Amplius Living (202515774)

Decision
Case ID	202515774
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Amplius Living
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The resident lives with her adult daughter in a 2-bed disabled-adapted bungalow. The resident and her daughter have complex physical and mental health conditions. In 2021 there was a leak in the kitchen. In 2022 the resident began reporting damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord has carried out repairs to address the issue. However, the resident has raised concerns about the quality of the repairs and continues to report damp and mould. She has complained about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and has asked it to provide her with a permanent transfer.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould.

There were failings in the landlord’s initial handling of the damp and mould and the repairs it carried out were not to a reasonable standard. It has acknowledged and apologised for some failings, but there were several further failings that it did not recognise. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to carry out interim works to the property while a permanent resolution is found. It offered temporary accommodation so it could complete the works and offered the resident a permanent transfer. As the resident declined these options, the landlord’s opportunities for resolving the issue were limited.

Handling of the complaint.

There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling but it apologised for these and offered proportionate redress. However, it failed to deal with the resident’s letter in September 2023 and her second stage 1 complaint as a complaint escalation. This unreasonably delayed her access to the Ombudsman.

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 provided by a senior officer. 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 20 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,400 made up as follows: £2,200 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of damp and mould. £1,000 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for damage to her belongings. £200 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint. 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 20 February 2026
3	Review and oversight The landlord must carry out a review of this case. It must create an action plan outlining how it will resolve the issues. This should include: Consideration of the risk to the resident of remaining in the property in its current condition. A plan to carry out interim works such as mould washes to remove any hazards until a permanent solution is found. Reasonable attempts to alleviate the resident’s concerns that it has suitable properties within her requested area. It could do this by providing a list of how many properties of different types it has in each area and giving her a list of empty properties. A meeting to discuss the needs of the household. While discussions have been held before, circumstances may have changed so the assessment should be updated. Consideration of support for the resident in preparation for the move. It may need to consider taking specialist advice. The resident has disclosed she has a hoarding disorder. She also has physical disabilities and, while her daughter is her carer, they have no other support nearby. A written record outlining the agreement. This would help to reassure the resident that the agreement will not change. Timeframes for all actions and how it will monitor progress and outcomes. The landlord must assign a senior officer to oversee this review and completion of the action plan. It should update the Ombudsman about progress.	No later than 06 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 May 2023	The resident made a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 1). She said she had damp in the kitchen, living room, and bedrooms following a burst pipe around a year earlier. She said the landlord had completed a survey several months earlier but had not updated her following this. The resident also said the landlord kept arranging appointments in the morning despite her explaining that all appointments needed to be in the afternoon due to her health issues.
25 August 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1. It acknowledged failings in its response to her reports of damp and mould. It offered her £200 comprising: £100 for distress and inconvenience. £50 for the delayed repairs. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
29 September 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord. She said: It had still not fixed her stop tap despite her making a complaint in 2022. She had been reporting black mould throughout the property since late-2022. It was a “toxic health hazard”. It had not cleaned the mould or addressed the cause. It kept making morning appointments despite her health needs. The damp and mould had caused damage to her furniture, clothing, and personal belongings.
24 October 2024	The resident made a further stage 1 complaint (Complaint 2). She said the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould. She said: They had had to replace furniture and clothing damaged by the issue. This had caused financial strain. Damage to sentimental items had impacted their mental health. It had advised she needed to be moved into temporary accommodation while the required works were done. This was causing her anxiety due to her disability needs and because of worries about her pets.
13 November 2024	The landlord advised the resident it would need longer to respond to her complaint as it was waiting for her to provide evidence of her damaged belongings.
28 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. It outlined the actions it had taken in the case. It accepted the following failings: There had been delays due to cancelled appointments and incomplete repairs by its contractors. However, it noted that the resident had also caused delays by asking it to reschedule works. It should have escalated her complaint to stage 2 when it received it due to her previous complaint about the issue. It said works were now scheduled for January 2025 and it would discuss compensation once the work was done.
14 May 2025	The resident escalated Complaint 2 to stage 2. She said the landlord had not contacted her since its stage 1 response. Nor had it completed the repairs. She said her request for compensation was still outstanding as the works had not been completed.
19 June 2025	The landlord said it needed longer to respond to her complaint to allow for a survey.
16 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2. It identified the following failings: Delays in carrying out inspections and completing the required works. A delay in resolving workmanship issues when the resident returned form temporary accommodation in January 2025. Poor record keeping. Lack of communication following its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £3,200 which comprised: £1,500 for distress and inconvenience. £300 for delayed repairs. £100 for lack of communication. £200 for poor record keeping. £100 for poor workmanship. £1,000 contribution towards the resident’s damaged items.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the damp and mould was not resolved and she felt the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress experienced.

