take. While landlords cannot reasonably be expected to take formal action against tenants for noise that is considered everyday household noise, they should take such steps as are reasonably practicable to manage the situation to an amicable resolution. For example, the landlord could issue warning notices in response to complaints about noise from 11pm to 7am, even if that noise does not meet the threshold to be considered a statutory nuisance. It could also seek to implement Good Neighbour Agreements if necessary. Put simply, although a lack of statutory noise levels does limit a landlord’s options, particularly tenancy enforcement action, it does not absolve them of the requirement to explore other suitable resolutions.
22. The Ombudsman is concerned to note the tone used in the landlord’s stage 2 response when telling the resident “not to refuse any further meetings with [the housing officer] as suggested.” This approach comes across as heavy handed and not victim centred.
23. It is, therefore, all the more of a missed opportunity that the landlord failed to implement a formal action plan and utilise good communication from the beginning. This may have helped guide the resident’s understanding about what was achievable and what the best solutions were.
24. Part of the resident’s complaint related to concerns that the landlord had disclosed information about her brother’s disability. Ultimately, it cannot conclusively be known what was discussed between the case officer and the neighbour as there are no available records. However, it was reasonable that the landlord made relevant enquiries with the staff member and confirmed its position that it had not shared information. This response was appropriate in the circumstances.
25. The Ombudsman notes that the resident remains concerned about data breaches and similarly, her requests for data to be shared with her such as recordings. An assessment of data protection requirements is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman. Such an investigation is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). The resident has the option to discuss her concerns with the ICO if this remains an issue.
26. Another part of the resident’s complaint related to the counter allegations made against her and the warnings she received about the use of CCTV. This service has not been provided with either communication from the landlord. Nevertheless, it is reasonable for the landlord to bring to a resident’s attention any allegations made against them. However, it is also reasonable for it to provide details of the allegations to give the resident the opportunity to respond. It is not evident, despite repeated requests from the resident, that the landlord clearly explained the behaviours or actions it was warning the resident about. In one communication, it made a vague comment about the resident’s brother observing the neighbour through a window; however, this was not sufficient. Ultimately, it missed repeated opportunities to clearly define the behaviour it was seeking to manage.
27. Regarding the use of the CCTV, it is clear the resident disputes this allegation. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident about the use of CCTV in general, and for it to provide its position on the resident’s set up. It subsequently did not seek any further action against the resident. Additionally, it was appropriate that it agreed to review the neighbour’s use of CCTV, although it has not clear it has provided an update. A recommendation has therefore been made in relation to this.
28. A further part of the resident’s complaint related to clearly defining the boundary of a shared area. In this instance, the landlord appropriately addressed this concern in its formal response and explained the reasons why this would not be possible. This was a reasonable approach.
29. As noted above, the landlord will work with partner agencies to tackle ASB. It is clear that in or around July 2023, EH were involved. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted it had conducted a joint inspection with EH; however, the resident disputed that they had attended. She further noted EH had confirmed they had no further involvement, contrary to the landlord’s position. In such circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide evidence that it had been continuing to work alongside EH, as per its policy, or otherwise revise its position. Instead, it put the onus on the resident to chase this up directly with EH. This service has not been provided with any evidence that there was ongoing collaboration with EH, and the landlord’s failure to use the complaints process to justify its position was unreasonable.
30. Similarly, the resident made the landlord aware that the police had issued a Community Protection Warning. The landlord made the resident aware that it was challenging this warning, which would have caused her distress. It is not evident it had managed to discuss it with the police and so it was untactful to announce its challenge prior to fully understanding the police’s position. Additionally, while it was helpful that it advised the resident it was seeking to discuss the ASB with the police, it did not commit to any updates, nor is it evident that updates have since been provided.
31. In summary, there were positives in the landlord’s handling of the ASB. It opened ASB cases, assigned points of contact, reviewed recordings, offered mediation, and issued some warnings to the neighbours. However, there were failings too. It failed to follow its policy, create a clear action plan that it kept regularly updated, or conduct a risk assessment despite multiple opportunities. There were also multiple instances where it failed to respond to reports in a detailed or timely manner. While there is some evidence of working with partner agencies, it has failed to demonstrate the extent to which this engagement has been meaningful. This is especially concerning in relation to the police given the abusive nature of some of the language reported. Had it followed its policy more closely, it may have been able to take greater control over the situation and measured expectations more effectively. It would also have resulted in strong records for it to demonstrate its actions were reasonable and took all vulnerabilities into account. While it is evident its ongoing ASB actions have begun to include action plans and risk assessments, it remains the case that this was a failing during the period of this investigation.
32. Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made. Compensation of £800 has been ordered to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the to reflect the time and trouble she has spent chasing her concerns. While it may be the case that the resident’s more recent ASB cases have included an action plan and risk assessment, given that the landlord’s policy notes the importance that these be revisited, an order has also been made to provide an up-to-date action plan and risk assessment made using the landlord’s risk matrix.

