We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

One Housing Group Limited (202452263)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452263

One Housing Group Limited

24 September 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of faults with the communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a third floor flat owned by the landlord. The landlord also manages the communal areas of the building.
  2. On 8 August 2024 the resident complained the lift for the building had been out of service for 5 months. She said this had been stressful and she wanted to be compensated.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 August 2024. It confirmed the lift had been out of service since 23 April 2024 and the parts needed to complete the repair were estimated to arrive on 26 August 2024. It said it would look at refunding all residents in their service charge calculation at the end of the year.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2024 stating the lift was still not working and she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. She said she had multiple health issues and the lift not working caused her disruption and affected her health.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 February 2025. It acknowledged there had been several long-term outages over the last year. It said the parts required to address the current outage were scheduled to be delivered on 14 February 2025. It agreed to investigate the outages and have an independent consultant inspect the lift. It offered the resident £350 for the impact of the outages on her.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to investigate. She told us there is an ongoing issue with the lift not working and she wants it to find a long-term solution.      

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s correspondence with this Service she said she had asked the landlord to move her from the property if it was not able to repair the lift. She said she had applied for a management move on medical grounds and was unhappy with its communication with her about this.
  2. There was no evidence the resident requested a management move as part of the complaint that she referred to us. She made a later complaint about this to the landlord and it issued a stage 1 response to her on 7 July 2025, but the issue has not completed its complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord should have the opportunity to respond to this further complaint through its complaints procedure before we investigate. As this is a separate issue from the complaint which the resident referred to us we will not comment on it in this report. She has the option of referring this later complaint to our Service once she has exhausted its complaints procedure.   

