One Housing Group Limited (202411969)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a purpose-built block. The building has a lift. She told the landlord during the complaints process that she has health vulnerabilities. The resident has complained about the lift frequently breaking down.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged the lift had been out of service while parts were needed for repairs. The remedy it offered did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.
7. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at both stages.

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 told us the situation had a detrimental impact 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. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident told us she had made previous complaints to the landlord about communal repairs and communication. This included a group complaint. We have not seen evidence of these complaints having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process or a complaint handling failure by the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues. This investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 12 April 2024.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says faulty lifts are an emergency. It will attend to make safe within 12 hours. It will complete follow up work within the appropriate priority time. The lift broke down multiple times between 15 December 2023 and April 2024. This left the resident without lift access for at least 4 days in December, 7 days in January, 6 days in March, and from 1 April to 14 May. The landlord did not specify how it had categorised the priority times for follow on work. However, the timeframes for repair were unreasonable given these were emergency repairs. The resident said she missed events and medical appointments and could not use the stairs because of her health.
11. The repair in December 2023 was delayed by 3 days because the contractor could not find the building on 16 December and had no access on 18 December. After that, each time the lift broke down, the landlord’s contractor attended the same or following day. However, between January and April 2024, the lift often failed again soon after repairs. This included the next day on 25 and 28 March and 18 April. Contractor reports show the faults were different each time, but the frequent breakdowns suggest the repairs and investigations were not effective and lasting.
12. Repairs were delayed because it needed parts or further technical investigations. However, there were also delays again in February and May 2024 due to access.  Repairs can be complex and require parts which can cause delays. However, basic customer service is to keep in contact and provide updates on the progress of the work, and the reasons for delays. The landlord did provide updates when the lift broke down on 25 January 2024. It emailed residents on the progress of this repair.
13. However, updates were not always accurate or timely. The landlord’s internal emails show communication was sent to residents on 15 December 2023 confirming the lift was back in service. However, this was incorrect as it was not repaired. Following the break down on 29 March 2024, the landlord updated the resident on 3 April 2024. It said a part was needed. It failed to then update the resident again until 15 April 2024.
14. Records show the landlord updated the resident on 17 April 2024 about repair progress. When the lift broke down again on 18 April, it confirmed a contractor would attend within 4 hours. Further updates were given on 23 April, and on 3, 7, and 10 May, explaining that parts were needed.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its lack of communication about the April 2024 delay caused by waiting for parts. It said it could only share the information it had at the time. Although the updates were repetitive and likely frustrating for the resident, records show it did not have further information at this time.
16. There is no evidence the landlord failed to maintain the lift before these breakdowns. Records show only two previous faults in 2023, and the lift was still within its expected lifespan.
17. While the lift was out of service, the landlord arranged 24-hour assistance through a contractor. The contractor checked daily with residents and offered help carrying items upstairs and provided contact details for requests. Records show this service was in place during April and May 2024 when the lift was unavailable for an extended period. This showed the landlord taking steps to assist residents and address the inconvenience.
18. When making her complaint on 12 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she had health issues and her mobility was severely impaired. The landlord told us it was not aware of this before the complaint. However, once informed, it did not show that it considered whether the resident needed extra support while the lift remained out of service. This was a failing. Not recording vulnerabilities correctly can delay help for residents who need additional services.
19. In its final response, the landlord said it was completing an audit of the lift and would develop an action plan. This was appropriate given the number of breakdowns over a 5-month period. The landlord updated residents in August 2024 on the progress of this. This included a plan to review the current condition of the lift and a new contractor to support complex repairs.
20. Overall, the repeated breakdowns between December 2023 and April 2024 likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged the impact and its communication failures. It offered £150 compensation. However, this amount did not quite reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident.

21. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code.
22. The landlord took 16 working days to respond at stage 1. The resident complained on 12 April 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 May 2024. Under the code the landlord has 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint. The landlord then has 10 working days from the date of the acknowledgement to provide its response. It did not provide evidence of when it acknowledged the complaint, although the resident’s email on 5 May 2024 stated she had received an acknowledgement call. The stage 1 response was slightly over the allowed timescale.
23. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 May 2024. The landlord did not escalate the complaint because it had not yet responded at stage 1. This was in line within its policy and the Code.
24. The resident again asked to escalate her complaint on 7 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within 6 working days. Overall, it took 41 working days to respond. This did not meet the Code’s timescales of 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to respond. There is no evidence it updated the resident or agreed an extension to the timeframe.
25. The landlord failed to acknowledge or remedy the delays.

Learning

26. The landlord took learning from the complaint. It did as promised and updated the resident on its action plan to address the issues with the lift going forward.
27. The landlord’s complaint response was delayed at both stages. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of responding within the prescribed timescales and communicating about extensions.