Complaint	Repairs
Finding	Maladministration

33. The landlord’s repair policy notes that routine repairs may take from 28 to 90 calendar days, depending on the type of repair. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for external doors. It notes that it only covers boundary fences if they border a public footpath or access route.
34. It is evident that in or prior to July 2023, the resident reported concerns about damage caused to a boundary fence and to a door handle. Following such a report, it is reasonable for a landlord to arrange an inspection to determine the extent of the damage and its liability. In this case, the landlord appropriately arranged for a surveyor to inspect. This raised the resident’s expectation of a response; however, the landlord did not provide any update about its inspection. Even after the resident chased an update in August 2023, the landlord failed to provide a position on repairs. This was unreasonable.
35. In its formal response of April 2024 (some 9 months after the resident’s reports), the landlord had the opportunity to set out its understanding of the repair issues, what action it had taken, what it considered to be its responsibility, and what further action it intended to take. This would have represented a reasonable investigation of the complaint and would have demonstrated it was taking ownership of the matter. Instead, it simply advised that repair issued should be sent to its repair team. It did not even forward the issues onto this team on the resident’s behalf. This was an unacceptable response.
36. The landlord did not address the fence issues in its initial stage 2 response; however, it appropriately provided its position in its updated correspondence of 19 August 2024. At this time, given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, it confirmed it would reinspect the fence and doors. It also appropriately confirmed a timeframe for when this would occur (21 August 2024). However, although it noted it had determined that these issues weren’t a health and safety issue on its last inspection, it once again failed to provide a position on whether it was responsible for the repairs, which was a missed opportunity.
37. In its correspondence with this service, the landlord has advised that it was not responsible for any repairs to the fence. It nevertheless subsequently used its discretion to raise a repair. However, it has acknowledged that there were further delays to completing this repair which led it to have to chase its contractors. Additionally, it has acknowledged that its record keeping was inaccurate and that its contractor’s reports stated the fence was in a poor condition, whereas it did not consider the fence to be unsafe. It has recognised that improvements are required and has committed to reviewing the case to identify and enact relevant learning. The resident has confirmed that as of December 2025, the fence and door have been repaired (although she has noted ongoing dissatisfaction that the door was not replaced).
38. In summary, while the landlord initially raised an inspection within a reasonable timeframe, it repeatedly failed to provide the resident with an update as to the outcome of its inspection and its position on any repairs. This was despite her expending time and trouble chasing the issue and it having multiple opportunities to do so in its formal responses and other communications. It also failed to take ownership of the repairs as part of its complaint response. This meant it was well over a year before it determined to take action. While it was appropriate it later used its discretion to repair the fences, it was responsible for door repairs throughout, and it was unreasonable that it left the resident with a damaged door for such a period of time.
39. Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £400 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

40. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that a complaint can be an expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions. It will also acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days. These approaches are in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
41. The resident sent the landlord a detailed expression of dissatisfaction about its actions on 2 April 2024. In line with the landlord’s policy, it would have been reasonable to have accepted this a complaint or otherwise enquired as to whether the resident wished to raise a formal complaint. However, the landlord did not do this.
42. The landlord later sent an acknowledgement on 17 April 2024, which referred to a complaint dated 11 April 2024. This service has not been provided with any evidence of a complaint made on this date. This either points to an error in the landlord’s acknowledgement, or a record keeping failure. Either way, this inaccuracy has meant it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude the acknowledgement was in line with its policy and the Code.
43. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 May 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 24 May 2024. This was several days outside of the timeframes of its policy and the Code. Its stage 2 response, however, was provided within a reasonable timeframe following its acknowledgement.
44. In summary, there were some delays to the acknowledgements from the landlord. While these did not greatly impact the overall outcome of the complaint, they would nevertheless have caused frustration. A finding of service failure has therefore been made. As noted above, an apology has been ordered to recognise the distress and inconvenience this caused, and also relevant learning has been identified below.

Learning

45. The Ombudsman notes that in its communications with this service, the landlord has identified multiple areas for improvement with both its communication and record keeping. For example, it has noted the need for transparency with repair responsibilities, timely completion of repairs, improved accuracy in its records and communication, and training for relevant staff. It is positive that it has used this case to improve its service.
46. It is also noted from the evidence provided that in late 2024 and 2025, its ASB team noted the need for a formal action plan and risk assessment. However, there is further learning that the landlord can take from this case. In particular, ensuring that all actions are clearly documented and not just left up to the housing officer to verbally discuss. This approach has left the landlord unable to demonstrate its communication has been timely and appropriate and is an area for improvement.