The landlord’s handling of faults with the lift

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the common parts of the building, including the lift, in reasonable repair.
  2. The landlord received a report on 23 April 2024 from a resident in the building that the lift was out of use. We have not seen the resident directly contacted it regarding the lift until her complaint on 8 August 2024.
  3. Following the report on 23 April 2024 the landlord asked its contractor to investigate, they attended the following day. This was in line with its responsive repair policy which says a faulty lift will be treated as an emergency repair and made safe in 12 hours.
  4. The landlord’s contractor’s attendance on 24 April 2024 recorded there was a fault with the lift’s safety circuits and a return visit was necessary to identify the cause. The landlord sent updates to all residents in the building on 26 April 2024 and 3 May 2024 that additional parts and a technical specialist were necessary to bring the lift safely back into use. It confirmed the lift would remain out of service and apologised for the inconvenience. Its communication with the resident about the repair at this time was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s contractor attended to repair the lift again on 28 May 2024, 34 calendar days later. Its responsive repair policy says, once an emergency repair is made safe, any follow-up work should be completed within its routine timescale of 28 calendar days. Whilst it somewhat exceeded the timescale from its policy it was not to such an extent that we consider it a failing. 
  6. The landlord’s contractor recorded on 28 May 2024 the lift was operating erratically following repairs and there was likely a further problem with either its encoder or drive. It ordered additional parts and left the lift out of service. The landlord updated all residents on 17 June 2024 that it had ordered further parts but did not anticipate these would be delivered for 8 or 9 weeks. Whilst we recognise this delayed the completion of the repair we cannot see this was due to a failing by the landlord.
  7. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, this Service expects landlords to be proactive in communicating the cause of delays and identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of these. The landlord took appropriate action to inform the resident about the cause of the delay. To mitigate the impact, it arranged for welfare support officers to be present at the building to support residents, such as assisting with carrying heavy items upstairs. Whilst it is unclear when it introduced this service it was in place from at least 1 August 2024.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 August 2024 that the lift was still out of service and this had been inconvenient and stressful. She did not specify any vulnerability or health condition which meant the lift outage had a greater impact on her.
  9. The landlord’s contractor attended on 8 August 2024 and recorded the lift was still not running smoothly following repair. It attended again on 12 August 2024 and removed the lift’s drive to be sent for repairs. The landlord updated all residents about the actions it was taking to repair the lift the following day.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 August 2024. In this it:
    1. Acknowledged the lift had been out of service since 23 April 2024 and apologised. It said it had ordered the parts needed to complete the repair which were scheduled to be provided on 26 August 2024.
    2. Said it had arranged for welfare support officers to support residents whilst the lift was awaiting repairs. It accepted it did not communicate the introduction of this service well and said it would make changes to its approach to how it communicated with residents in future.
    3. Confirmed it had paused its regular servicing program for the lift since the outage began. It would return the cost savings from this to her and other residents in the service charge calculation for the end of the year. It did not offer her individual compensation.
  11. From the information available to the landlord at the time its stage 1 response was reasonable. There was no information indicating the resident would have been more adversely affected than other residents. The information it gave her about the delays in completing the repairs and how it would look to improve its service was proportionate given there is no evidence of a significant failing in how it handled the repairs up to that point.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 September 2024. She complained the lift was still not working and she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. She said she had “ill health, high blood pressure and [was] on medication for various health issues” and the lift not working was affecting her health.
  13. The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 September 2024 to fit a new encoder. They tested the lift was working correctly and it was left in service. As such it took the landlord 136 calendar days to complete the repair following the breakdown on 23 April 2024. Whilst this significantly exceeded its 28-calendar timescale for routine repairs, as set out previously, we have not seen that the time taken was due to a failure on its part.
  14. Following the completion of repairs the landlord arranged for an independent engineer to audit the lift, which took place on 16 October 2024. This recorded:
    1. The standard of maintenance over the past year had been below average. A minimum of 12 maintenance visits a year should take place to carry out adjustments and repairs as needed.
    2. The lift was nearing the end of its anticipated 15-year life cycle. It may be possible to achieve further usage for 5 – 8 years subject to suitable maintenance and spare part support.
  15. An independent 6 monthly examination of the lift also took place on 21 October 2024. This recorded there were no defects which could pose a danger to users. It listed some defects which the landlord should correct “as soon as reasonably practical”, which included that the car communication system was inoperative.
  16. Between the examination on 21 October 2021 and the landlord’s stage 2 response on 4 February 2024 there were a total of 9 instances where the landlord recorded the lift was out of service. The majority of these were from issues with the lift doors not working correctly, which sometimes caused users to become trapped. It also recorded on 29 November 2024 and 30 January 2025 that the emergency autodialler was inoperative. On the second occasion it left the lift out of service until it could repair it. 
  17. As part of an update to all residents on 23 January 2025 the landlord also advised that anyone who needed assistance accessing their floor due to mobility issues should inform it and it would provide additional support. We have seen no evidence the resident responded to this to ask for any support.
  18. From the available records it is unclear when the landlord carried out repairs for the outages above though it is clear the lift was not out of service for the whole time. In our view, as the outages repeatedly involved issues with the lift doors not working correctly any repair it carried out during this period does not appear to have been effective at resolving the underlying issue. It had also been told the autodialler was not functioning in the inspection of 21 October 2024 and there is no evidence it took action to repair this in line with the 28-day timescale from its responsive repair policy.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 February 2025. In this it:
    1. Acknowledged there had been a history of long-term outages for the lift over the past year. It said the current outage was due to an issue with the emergency autodialler and that the parts needed to repair this were scheduled to arrive on 14 February 2025.
    2. Said it would address the ongoing issues by having its contractor conduct an investigation into the long-term outages. It also said it would get an independent consultant to post-inspect the lift when the repairs were completed to ensure the quality of the work.
    3. Outlined it had set up a 5-year program to improve its handling of lift maintenance including creating a dedicated team for vulnerable residents during outages, completing monthly surveys for lifts and employing an additional contractor to reduce delays. It also had scheduled to carry out a full lift replacement for the building during the financial year 2033/4. 
    4. Offered her £300 as compensation for the inconvenience and distress she experienced from the repeated outages.
  20. In our view the compensation the landlord offered, in combination with reimbursing the resident for service charges for the lift, was reasonable in line with our guidance for remedies. Though the repeated outages between 21 October 2024 and 4 February 2025 would have been inconvenient we have not seen the lift was out of service for the whole time. Whilst the resident said in general terms she had a number of health issues she did not specify how her circumstances increased the impact of the outages on her. The landlord had also previously offered to provide additional support to vulnerable residents to mitigate the impact of the lift being unavailable.
  21. However, there is no evidence the landlord has investigated the underlying cause of the repeated lift outages or had an independent consultant inspect the lift as it said it would do in its stage 2 response. This Service requested further details of the action it had taken in relation to this, and the only document provided was the independent audit from 16 October 2024, which did not address the later breakdowns covered in the stage 2 complaint. In line with our Complaint Handling Code any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
  22. We also note the independent audit of 16 October 2024 advised the lift likely had a maximum of 8 years usage left and the landlord should budget to refurbish or replace the lift in the next 5 to 8 years. There is no information available to show why it varied this recommendation and instead scheduled replacing the lift approximately 9 years after the audit.
  23. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, up until the date of this report, there is evidence of 3 further lift outages. The latest of these, which was reported on 30 June 2025, also involved an issue with the lift doors. From the available evidence the issue was ongoing as of 15 August 2025 when it wrote to all residents to confirm that further parts were necessary to complete the repair. There are no further records to show when it resolved this, the resident told us as part of this investigation the lift was still out of service as of 15 September 2025.   
  24. We have seen the landlord continued to update all residents for the outages following its stage 2 response of 4 February 2025, and to offer support to those who needed assistance accessing their floor. This was reasonable action to take so we do not see the later outages mean it should provide additional compensation to the resident. However, the ongoing issues including a reoccurrence of the issue with the lift doors, indicate the action it took to investigate the cause of the lift outages was not sufficient to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
  25. Thus overall, we consider the landlord’s remedy was not fully proportionate to address the impact on the resident. We have made orders for it to put things right. In this instance, the amount offered is fair and in line with this guidance although it has not fully resolved its failings. As such, we will not make further orders for compensation but have considered other appropriate redress.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of faults with the communal lift.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 4 weeks of this determination:
    1. Issue the resident with a written apology. It must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
    2. Complete any repairs necessary to bring the lift back into service. If this will not be possible within 4 weeks it must contact the resident to explain the reason for this, outline the action it is taking to complete the repairs and to discuss any further support it can offer her until the repair is complete.   
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Complete a post–works inspection to confirm that it has completed all the repairs needed to the lift and reduce the possibility of a repeated breakdown. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report to the Ombudsman. It must also confirm to the resident if any further repairs are needed and when it intends to complete any identified.
    2. Instruct an independent lift expert to complete a full survey of the lift to identify any long-term issue with the lift and any reasons why there may be repeated breakdowns. It must provide a copy of the survey to the Ombudsman. It must also update the resident about the survey’s findings, any further action it will take and by when.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by their respective deadlines. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £350 it previously offered for the inconvenience and distress caused by the repeated lift outages if it has not already done so.