Amplius Living — case 202422774

Decision Case ID 202422774 Decision type Investigation Landlord Amplius Living Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 13 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. She has limited mobility and fibromyalgia that the landlord was aware of during the complaints process. From 3 January 2023 the resident reported that the chimney needed to be capped to prevent birds from getting stuck. She reported that the landlord needed to complete some associated internal work to the living room including plastering and fitting a new skirting board.

The resident reported in her complaint of 27 March 2024 that the work was outstanding. What the complaint is about The landlord’s response to: The resident’s report of repairs required to the chimney and associated internal work. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the chimney and associated internal work. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord delayed the work to the chimney and internal works for 2 years, which was outside of its repairs policy timescale which was unreasonable. The landlord’s poor record keeping and communication led to its confusion over what the contractor had completed and what was outstanding. The landlord’s remedy included a compensation award and an apology which was appropriate. However, the landlord delayed the completion of the work beyond the end of its internal complaints process.

Although it was reasonable for the landlord to increase its compensation award twice after its internal complaints process, it continued to delay the completion of the work. These failings caused the resident additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble at a time when she was ill which the landlord was aware of. This has led to our finding of maladministration. The landlord acknowledged its delayed complaint handling at stage 1. It apologised for its service failings and offered £25 in compensation for its minor delay in its complaint handling.

It provided its stage 1 complaint response within the timescale it set in its complaint escalation letter to the resident of 7 May 2024. We have considered that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the associated complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider learning in line with the Code which could have helped the landlord to identify service improvements to prevent similar failings from occurring. 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 leader.

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 13 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,225 (inclusive of the £975 the landlord has previously offered) for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the chimney and associated internal work. This recognises the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that the landlord’s failings caused to the resident.

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 13 March 2026 3 The landlord must complete a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this timeframe. No later than 27 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 March 2023 – 21 November 2023 The resident reported outstanding works to cap the chimney to prevent birds from getting stuck.

She reported associated internal works to the living room after the landlord previously removed the fireplace. The internal works included blocking the fireplace, plastering work, as well as a replacement skirting board. 10 January 2024 to 19 March 2024 The resident chased up the outstanding chimney and internal works after the landlord installed scaffolding in early January 2024. 27 March 2024 The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said that the work to cap the chimney and to block the fireplace, plaster and install skirting board had been reported several years previously.

She said despite the landlord installing scaffolding saying it would complete this work within 21 days, it remained outstanding. The resident said she had to call the RSPCA due to the birds getting stuck in the chimney. She said that part of the scaffolding was in her neighbour’s garden and that this was causing issues for her neighbour. 13 May 2024 The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It agreed it had delayed the works and noted that it had issues with its contractor.

It needed to pass the repair to a different contractor, however as it was awaiting its contractor quote for scaffolding this had caused further delay. It apologised for the failings and offered £375 in compensation. This comprised £25 for its complaint handling delay as it had to extend its response timescale and £350 to recognise the impact on the resident of its delayed repairs. 13 May 2024 The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She was unhappy with the delayed surveyor’s appointment that the landlord had arranged for 17 July 2024.

She said numerous people had been round before and as a remedy she requested the landlord to complete the works. 14 June 2024 The landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the complaint and said it had arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 26 June 2024 to check what internal work was outstanding. It would ask its contractor to take pictures to validate they had capped the chimney. It acknowledged the delay between its contractor installing the scaffolding to getting the repair completed.

It offered a total of £825 in compensation. This comprised £375 it offered at stage 1, £250 for its delay in capping the chimney and £200 for the impact that this had caused to the resident. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. She referred her case to us on 12 September 2024. As a remedy the resident requested further compensation. 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 response to the resident’s report of repairs required to the chimney and associated internal work Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident was concerned about the impact of the outstanding repairs on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this. The resident began reporting issues with the chimney and birds accessing this from 11 August 2022. She also mentioned that the fireplace had been removed in the living room some time prior to this.

The resident did not refer her complaint to us until 12 September 2024, and we have therefore not investigated these earlier events from 2022. This is because the resident did not refer this to us within 12 months of the matter arising. What we did investigate This investigation focusses on the period from January 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 14 June 2024. Between 3 January 2023 to 1 March 2023 the resident chased up the landlord for the work to cap the chimney to prevent birds from accessing it and getting stuck and the associated internal work.

This included blocking the fireplace, plastering and replacing the skirting board. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 3 January 2023, but it did not complete the work as it sent the wrong trade. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why this error occurred. Whilst the landlord’s contractor reported that work had completed at an appointment of 6 February 2023, the contractor’s notes said that the chimney needed to be blocked before it could complete the internal work in the living room.

Despite this, it is unclear from the landlord’s records whether its contractor completed any work at this point as the resident reported from 16 May 2023 that nothing had been done. There was a mismatch between what the landlord’s contractor reported as complete and the resident’s reports that nothing had been done between 6 February 2023 and 15 November 2023. Its contractor reported that it had completed jobs on 6 February 2023, 16 June 2023 and 21 August 2023. According to the landlord’s repairs policy it should complete routine repairs within 28 days, and the policy confirms that repairs to chimneys and plastering are deemed to be routine repairs.

We have seen no record that the landlord followed up on the outstanding work between January 2023 to May 2023. This meant that there was already a 3-month delay in completing the required works which was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale which was inappropriate. We have seen that the landlord had some performance issues with its contractor and its sub-contractor which led it to appoint a different contractor as outlined in its stage 1 complaint response of 13 May 2024.

We recognise that where a landlord has to change its contractor that this can cause delay. However, we would expect it to keep a resident informed of progress and we have not seen that the landlord did this which was inappropriate. The resident subsequently refused access on 14 November 2023. This would have meant that the work could not be completed which would not have been the landlord’s fault, but it should have been completed earlier in line with its repairs policy timescale.

