Amplius Living — case 202406830

Decision Case ID 202406830 Decision type Investigation Landlord Amplius Living Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident raised a complaint in March 2024 after receiving an invoice of £841.80 for the cost of an upgrade to the emergency call system. He said residents were informed of the planned upgrade on 16 August 2022, but some residents moved in later and were unaware of it. He also said the landlord had not managed the sinking fund well, as he believed it should have covered the upgrade.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: Handling of a planned upgrade to services. Management of the sinking fund. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a planned upgrade to services falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There was service failure in the management of the sinking fund. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Our role is to establish whether there has been an adverse impact on the resident that has brought the complaint to our service. The circumstances that other residents found themselves in has not resulted in any significant adverse impact on the resident and so is not a matter we have considered. The landlord did not give the resident any breakdowns to explain how it managed the sinking fund. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had not complied with the requirements of its complaint handling 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. 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 27 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £150. This includes: £100 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failures to provide the details about how it managed the sinking fund. £50 for complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 27 February 2026 3 Action order The landlord must give the resident a written breakdown that shows how the invoice for £841.80 had been calculated. The breakdown must detail how the funds were generally being managed and what they were spent on. No later than 27 February 2026 4 Action order The landlord must also set out any other works the landlord used the sinking fund for in recent years.

No later than 27 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 15 March 2024 The resident complained after receiving an invoice from the landlord for £841.80 for an upgrade to the emergency call system. He said residents were told about the planned upgrade on 16 August 2022, but some residents moved in later and did not know about it. He said the landlord had not managed the residents’ money well and that the sinking fund should have covered the cost of the upgrade.

He asked the landlord to extend the payment deadline until the complaint was resolved and said he preferred not to pay the invoice. 12 April 2024 The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said the resident’s solicitor was responsible for seeking information relevant to the purchase, including any outstanding section 20 works or planned works. It explained that the sinking fund paid for major works at the scheme and the landlord allocated it according to the works required. It said the sinking fund contributed to the upgrade, but the balance was insufficient, so invoices were issued to all residents for the remaining cost.

29 April 2024 The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had not discussed his sinking fund concerns with him or considered the reasons he raised the complaints. He said the landlord did not fully investigate the complaint and that the stage 1 outcome was unjustified. 20 May 2024 The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It repeated that the sinking fund did not have enough money to cover the cost of the emergency call system upgrade. It apologised for any distress and worry caused by the issues the resident raised in the complaint.

It did not identify any service failures and said it had followed the correct process for the section 20 consultation in 2022. 20 May 2024 Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he wanted the landlord to investigate his allegation that it had not managed the sinking fund appropriately. He said the landlord should change how it prioritised expenditure from the sinking fund to prevent similar concerns in future. He also wanted the landlord to acknowledge that there had been an avoidable problem and to issue an apology for it.

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 Handling of planned upgrade to services. Finding Outside jurisdiction The resident complained some residents were unaware of the planned upgrade because they moved onto the estate after the section 20 consultation in 2022.

Any resident personally affected by this issue would need to contact the landlord and follow its complaint process. The resident moved into his property in July 2014 and was informed of the planned upgrade in 2022 through the section 20 consultation. This issue did not have a significant adverse effect on the resident personally, so we determined that this part of the complaint is outside jurisdiction. Complaint Management of the sinking fund Finding Service failure On 15 March 2024, the resident complained the landlord had not managed the sinking fund well and that it should have covered the £841.

40 invoice he received for the planned upgrade. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 12 April 2024. It said the sinking fund was used for any major works required. It explained that the sinking fund usually covered these works, but on this occasion it did not, so invoices were issued to all residents for the remaining balance. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it explained how the sinking fund was intended to be used. However, it is likely that the resident wanted a more detailed breakdown as he told the landlord on 21 March 2024 that he believed it had mismanaged the sinking fund.

This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to give clearer information about why the balance of the sinking fund was lower than the resident might have expected. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 29 April 2024. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had not contacted him to discuss his concerns about the sinking fund. The landlord called him on 9 May 2024 to discuss the case, though its notes give limited information about what was discussed. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 20 May 2024.

It explained that it reviewed the major works plan and service charge annually in line with the requirements of the lease. It said the major works plan had increased each year to account for upcoming works that the landlord needed to complete. It also said there would be a service provision meeting where this information would be discussed in more detail. The landlord reiterated the points made in its stage 1 response. The landlord spoke with the resident as he requested and provided more information in its response.

It explained that it would discuss the issue further at a meeting in the summer, though no evidence shows this meeting took place. However, the landlord did not give the resident a breakdown showing how the invoice for the upgrade had been calculated. It did not explain how it had managed the sinking fund, including the balance, recent works funded, or the annual charge paid into the fund. This information was likely what the resident wanted, as he had asked for a more detailed explanation of the sinking fund’s management.

The lack of this information meant the resident contacted the landlord repeatedly and later contacted us to assess how the landlord handled the sinking fund. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The resident made a complaint on 15 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 April 2024. This met the landlord’s complaint policy, which required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 12 April 2024.

This was 16 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and did not meet its complaint policy requirement of a 10‑working‑day response. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 response. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 29 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 9 May 2023, which did not meet the timescales set out in its complaint policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024. This met the landlord’s policy requirement to provide a final written decision within 20 working days of the stage 2 escalation.

Although the delays did not have a significant impact on the case, the landlord did not acknowledge any delays in its complaint handling process and did not offer any apologies or recognition of the failures. Learning The landlord acknowledged no failures with regards to its complaint handling and so took no learning from the complaint. The landlord could reflect on this to improve future complaint handling. Knowledge information management (record keeping) There were no knowledge information management issues identified in this investigation.

Communication We did not identify any communication issues during this investigation.