Amplius Living (202502119)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. She has an upstairs and a downstairs bathroom. She complained that the landlord had not completed repairs in her upstairs bathroom to a satisfactory standard.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of bathroom repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs.
   2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Bathroom repairs

4. The resident reported numerous bathroom repairs, which the landlord addressed within its repair policy timeframes. However, when she expressed dissatisfaction with the repairs completed, the landlord arranged a surveyor visit. Despite the surveyor reporting that the bathroom was in a state of disrepair, it was not until the landlord completed a further inspection several months later that it took any further action.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes specified in its complaints policy.

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 investigated

6. We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when she reported a blocked shower drain, loose tiles and missing grout on 29 April 2024. We would usually investigate how the landlord approached matters up to its stage 2 response, which was on 7 March 2025. However, in this case, we have considered a further 28 days, up to 4 April 2025, which is how long the landlord said it would take to complete the bathroom repairs.
7. The resident said being unable to use the shower had impacted the mental health of her and her family. Personal injury claims are more appropriate for a court because they can obtain independent medical evidence. The resident also has the choice to seek legal advice if she wishes.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy said it would fix or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete urgent repairs within 7 days and complete routine repairs within 28 days.
9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response provided a detailed timeline of events regarding the bathroom issues reported, which falls in line with its records. The landlord’s records show it attended routine repairs within 28 days. This included a roof repair raised on 24 June 2024 due to leak from the vent in the bathroom, which a roofer attended on 2 July 2024. As this required a scissor lift, the repair took place within a further 28 days, on 24 July 2024. Internal bathroom repairs then took place in the following 28 days, on 9 August 2024. As another example, a contractor attended a leak as an emergency repair on 20 January 2025, which was the same day the resident reported this, before resolving the issue on 23 January 2025.
10. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the bathroom had been in a state of disrepair since a surveyor visit on 19 August 2024. Although the resident could not use the shower, she was not without bathing facilities due to having another bathroom. The landlord said it would repair the bathroom within 28 days of its stage 2 response on 7 March 2025 but failed to do so. By this time, the bathroom had been in disrepair for almost 7 months after the landlord had become aware of its condition. This was not appropriate and highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs.
11. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £700 in recognition of its service failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to her by failing to satisfactorily repair the bathroom. Upon completing a post complaint review on 29 July 2025, it offered the resident a further £300. The total of £1,000 compensation falls in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have significantly affected a resident but without any permanent impact. However, the landlord’s additional compensation offer, whilst welcome, was in response to our request for information and has therefore not prevented a finding of maladministration.

12. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
13. The resident first raised a formal complaint on 20 January 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days, which it did.
14. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 February 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days, which it did.
15. Upon receiving our request for evidence for this investigation, the landlord completed a post complaint review. However, any review should have formed part of its internal complaints process.
16. When responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided a detailed record of events. This was appropriate to demonstrate that it had understood her concerns. Although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and instead offered a goodwill gesture this did not adversely affect the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of no maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

17. The landlord demonstrated that it had learned from this complaint. It said it had introduced weekly meetings to monitor contractor performance and introduced financial penalties for repairs completed outside agreed timeframes.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already done so.

Communication

19. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.