Amplius Living (202452702)

Decision
Case ID	202452702
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 March 2026

Background

The resident lives with her husband and 2 children. On 14 March 2024 she reported a leak from the bedroom ceiling. She described steady dripping during heavy rain and damp around the chimney. The leak has continued after the landlord’s final complaint response.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
We find 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

The landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports in line with its policy until November 2024. It then delayed logging and attending to a 7 day urgent repair. The landlord’s compensation offer at the time of its complaint response was fair and reasonable. However, it did not put things right for the resident. The landlord has not shown that it has completed the roof repair it committed to, in particular the cracked roof tiles identified as causing the leak over the resident’s bed. The repair remains outstanding over a year later. The lack of oversight of the repair, the limited sharing of information, and the poor management of its contractors caused additional distress to the resident. There have been missed opportunities to put matters right.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Code. It showed proactive complaint handling in how it considered and reviewed its offer of compensation.

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 10 April 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £2290 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak made up as follows: £1590 it offered in its complaint response, if not already paid. £300 it offered on 6 November 2025, if not already paid. £400 from 7 November 2025 to the date of our decision. 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 10 April 2026
3	Contact The landlord must give the resident a single point of contact until all required repairs are completed. The landlord must confirm in writing to the resident who the contact is.	No later than 10 April 2026
4	Timeline of works The landlord must write to the resident with a comprehensive update on its plan to repair the leak. This must include: a. A schedule of works with proposed timescales. b. Any support that can be offered to the resident.	No later than 10 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Once the repair is complete, the landlord should confirm its position on whether further compensation is due to the resident. It should consider the period from the date of our decision to the date of repair. The landlord should write to the resident to explain its decision. If no additional compensation is offered, it should provide clear reasons.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the roof had been leaking since May 2024. She said that contractors attended without the correct parts, she then had to wait several weeks for a further appointment.
17 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it did not identify a service failure. It said that each time the resident reported a leak, it attended within its service timescales and completed a repair. It added that its contractors would not have been able to anticipate future leaks.
19 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: A surveyor was late for an appointment. The surveyor said that contractors would contact her within 5 working days, but this had not happened. It had rained heavily that day and her carpets and bedding were soaking wet. She said that she was unable to sleep in the bedroom.
11 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It: Apologised that the surveyor arrived late. Said it had not raised or attended to the repair within its 7 day urgent priority timescale. Said an asbestos survey was completed on 28 January 2025. Said the resident had confirmed the carpet and bedding were fine. Said scaffolding would be erected in the week of 24 February 2025 and a roof repair was scheduled for 6 March 2025. Offered the resident £1590 compensation broken down as: £310 for partial loss of bedroom at 10% from April – November 2024. £330 for loss of bedroom at 20% from November 2024 – 6 March 2025. £800 for upset and inconvenience. £150 for the delay in roof work following the survey on 2 December 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary the resident said the leak was ongoing and she had to chase the landlord for updates. The resident and husband had to share a bedroom with their two small children. She wanted additional compensation for distress.