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	Damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident experienced a leak in the kitchen in 2021. While she made a complaint about the landlord’s response to the leak itself, she did not escalate that complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. We have not therefore specifically considered the landlord’s handling of the leak. Instead, we have focussed on its handling of her reports of the resulting damp and mould.
The resident reported damp and mould in late 2022. We are unable to confirm the date she first reported the issue due to gaps in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord has identified and acknowledged through its own complaint investigations that its record keeping in this case has been unsatisfactory. It has offered the resident compensation for this.
The landlord delayed in carrying out an initial inspection of the damp and mould. It booked an appointment for January 2023 but cancelled this due to staff illness. It booked a further inspection for March 2023 which went ahead but the surveyor failed to make a report and then left the organisation leaving no notes.
The landlord then booked another inspection for May 2023. However, it booked this appointment for the morning. This was despite its system showing the resident’s requirement for afternoon appointments. This was an issue repeated many times throughout the case. The resident informed the landlord regularly of her health issues and that this meant she struggled to get herself ready for morning appointments. On each occasion the landlord said it would adhere to her requirements. However, it failed to do so.
The landlord is required to have regard to a resident’s disability in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Where on notice, it must consider when providing a service whether its actions could place the person at a particular disadvantage due to their vulnerabilities. It is also required to make reasonable adjustments taking into account a known disability. While it recorded the resident’s need for a reasonable adjustment, it repeatedly failed to adhere to the agreed adjustment. This was inappropriate and caused the resident avoidable distress. The landlord has not acknowledged this or provided redress.
The landlord carried out a welfare visit with the resident to discuss her support needs in June 2023. It also later referred her to the tenancy sustainment team and made a safeguarding referral. This was appropriate and demonstrated regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In August 2023 the landlord carried out works to resolve the damp and mould. It installed a new thermostat and upgraded the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. However, it failed to carry out guttering repair which had been identified. The landlord has not acknowledged this or provided redress.
In September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and said that, despite her raising concerns with several members of staff, it had not completed a mould wash. She explained that the damp and mould had not been resolved. The resident’s communications were not evidenced in the records. However, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s account. This is indicative of further record keeping issues.
It took the landlord 8 months following the resident’s letter to carry out a further damp and mould inspection. It did not identify this delay within its own complaint investigation and therefore did not acknowledge and apologise for it. This delay was inappropriate, particularly as the resident had drawn the landlord’s attention to her health conditions and that she was “immunocompromised”.
The landlord carried out a survey in May 2024 and identified black mould throughout the property. It then took almost 4 weeks for it to raise the required works. The reason for this delay is unclear and was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.
There were then delays caused by a combination of issues with the availability of the resident and the contractor. Further delays were caused when the resident raised concerns about the timeframe the contractor intended to complete the repairs in. She asked that, because she would need to move furniture and belongings, the works be completed in stages. She said she was unwilling for the works to be completed until a further survey was carried out.
The landlord then carried out 2 surveys in September and October 2024. It determined that, due to the extent of the works and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it needed to move her into temporarily accommodation while it completed the works. This was a reasonable decision given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident. However, she raised concerns that it was unsuitable for her disability requirements. The resident found a suitable available property and the landlord agreed to pay for this and for boarding for her cats. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord had appropriate regard for her disability requirements and other circumstances.
While the resident was in temporary accommodation the contractor identified a leak under the floor in the kitchen. This meant that additional works were required to remove the asbestos tiles, resolve the leak, and reinstate the flooring. The landlord extended the resident’s temporary accommodation for a week due to these works. The resident expressed distress at being unable to return to her home as planned. While we acknowledge this was upsetting for her, this was outside the landlord’s control and it handled the issue appropriately.
On returning from the temporary accommodation, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works that had been completed. The landlord carried out an inspection and agreed that the works were unsatisfactory and some of the works had not been completed at all. It asked the contractor to return to resolve the quality issues. However, despite the resident chasing several times, 4 months after she returned to the property the quality issues remained unresolved. As a result she escalated her complaint.
The landlord carried out a further inspection and determined that the resident would need to be temporarily accommodated again for works to be carried out. Again, given the circumstances of the case this was reasonable.
In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged several failings in its management of the repairs. It also acknowledged failings in its record keeping and communication. It apologised for the impact of its failings and offered the resident £2,200 compensation.
The landlord also offered the resident £1,000 towards the damage to her belongings. This calculation was based on evidence provided by the resident. This was therefore a reasonable offer. If the resident does not feel the offer is proportionate, she may wish to make a claim on her home contents insurance or on the landlord’s insurance. Any amount already offered by the landlord may be taken into account by the insurer.
After the landlord’s final complaint response, due to the resident’s distress at the prospect of being temporarily accommodated again, it agreed to her request for a permanent transfer. It has explained to us that, while the resident did not meet the criteria in its policy for a management move, it had used its discretion to approve this. It said it was treating the offer of a management move as a reasonable adjustment. Given the circumstances of the case, this was appropriate.
The resident accepted the option of a permanent transfer and provided a list of her requirements. However, the landlord has explained that it does not have properties in the specific areas the resident has said she is willing to move to. The landlord has outlined a several areas where it has disabled adapted bungalows that would meet her needs. The resident has declined these properties. While we acknowledge the resident’s wish to be closer to her family for support, the landlord cannot offer her a property that it does not have.
The landlord continued to attempt to arrange to complete interim works such as mould washes to address the issue while she remained in the property. It has also maintained its offer of temporary accommodation so the work can be carried out to the property. The resident has declined these offers.
The resident has explained that she declined the landlord’s offers as she has lost trust in its willingness and ability to complete the works to a reasonable standard or provide appropriate temporary accommodation. She also stated that, due to various changes in its messaging, it did not believe that it had provided accurate information about what properties were available to her.
The resident states that her preference is for a permanent transfer. We have ordered the landlord to review its handling of this case and to agree an action plan with the resident to enable her to move in line with its previous agreement. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, appropriate assessment of her needs will be required.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. While it has acknowledged and apologised for many failings, there were several further failings identified by this investigation that it did not recognise. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
However, the landlord has made reasonable efforts to carry out works to address the damp and mould. It offered temporary accommodation so the required works can be completed and has gone above and beyond the requirements of its policy to offer the resident a permanent transfer. As the resident declined these options, the landlord’s options for resolving the issue were limited. We do however acknowledge the resident’s concerns and that, due to previous events, she has lost trust in the landlord. This will take time and effort to be rebuilt.
The landlord has offered the resident a considerable amount of compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and we consider it is proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident. We have not therefore ordered additional compensation. We have however ordered the landlord to pay the amount offered in its final response if it has not already done so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Maladministration

