Amplius Living (202526571)

Background

1. The resident lives with her husband in a 3-bedroom house. At the time of the complaint, her adult daughter lived with them. The resident complained to the landlord about outstanding repair work to the exterior of the property, which was ongoing from 2022, which she said was causing damp and mould within the property. She was dissatisfied with its response, so she asked us to investigate her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of outstanding external repairs and damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of outstanding external repairs and damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Outstanding external repairs, and damp and mould

4. The landlord provided appropriate updates to the resident about the outstanding repairs following its stage 2 response. It did not explain if its compensation offer included loss of use of a second bedroom or damage to her floor coverings.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord was delayed in responding at stage 2 and did not acknowledge or address this in its complaint response.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

6. The resident told us she wished for all external repairs to be completed at the property, including the renewal of the roofline and replacement of the rendering. She asked for an update on both issues in her complaint escalation on 16 June 2025.
7. In its stage 2 response of 19 August 2025, the landlord confirmed it would monitor scheduled works to the roofline and rendering through to completion. It told her works to the roofline depended on a survey and could be impacted by the weather or availability. It stated it would complete the roofline repairs by mid-August. This timescale had passed by the time of its reply, making its response outdated, and it therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It said its contractor was attempting to speak with the resident about arranging rendering works.
8. Following this, the landlord took appropriate steps to keep the resident informed and chased the work with the respective contractors. On 4 September 2025, it explained that its contractor inspected the rendering on 26 August 2025 and it was waiting for them to book the work. It confirmed it was chasing the roofline works. It further updated her on 15 October 2025, confirming it was aware of how to complete the roofline repairs and would update her on both that and the rendering repairs soon. It completed a survey of the rendering on 29 October 2025.
9. On 24 November 2025, the landlord told the resident that, due to the presence of bats in her loft, it needed to fulfil statutory ecological requirements before it could complete the roofline works. On 23 January 2026, the resident told us an initial inspection of the bats had taken place the week before. The landlord said it would complete the rendering works in spring 2026 when the weather improved.
10. In her complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord failed to offer compensation for damage to her belongings due to the presence of damp and mould. She said this included mattresses, carpets, and anti-slip flooring, which she has since told us is costly to replace and is required to support her health condition.
11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised that its previous responses had acknowledged but not addressed the resident’s damage to her belongings. It offered compensation for failing to consider this. However, it again did not tell the resident if it was offering compensation for the damage to her belongings. It should have done so, particularly as it apologised for not previously doing this.
12. The landlord offered £150 for the specific damage to the resident’s personal items in its 22 December 2025 compensation review. However, it failed to provide any breakdown of what items this amount related to. It promised to further review compensation once it completed all works, but it is unclear if this related to damage to the resident’s belongings.
13. In her complaint escalation, the resident said she did not have the full enjoyment of her home due to the leak and damp and mould at the property. She asked for a rent reduction. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would not consider a rent reduction as the resident had not previously requested this in her initial complaint. Its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) do not confirm it must investigate new points at stage 2.
14. Following this the resident asked for a rent reduction again and on 17 September 2025 she told the landlord she had lost the use of 2 bedrooms (hers and her daughters) and her kitchen. The landlord reconsidered its approach and completed a compensation review on 22 December 2025. This was a reasonable step. However, its response only considered the loss of use of 1 bedroom and the kitchen. It did not explain why it had not considered the second bedroom within this review. The resident raised this point with us on 23 January 2026. If it was unable to offer compensation for the second bedroom it should have explained this and managed the resident’s expectations.
15. In summary, the landlord provided appropriate updates on the outstanding repairs following inaccurate information in its stage 2 response and there is evidence it was moving the repairs along. It was then delayed in completing these over winter 2025 due to issues outside its control. There is no evidence its compensation offers considered the loss of all the resident’s belongings (including her floor coverings) or the loss of use of her second bedroom. Therefore, there was service failure which our remedies guidance recommends awards of up to £100 to recognise distress and inconvenience from. It has been ordered to pay this to the resident, together with the £1093.50 and £9829.73 it previously offered her.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it will acknowledge all complaints in 5 working days and respond at stage 1 in 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code.
17. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy at stage 1. It did not act in accordance with its policy at stage 2. It acknowledged the resident’s 16 June 2025 escalation on 24 June 2025, following this she chased a response before it updated her on 8 August 2025. By this point, it had already exceeded its policy timescale by 19 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 August in line with what it promised on 8 August.
18. The landlord failed to acknowledge its delay at stage 2 in its complaint response. It did not offer an apology, consider compensation (as its compensation policy suggests) or detail how it would learn from this (which its complaints policy suggests).
19. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is for the inconvenience and distress caused by its delayed stage 2 response and its failure to acknowledge or remedy this. It has been ordered to pay £75 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

20. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. Evidence shows the landlord registered the resident’s complaints the day after receiving them. The landlord should therefore consider the timescale in which it records complaints against its complaints policy and the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation into the complaint, which helped us understand events that had taken place.

Communication

22. There is evidence that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about repairs before its final complaint response. However, following this, communication appears to have improved with the landlord learning from its failings.