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	The landlord’s handling of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states:
1. Emergency repairs will be made safe or fixed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent appointed repairs will be completed within 7 calendar days.
3. Routine appointed repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 3 occasions between March and July 2024. The landlord responded in line with its routine appointed repairs timescale and completed the following works:
1. Removed and replaced broken slate next to chimney breast.
2. Rebed ridge tiles and repointed loose mortar around chimney stack.
3. Repaired hole in guttering by chimney stack.
The resident reported a large damp patch on the bedroom ceiling on 30 September 2024. An operative attended within the landlord’s policy timescales. It is unclear what the contractor did during this visit. The contractor reported that there were no issues with the roof and the repair job was closed. The landlord should have arranged further investigations to identify the source of the leak. It only arranged for a surveyor to visit after the resident later reported additional wet patches on her bedroom ceiling in November 2024. The landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the problem at an earlier stage.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that, after the surveyor’s inspection, it should have raised works sooner. We have not seen the inspection report however the landlord’s records show the surveyor identified that the leak was getting worse. On this basis, the landlord should have acted with more urgency to arrange the repair. It logged a 7‑day priority job on 11 December 2024 but booked the repair appointment for 6 January 2025. The landlord discussed this delay internally and considered raising an emergency repair, but it did not do so. This was an unreasonable response as the resident told the landlord that they were unable to use the bedroom and her bed and carpet were soaking wet.
On 6 January 2025 the landlord completed a loft survey. It identified lead flashing around the chimney had failed. It also said that cracked tiles in the middle of the roof had sliced the roof’s felt and were causing two major leaks above the resident’s bed.
The landlord’s delays in raising and attending the repair meant the resident lived in unsatisfactory conditions for a prolonged period. The resident, her husband, and their 2 children had to share one bedroom. The landlord acknowledged this, however it decided a temporary move was not necessary because no rain was forecast for the following 2 weeks. There is no evidence the landlord reviewed the situation again or considered any temporary repair measures to minimise the impact on the resident and her family.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings and committed to repairing the roof on 6 March 2025. It also offered £1590 compensation in its stage 2 response. In our view the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and reasonable at that time.
However the landlord did not put things right for the resident following its stage 2 response as it did not maintain oversight of the repair and meet its repair commitment. Additionally, an asbestos survey was completed on 29 January 2025 which confirmed asbestos in the roof tile cement, but the landlord did not manage or share this information appropriately. The landlord’s lack of oversight caused further delay in the repair because:
1. On 10 March 2025 the landlord told the resident that an asbestos check was needed. The resident told the landlord that it had already been completed. This would have weakened the trust between the resident and landlord.
2. In April 2025 a contractor resealed lead flashing and repointed the chimney. They would not complete works to the roof tiles until an asbestos report was provided. This showed the information was not clearly accessible and caused avoidable delays.
3. The repair job in April 2025 was incorrectly closed and marked as complete when the required works to the roof tiles remained outstanding.
4. On 20 May 2025 the landlord said a roofing and asbestos contractor needed to attend the resident’s property. It is clear the landlord was unsure of the status of the repair and any appointments, often chasing internally due to the lack of updated records. The contractor did not always respond to the landlord. The contract management issues meant the appointment was not arranged until 5 August 2025.
We have seen no evidence that the cracked roof tiles causing two leaks above the bed have been repaired. The landlord’s records show the repair job on August 2025 did not go ahead. This was because the resident said works had been completed and the roof had not leaked during rain the night before. The job was closed as complete. We have seen no evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the required work had been carried out before closing the repair. While we understand that the resident had said the roof had not leaked during recent rain, it was not sufficient for the landlord to rely on this alone, given the history of the leak and the time of year.
The landlord completed a post‑inspection on 21 October 2025 but this was a desktop review rather than a physical inspection to check the quality of any work completed. The photos it reviewed focused on the chimney, not the roof tiles. The resident reported the leak again in November 2025 and the issue is still ongoing. The landlord has not shown that it completed in full the repairs it identified as causing the leak 14 months earlier.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak. The landlord responded to the resident’s repair reports in line with its policy until November 2024. It then delayed logging and attending to a 7 day urgent repair. The landlord’s compensation offer at the time of its complaint response was fair and reasonable. However, it did not put things right for the resident. The landlord has not shown that it has completed the roof repair it committed to, in particular the cracked roof tiles identified as causing the leak over the resident’s bed. The repair remains outstanding over a year later. The lack of oversight of the repair, the limited sharing of information, and the poor management of its contractors caused additional distress to the resident. There have been missed opportunities to put matters right.
The landlord reviewed its position on 6 November 2025 and offered the resident a further £300 compensation for further delays and impact. It was positive that the landlord reviewed its offer at this point. The landlord’s total compensation offer was therefore £1890 which is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a severe long term impact.
However the repair is yet to be fully completed, and further time has passed since this offer. The resident has told us that she is sleeping with buckets on her bed and the light in the bedroom is isolated. In consideration of the ongoing nature of the leak, the repeated failures by the landlord to proactively manage the work it had itself identified as necessary in its stage 2 response, the conditions over the winter months and the impact on the resident, we have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a further £400. This is for the period of 7 November 2025 to the date of our decision, to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord has told us that it completed a temporary repair on 20 February 2026 and once scaffolding is erected, it will complete a permanent repair. This is a positive step towards resolving the situation. To put things right and to ensure that the resident is clear on what will happen next, we have ordered for the landlord to provide the resident with a single point of contact and a timeline of works.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation. The landlord’s complaint policy meets these requirements.
The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgment on time. It issued its stage 1 response 11 working days later, which was slightly outside the Code timescale. In our view the minor delay caused no detriment to the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgment on 3 January 2025. We cannot confirm whether this met its policy timescales because the length of its festive office closure is not known. Any minor delay linked to seasonal closures does not amount to poor complaint handling.
The landlord extended its stage 2 response timescale and explained the reason to the resident. This was in line with the Code. It issued its response 8 working days later, which met the revised deadline.
The landlord discussed compensation with the resident before issuing its stage 2 response. It listened to her concerns and increased its initial offer after reviewing the case again. This showed the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The lack of information logging and sharing meant the landlord was at times unclear about the status of the repair. The landlord has shown willingness to learn from this complaint by completing a lessons learnt review. It reflected on its weaknesses in contract management and has taken steps to prevent similar issues. This includes centralising data, contractor performance and recruiting in house roofers to improve visibility and responsiveness of roof repairs.

Communication

Providing the resident with a single point of contact could have helped the landlord manage the repair more effectively. This would have helped the landlord track repeated reports of the same leak. It would also have supported better oversight of its contractors and kept the resident informed about progress. This approach could have improved the resident’s experience and reduced the risk of further delays.