Amplius Living — case 202529129

Decision Case ID 202529129 Decision type Investigation Landlord Amplius Living Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 18 May 2026 Background In February 2025, the resident reported a leak caused by the shower in their property. The landlord removed the shower and identified the need for substantial bathroom repairs, which took almost 8 months to complete. The landlord was aware that the resident has 2 children with mental health vulnerabilities. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs.

Our decision (determination) There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs. Reasons The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it’s responsible for repairs to installations for supplying water and disposing of sanitation, such as showers. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The policy also says that residents are responsible for internal decorating.

On 17 February 2025, the resident reported that using the shower caused a leak from the bathroom into the living room. The landlord attended in line with its responsive repairs policy and removed the shower as the source of the leak. While this prevented further water damage, it left the resident without a working shower, although a usable bath remained available in the property. While it was appropriate for the landlord to remove the shower to prevent further damage or another leak, there is no evidence that it arranged any follow‑up works to repair the damage or replace the shower.

This was a service failure and resulted in the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord for progress and a prolonged period without full bathroom facilities. On 3 April 2025 the landlord completed an inspection of the bathroom and identified several repairs needed, including the installation of a new shower. On 20 May 2025, the resident informed the landlord that both of her children have mental health vulnerabilities and that the ongoing lack of repairs was affecting them.

There is no evidence that the landlord appropriately considered this information. While it is not possible to say whether this would have resulted in the landlord expediting the works, it was a failure not to assess the impact of the vulnerabilities once notified. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider prioritisation or reasonable adjustments, which may have reduced distress for the household. By 15 October 2025, the landlord had completed all outstanding repairs, including fitting a new shower.

This was almost 7 months beyond its own 28‑day routine repairs timescale. Although the works were ultimately completed, the delay was excessive. The prolonged delay would’ve caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family, and required her to invest substantial time and effort chasing updates and progress. Following a second inspection on 28 August 2025, it was noted that the bathroom required redecorating, and this was included in the overall repair quote.

The evidence shows that the landlord did not authorise decorating works, as responsibility for internal decoration lies with the resident. However, the inspection report indicated to the resident that the landlord would redecorate the bathroom after completing repairs. There is no evidence the landlord later clarified otherwise. Despite this, the landlord redecorated the bathroom on 11 March 2026. In the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 29 September 2025, it offered £550 compensation for its handling of the bathroom repairs.

This aligns with our compensation guidance for circumstances where a failure adversely affected the resident. A finding of reasonable redress has been made, as the offer of financial compensation combined with the redecoration adequately compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. 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.

Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident the £550 it offered, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid.