Amplius Living — case 202500151

Decision Case ID 202500151 Decision type Investigation Landlord Amplius Living Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident lived in a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord agreed to a managed move in September 2024 following a data breach in the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) case that meant her complaints were disclosed to her neighbour. When the ASB continued, and the landlord had not moved her, the resident raised a complaint.

She has since ended the tenancy and moved to a new property. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Reports of reports of ASB. A managed move application. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the managed move application. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Reports of ASB The landlord did not always show it had reviewed evidence and taken appropriate action. The managed move application The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident during the application process. Complaint handling The landlord provided complaint responses in line with its complaint 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 £550 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures relating to the handling of reports of ASB. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures relating to the handling of the managed move application. £50 awarded at stage 2 for the error relating to early tenancy conversion. £100 awarded at stage 2 relating to the data breach.

£200 awarded at stage 2 for replacement flooring. 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 27 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 7 March 2025 The resident raised a complaint. She reported several concerns, including a lack of action on her ASB reports, no options for a managed move, and damage left by workers.

She said her housing officer made false statements to stop her complaining, and the issues affected her mental health. She was unhappy about an upcoming rent increase. She requested reimbursement for laminate flooring as she planned to move, relocation to a safe area near the beach or parks, an apology and explanation for the housing officer’s behaviour, and substantial compensation for the distress caused. 12 March 2025 The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: It was continuing to investigate ASB and would take appropriate action based on available evidence.

It had approved a management move on 17 December 2024 and converted the tenancy early so the resident could register on a home swapping website. It noted it had very few homes that fit her wish for a quiet and remote area and could not guarantee a property of this type. It found no previous reports about damage caused by staff after repairs. It continued to work with other agencies to support the resident and signposted her to other wellbeing services available. Rent was reviewed annually in line with government guidance, and changes would take effect from April.

It would not reimburse for laminate flooring as moving was the resident’s decision. 24 March 2025 The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord’s response had not fully answered her complaint and she wanted to know: Why she had not received a copy of the action plan sent to her neighbour in June or July. Why it had taken 4 to 5 months to approve her management move. How the landlord still claimed to investigate ASB when the noise app closed her case on 13 March.

What contact the landlord had with the police following her ASB reports. She also raised concern about the refusal of compensation for her laminate floor, as the landlord said it was her choice to move. She stated she had to move due to a data breach by the landlord. She also said the landlord had not converted her tenancy early, this was done at 12 months as standard. 28 March 2025 The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It was sorry the resident had not received the action plan and attached a copy with the response.

It was sorry it had not converted the tenancy sooner. The management move was not authorised until December 2024, but it had helped the resident with rehousing from the summer. It found that staff gave appropriate advice when they told the resident that a warning for foul language could lead to approval of the management move to be retracted. It had opened a new ASB case that week. The previous case was closed on 15 November 2024, with the resident’s consent as she had said there were no further issues.

It would continue to liaise with police about ASB reports. The noise app was closed automatically in March 2025 as the resident had not used the app since August 2024. It awarded £150 compensation: £100 in recognition of the impact of the data breach and £50 because the tenancy had not been converted earlier. It also awarded £200 towards flooring. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her case to this Service. Although she had since moved, she wanted us to investigate and for the landlord to compensate her appropriately for not doing their job.

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 Reports of antisocial behaviour Finding Service failure What we have not looked at The resident told us the antisocial behaviour affected her health.

It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. Handling of the ASB The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it would respond to reports of ASB. It will: Respond to high risk incidents within 1 working day and all other incidents within 5 working days.

Complete an assessment, vulnerability matrix, and an initial action plan. Signpost and refer to other agencies as appropriate. Update and review the action plan until case closure. On 24 July 2024, the resident said she was having issues with her neighbour playing loud music. The same day, the landlord made contact, completed a risk assessment matrix and an action plan. It advised the resident to use the noise monitoring app and said it would send a noise letter to the neighbour, which it did on 1 August 2024.