The landlord should have responded when the resident asked for its surveyor or manager to attend in her call to the landlord of 15 November 2023. It should not have closed repair. We have not seen that the landlord’s surveyor or manager contacted the resident, but it raised an order again on 22 November 2023 for the same work. Given the mismatch between what the contractor said it had done and what the resident reported, it was important for the landlord to check for itself what work its contractor had completed if any.

It also should have checked whether its contractor had completed work to a reasonable standard. However, we have not seen that the landlord’s surveyor attended until 9 July 2024 when it rearranged an inspection of 26 June 2024. The resident advised the landlord that its contractor erected scaffolding in early January 2024 that remained in place until at least 14 June 2024. This led to the landlord chasing its contractor to dismantle the scaffolding on the resident’s request.

The resident told the landlord that the scaffolding had caused issues with her neighbour as it was partly in their garden. She said this had caused her further distress as her neighbour had kicked her door. She also reported noise from the scaffolding banging due to the wind that was impacting on her sleep. It was unclear from the landlord’s records whether all the scaffolding was removed on 14 June 2024 as the resident asked the landlord on 19 June 2024 to check the chimney before the scaffolding was removed.

Though the landlord said it would ask its contractor to provide photos of the capped chimney so it could verify that the work had been completed, we have not seen evidence it followed up on this which was inappropriate. This was particularly important since it had concerns about its contractors’ performance. According to the landlord’s records, the repair to cap the chimney was completed on 15 May 2024 which was 14 months after the issue was reported. This was considerably outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale which was unreasonable.

It led to the resident’s repeated chase ups which caused her additional distress as she was not well, which the landlord was aware of. However, whilst the external work was completed, the resident reported on 7 May 2024 that the internal work to the plastering and skirting was unfinished. She said that the landlord’s contractor had applied a yellow glue-like substance to the living room walls and ceiling which her decorator had to fix which cost her more. When the resident phoned the landlord on 13 May 2024, she was upset that the landlord had not arranged its surveyor to inspect the property until 17 July 2024, 2 months later.

This was understandable given the extended delay. The landlord rebooked the appointment to 26 June 2024 but on the resident’s request it changed this again to 9 July 2024. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, its surveyor raised a further works order to block the fireplace, and to reskim the wall. However, the landlord’s delays continued. Its internal records stated that works were completed on 17 January 2025 but that the skirting board replacement was still outstanding.

It arranged to complete this between 31 March and 1 April 2025. The resident told us that she was unable to make use of the living room as there was debris from the chimney that was impacting on her health. We have not seen evidence that the living room was unusable but it took the landlord 2 years to complete all the necessary work. This was outside of its repairs policy 28 day timescale and its repairing obligations which was unreasonable. The landlord made 2 further offers of compensation after the end of its internal complaints process.

Its final offer of £975 was made on 3 September 2024. Given the lengthy delays the Ombudsman considers that this does not fully compensate her for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. These failings were aggravated due to the resident’s circumstances and her vulnerability as she was ill which the landlord was aware of. The resident had to put in additional time and effort in trying to get the landlord to resolve the issues contacting the landlord on many occasions.

This caused increased detriment to her. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the chimney and associated internal work. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £250 in compensation. This appropriate reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the landlord caused the resident due to its continued failings. This gives a total compensation order of £1,225 (inclusive of the landlord’s £975 offer).

We have also ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review so it can consider how the failings occurred and what it can do to prevent similar failings from happening in the future. Complaint The landlord’s response to the associated complaint Finding Reasonable redress The resident raised her complaint on 27 March 2024 evidenced by the landlord’s auto-acknowledgement. The landlord incorrectly said that it had received this on 28 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2024 within 6 working days, and it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 May 2024.

This was within 25 working days of its acknowledgement which was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code to respond. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 May 2024 to extend to its stage 1 complaint response to 21 May 2024 and its response was sent within this timeframe. The landlord’s delay was not significant. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require an acknowledgment to be sent at both stages within 5 working days. It requires a response at stage 1 to be sent within 10 working days.

A landlord may extend its response by no longer than a further 10 working days from its acknowledgement. The landlord’s policy says if it needs to extend beyond this it would have to agree this with the resident. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require a response to be sent at stage 2 within 20 working days from its acknowledgement. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 21 May 2024 within 6 working days.

This was a minor delay that would not have caused significant detriment to the resident. It sent its final complaint response on 14 June 2024 which was 17 working days from the resident’s escalation request. This was within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code’s timescale for it to send a stage 2 complaint response which was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delay within its stage 1 complaint response and offered £25 in compensation. It apologised for its service failings.

This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which allows offers of up to £50 for a minor delay. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint. Learning The landlord did not consider learning from the complaint in its complaint responses which was a missed opportunity. The landlord would benefit from reviewing our recent Spotlight report – repairing trust that has several recommendations that the landlord could consider.

This would help the landlord to improve its management of contractors and its repairs management. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord was unable to confirm what repairs it had completed and what remained outstanding throughout and beyond its internal complaints process. There was evidence of confusion which was also compounded by the landlord’s poor communication. This evidenced its poor records management. This would not have helped the landlord to manage the repairs and follow up to ensure timely completion in line with its repairs policy.

We recommend that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so. It should consider the recommendations set out in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its record keeping practices. Communication The landlord’s communication was generally more reactive than proactive. It tended to contact the resident when she chased the landlord for updates.

The lack of follow up meant that the landlord was not keeping track of the progress of the work, despite promising it would in its complaint responses which was unreasonable. We found issues with poor external communication with its contractors and between its contractors who lacked clarity at times over what trade was required or what work was required. Ultimately, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that its contractors understood the scope of works.