It took the landlord 64 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 1. This greatly exceeds the 10-working day timeframe in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord acknowledged this delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
The stage 1 response reasonably addressed the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.
In September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord. She outlined several reasons why she was dissatisfied. The landlord should reasonably have considered this a request for the complaint to the escalated. That is did not do so was a failing to adhere to its own complaints policy and the Code.
The resident raised Complaint 2 in October 2024. As this related to the same issue as her previous complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a stage 2 escalation request. That it did not do so delayed the complaint process and the resident’s access to the Ombudsman. The landlord did acknowledge this in its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 but did not offer any redress.
It took the landlord 20 working days to respond to Complaint 2. However, it requested an extension and explained that the delay was due to the resident providing further evidence. This was therefore reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonably detailed and addressed all the issues raised by the resident.
It took the landlord 44 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord did request an extension but failed to respond within the 40-working day timeframe in the Code and the landlord’s policy. However, the delay was short and did not cause any detriment.
The landlord’s final complaint response was detailed and addressed all the issues raised by the resident in proportionate detail.
In its final complaint response the landlord identified failings in its communication, repairs handling, and record keeping. However, it did not outline how it had learned from this case or how it would prevent the issues from happening again.
Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling but it apologised for these and offered proportionate redress. However, it failed to deal with the resident’s letter in September 2023 and her second stage 1 complaint as a complaint escalation. This unreasonably delayed her access to the Ombudsman. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling failings. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has acknowledged that its record keeping in this case has been poor. There are gaps in its repair records and in its survey reports. It has apologised and offered compensation its record keeping failings.

Communication

There were several instances where the resident had to chase the landlord more than once for an update on the issues she had reported.
The resident has also reported several instances where the landlord’s position has changed throughout communications. She has cited this as a reason for her loss of trust. Given her concerns, the landlord should consider providing the resident with a written record of any verbal communications.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication throughout the case.