One Housing Group Limited (202400318)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block with a lift. Between August 2022 and July 2023 the lift was reported to be broken or out of service on at least 11 occasions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Lift repairs
   2. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed in resolving a leak that caused damage to the lift, and there were communication failures in its handling of the lift repairs.
7. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the stage 2 complaint. It failed to acknowledge this or offer any redress to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident has said there have been problems with the lift since he moved into the property in 2020. The scope of our investigation has covered events that occurred 12 months before the resident made his formal complaint, in August 2023. Anything that happened before August 2022 has been considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repairs of the common parts, including the lift. The landlord’s repairs policy says emergency repairs are ones which present an immediate health and safety risk to residents. This includes faulty lifts. It says it will respond (phone call or attend) within 4 hours and make safe within 12 hours.
10. From the evidence provided, it is not clear when the landlord attended in response to the initial reports of breakdowns raised between August 2022 and July 2023. Therefore, we have been unable to assess whether the landlord responded in accordance with its repairs policy. The resident’s main concerns were the number of repairs needed and the landlord’s communication, rather than the timeframe in which the landlord attended. Therefore, our inability to assess the timeliness of the landlord’s response for the emergency repairs is not a significant issue for this investigation.
11. However, this is likely to be an issue for other cases. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to review how it records attendance for emergency works orders. This should ensure it can clearly evidence compliance with the committed response time set out in its repairs policy.
12. When the landlord attended on 20 July 2023, in response to a reported breakdown, it identified a leak caused by a damaged pane of glass above the lift. This was allowing rainwater to fall onto the lift controller and had damaged electrical parts. While the landlord went on to progress lift repairs there is no evidence it took any action to address the cause of the leak at that time.
13. The landlord said it raised a job for the glass repair on 16 August 2023, but this did not result in action being taken to stop the leak. It was a month later, on 15 September 2023, that it completed a temporary repair to the glass pane, resolving the leak. This was too long considering the leak was causing damage to the lift.
14. The lift was out of service from 20 July 2023 to 13 October 2023. During this period, the landlord identified multiple faults, starting with a problem with the power supply. The landlord did not identify all the faults at the outset. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord identified faults at different times. This was because resolving one issue led to further faults becoming apparent. The landlord could not have known about these until it had resolved the initial fault.
15. The landlord took timely action during the 3 month period to chase updates from its contractor, raise orders when quotes were provided and complete follow up visits. This showed it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord had to order parts on multiple occasions. It subsequently told the resident in its complaint responses that there were delays in it receiving the parts because it had to order these from other countries, which meant they took some time to arrive. It also said there was a global parts shortage and supply chain disruptions.
16. These factors were outside of the landlord’s control and so any delay in it receiving the parts was not a failure. Similarly, on one occasion in early September 2023, the landlord was sent faulty parts by its supplier. This meant it had to wait for replacements to be delivered. This was again outside of the landlord’s control and not a failure.
17. The landlord received a quote for works, including a replacement part, on 20 September 2023. Six days later it noted it would not authorise this as it could get the part cheaper elsewhere. It acknowledged the lift had been out of service for some time but said it had to be mindful of costs. This was reasonable as the landlord should be mindful of costs, particularly where these are service chargeable and will ultimately be recharged to residents.
18. The next day the landlord raised a works order for this job and went on to make enquiries to secure the part in a shorter time than initially expected. This quick follow on action again showed the landlord was taking the matter seriously and committed to finding a value for money resolution as quickly as possible.
19. We understand it was inconvenient for the resident that the lift was out of service for 3 months. During the period of delay, the landlord’s handling of the lift works was reasonable. While there were delays, these were beyond the landlord’s control. However, the landlord’s handling of the leak that caused the lift faults was delayed. As water was leaking onto the lift for a period of at least 2 months, this will have led to increased damage and may have contributed to the delay in the lift being repaired.
20. Where repairs are delayed, the landlord should proactively update residents to keep them informed and reassure them it has not forgotten about the repair. In this case, during the period of delay, the landlord asked for written updates to be sent to residents on 15 August 2023 and 3 October 2023. This was positive. However, we have seen no evidence either of these updates were sent.
21. On 17 October 2023, the landlord confirmed the update requested earlier that month had not been sent. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen if the update requested in August 2023 was sent or not. However, the resident’s escalation request in early October 2023 suggested some earlier updates had been sent as he said the updates had stopped at that point.
22. While positive that some updates were sent, we cannot determine if the landlord’s actions to keep the resident updated during the period of delay were reasonable, as the records are incomplete. The landlord should record all contacts with residents so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The landlord has not been able to do that in this case, which is a failure.
23. When the resident made enquiries on 1 August 2023 about the progress of the repair, the landlord told him it was completed. This was incorrect and confusing for the resident. The landlord subsequently confirmed the information about the pending repair was available on its system, meaning this was an avoidable error. The landlord acknowledged this failure in the stage 1 response, apologised and identified learning. This was positive and should help avoid similar failures happening in the future.
24. As part of his complaint the resident raised concerns about the number of times the lift had broken down. He said he had been told by an operative that the lift was not fit for purpose. In its complaint responses the landlord told the resident what it was doing to try and reduce waiting times for parts and general steps it was taking to survey lifts and put improvement plans in place. This was positive. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the lift in his block. This was disappointing for him.
25. Since the stage 2 response was sent, there have been further breakdowns and a period between September and December 2025 where the lift was out of service. We have not investigated the circumstances of these breakdowns as they fall outside the timescale of our investigation. However, it is a concern that the lift continues to repeatedly breakdown and has been out of service for another extended period. We can see in August 2023, following a technical visit, it was recommended that the lift be replaced. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered this or concluded why this was not required.
26. We order the landlord to review the repair history for the lift from 2023 to date to identify the number of breakdowns/ faults and the reasons for this. It should consider whether the lift is fit for purpose and provide a written update to all residents in the block with the outcome of the review. This should include any actions it will take to try and reduce the number of breakdowns/ faults and when it expects to replace the lift.
27. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £50 compensation. Considering the failures identified and the impact on the resident, this amount was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 3 working days. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being logged, and within 20 working days of receiving the stage 2 complaint.
29. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2023, the same day it received this, and acknowledged it the next day. This was within the 3 working day committed timescale set out in its policy. It sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with its policy timescale.
30. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 10 January 2024, 69 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was significantly over the 3 working day committed timescale, and equates to a delay of over 9 weeks. It sent the response 78 working days after it received the resident’s escalation. This was again significantly over the 20 working day committed timescale set out in its policy, and equates to a delay of almost 2 months. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its handling of the stage 2 complaint or offer any redress. This was inappropriate and left the resident feeling the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
31. Considering the extent of the delay and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge this, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay him £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge these or put things right.

