Salix Homes Limited (202453036)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat on the 8th floor. The building is serviced by two lifts. One stops on the even floor and one on the odd floor. The resident has a number of health conditions and limited mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to lift breakdowns.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to lift breakdowns.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to lift breakdowns.

5. The lift in the property has broken down on a number of occasions. This impacts the resident as he is unable to leave his home safely without the lift. The landlord has demonstrated that on each occasion it has repaired the lift. However, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident. It has also not acknowledged that it has failed to meet a number of timescales in line with its passenger lift service and maintenance policy.

      The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy. We identified one part of the stage 2 response which was unclear. However, we addressed this in the landlord’s response to lift breakdowns, so we have not made a further finding here.

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.

What we did not consider.

7. The resident has advised us that due to a lift breakdown, he has had an injury. 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. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did consider.

8. The landlord noted that between July 2023 and 14 August 2024 there were 23 callouts due to a broken-down lift. The Ombudsman recognises that lifts can break down for various reasons. We also recognise that usage varies from building to building. This can impact on the number of repairs required. As such we cannot say if this number is higher than average. However, the landlord was aware of the vulnerability of the resident. When the lift is out of order, the resident is unable to leave his home. Over the course of 13 months, 23 lift breakdowns are likely to have had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaints responses.
9. We note the landlord said that 6 of these breakdowns were not repaired on the same day. This was due to needing additional parts, or additional work was required. We note the landlord’s passenger lift service and maintenance procedure states it aims to repair 98% of lift repairs on the first visit. The numbers provided from the landlord give a percentage of 74% repaired on first attendance. This is lower than its 98% target. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response.
10. In its stage 1 response the landlord has said there were 2 separate repairs in May that it did not repair on the same day. One was reported 11 May 2024 and fixed on 15 May 2024. A new repair was raised on 23 May 2024 and fixed on 30 May 2024. However, the landlord’s evidence file shows the lift was broken down throughout this period. The landlord’s response has failed to acknowledge the true period the lift was broken down in May.
11. The landlord’s records show that it visited the resident on 17 May 2024. It spoke with the resident regarding temporary accommodation. As of 17 May 2024, the lift had been out of action for 6 days. The landlord expected it to take a further 2 weeks to fix. We consider it reasonable the landlord offered temporary accommodation. The resident declined the temporary accommodation as he said his family could bring him food. On this occasion, the landlord demonstrated it considered the potential impact on the resident, and ways to minimise this.
12. The landlord’s passenger lift service and maintenance policy does not provide any information on how the landlord will support vulnerable residents during a lift breakdown. We have also not seen anything regarding this in its repairs policy, or vulnerable customer policy. We note that the resident has spent several periods of time where he is unable to go out due to the lift breakdowns. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider a risk assessment for the resident. This would include identifying what support the resident may need, and how long the resident can manage in his flat if the lifts are out of order.
13. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified a further 16 reports of the lift breaking down between July 2024 and March 2025. The repairs records show that 6 of these repairs were reported in February 2025. We consider that frequent repairs in one month is likely to have had an impact on the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response.
14. The landlord said that it completed same-day repairs on 5 occasions. However, it also said the call for the repair came in the day before. It said its attendance time to these repairs was reasonable. The landlord has not been clear on what it regards as same-day repairs. We have understood this to mean it completed the repair within 24 hours. We note its passenger lift service and maintenance policy states that for a dual lift breakdown it will attend within 1 hour. For a single lift break down it will attend within 2 hours. Its repairs policy says emergency repairs will be attended within 8 hours. The landlord has not met the timescales in its policies, and it failed to acknowledge this in its stage 2 response.
15. The landlord’s passenger lift service and maintenance policy states that it aims to attend 95% of call outs within the given timescales of that policy. Based on the landlord’s figures from its stage 2 response, at least 5 of 16 were not attended within 2 hours. This means that a maximum of 69% were attended within the timescales. We note the number may be lower, as we do not have exact times for same day repairs. The landlord has not acknowledged that it has missed its timescales for attending a lift repair.
16. We have only seen evidence of one occasion during which the landlord proactively offered the resident additional support during a lift breakdown which lasted longer than one day. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it notifies people who cannot self-evacuate within 24 hours of a lift breakdown. We have not seen evidence it did this.
17. The landlord has a vulnerable persons and reasonable adjustments policy. It says it “provides additional support and responds flexibly to customers who are facing exceptional circumstances that can make them more vulnerable and unable to access services or manage their tenancy effectively.” The resident is more vulnerable to lift breakdowns due to his health condition. The landlord has said it cannot prevent lift breakdowns, which means it is likely the resident will be impacted in the future. It may be reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the property is still suitable for the resident, if it is unable to ensure he can access services during lift breakdowns.
18. The landlord has said that lift breakdowns are unavoidable. It did not uphold the complaint on this basis. It said it was doing everything to keep the lift in good maintenance. The Ombudsman does not dispute that lift breakdowns can be unavoidable. However, the landlord has failed to acknowledge when it has missed its own key performance indicators as per its passenger lift service and maintenance policy. It has not acknowledged the impact the lift break downs had on the resident. It has not demonstrated that it has considered the potential risk to the resident when a lift breaks down. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a lift breakdown.
19. We consider that a compensation payment is appropriate. In awarding compensation, we have considered the number of breakdowns and the impact on the resident. We consider £300 to be reasonable, and in line with our remedies guidance where there is a significant impact on the resident.
20. The landlord’s maintenance and lift policy does not cover what happens when a person is likely to be trapped in their home during a lift breakdown. We have also not identified this in any of the landlord’s other policies. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its policies to ensure all at risk residents can access support in a timely manner, during a lift breakdown.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days. It will issue the response within 10 working days of that. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will issue the response within 20 working days of that. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
22. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 5 working days. It issued its stage 1 response in 9 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy.
23. The landlord acknowledged the escalation in 4 working days. It issued its stage 2 response in 20 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy.
24. We have noted in the previous section of this report, that there was some confusion in its stage 2 response. This was regarding the timeframes for attending lift repairs. We note its complaints policy says it will use a neutral and clear tone in its responses. As we have made a finding in the above section, we have not repeated this here. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure its communication in its complaints responses is clear.

Learning

25. We have identified that the landlord may benefit from reviewing its policy to consider how it will support vulnerable resident’s during a lift breakdown. This is particularly relevant for any residents who are unable to leave their home safely, without a lift.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord provided comprehensive records of its lift repairs.

Communication

27. We have seen limited interaction between the resident and the landlord. The landlord has responded in a timely manner to the resident’s complaints. However, we consider it could improve how it communicates with the resident, when a lift repair may take more than one day.