These actions show the landlord took the report seriously and responded in line with its ASB policy. On 27 August 2024, the resident reported concerns that her neighbour was drug dealing and smoking cannabis around the property, as well raising further issues with loud music. On 29 August, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the complaints that had been raised. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was acting in a timely way to address the issues. Between September 2024 and March 2025, the landlord continued to work with the resident in response to her ASB reports.

It made referrals for support, liaised with the police, updated risk assessments, and maintained communication with both the resident and her support worker. These actions showed the landlord was working with relevant agencies and following its ASB policy. However, during the same period there were times, such as on 11, 16 and 18 December 2024, when the resident sent video evidence to the landlord. The records did not show that the landlord viewed or assessed this material. The videos may or may not have supported action, but we would expect the landlord to show that it had reviewed the evidence and made an assessment.

As there were no records to confirm this, the landlord has not shown it considered all the relevant information. Effective record keeping is vital for landlords because it supports transparency and accountability. Accurate records of how evidence was assessed show how decisions were made and whether action could be taken. This helps demonstrate that the landlord acted in a reasonable way and met its obligations. Clear records can also support the landlord in complaints or legal cases, making them an essential part of ASB case management.

In its stage 2 response on 28 March 2025, the landlord said it had opened a new ASB case and it would complete a risk assessment and action plan with the resident. It completed these the same day which showed it promptly followed through on the commitment it made in its response. The response also acknowledged a data breach in the landlord’s earlier handling of ASB reports which was part of a separate complaint. It apologised for this and appropriately offered £100 compensation.

Following the stage 2 response the evidence showed the landlord continued to work with the resident. It arranged visits to the neighbour, reviewed evidence the resident sent in, updated risk assessments, and maintained communication with the resident. It closed the ASB case in June 2024 when the resident moved permanently to another property. Overall, while the landlord followed its ASB policy, it did not always show it had reviewed the evidence available. Therefore, we cannot satisfactorily conclude the landlord acted in line with its obligations and took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports.

As a result, we find service failure in its handling of the reports of ASB and have ordered further compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by a landlord in the service it provided, and it did not acknowledge this or put it right. Complaint Managed move application Finding Service failure Records showed the landlord raised a case for a managed move on the 5 September 2024. This was authorised on 17 December 2024.

While this was three months after the case was raised, its managing transfers policy did not specify any timescales for approval. Nonetheless, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated during the process. Between 5 September and 17 December 2024, the evidence does not show the landlord kept the resident updated on the progress of her managed move application, explained the process to her or gave any indication of likely timeframes. This lack of information likely led to the resident feeling frustrated as she would have been unsure what was happening.

As part of her complaint the resident said the landlord had incorrectly advised it had converted her tenancy early. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged it had not converted the tenancy early and awarded £50 compensation for the error. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, which said it can award up to £200 for providing incorrect information that had a low impact on the resident. Additionally, the resident raised concerns about staff conduct.

She said staff had made false statements and threatened to stop the managed move. The landlord said its officer acted in line with its policy and gave correct advice when they informed the resident that a warning for foul language might result in it reconsidering her management move. This was reasonable as it showed the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns and responded with a clear explanation as to why it did not hold uphold this part of the complaint. The resident also said the landlord’s denial of her request for reimbursement for laminate flooring was wrong.

It had said a move was her choice but she said the managed move had been agreed because of the data breach. The landlord showed it reconsidered the request and in its stage 2 response it offered £200 towards replacement flooring. This was reasonable and showed it considered its compensation policy which set out that it could consider goodwill gestures at its discretion. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident about the managed move was poor, and this was not acknowledged in its complaint responses.

While it authorised the application in line with its policy and dealt with other aspects of the complaint appropriately, the lack of clear updates during the process likely caused the resident to lose confidence that the landlord was doing all it could to progress the move. As a result, we find service failure in its handling of the managed move and have ordered further compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by a landlord in the service it provided, and it did not acknowledge this or put it right.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord had a 2 stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aimed to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. This aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord provided both responses in line with its policy and the Code. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s records did not show it had reviewed evidence it was sent.

The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. Taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management. Communication The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of her managed move application. The landlord could consider if any changes could be implemented to improve communication in future.