Learning

32. The landlord should resolve leaks in a timely manner to ensure the amount of damage caused as a result is kept to a minimum. This is particularly important where water is leaking onto electrical parts or components.
33. The landlord should proactively progress repairs by following up with its contractor, raising orders and completing follow up visits, as it did in this case.
34. The landlord should seek to achieve value for money when completing repairs, particularly where the costs are recharged to residents via the service charge. This should be balanced with ensuring repairs are completed in a timely manner.
35. If there is a recommendation made to replace a lift, the landlord should consider this to decide if this is necessary and document its decision.
36. The landlord should acknowledge and respond to complaints in accordance with the response times set out in its complaints policy. If it fails to do so, it should acknowledge this and offer appropriate redress to put things right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord should record when it attends for emergency repairs so it can evidence compliance with the committed response time set out in its repairs policy. This evidence was not available in this case so we were unable to assess whether the landlord’s initial attendance for multiple lift repairs was in line with its committed response time.
38. The landlord’s records in respect of communication with the resident are incomplete. This means we have been unable to determine if its actions to keep him updated during a period of delay in the lift repair were reasonable. The landlord should keep a record of all contacts with residents so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required.

Communication

39. The landlord should tell residents when repairs are delayed and the reasons for this, including factors outside of its control.
40. The landlord should respond to residents specific concerns raised as part of complaints.