Peabody Trust (202437141)

Background

1. The resident lives in a fourth floor flat with her 3 children. The building has 1 lift. The resident reported regular issues with the lift, which she said were ongoing since 2022. She complained about the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs. The resident said that her and her 3 children suffer from scoliosis and require the use of the lift.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to lift repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its response to lift repairs.
   2. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to lift repairs

4. The landlord did not update its systems with the new lift contractor which resulted in repairs being assigned to its previous contractor, leading to repairs delays. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with comprehensive repairs records.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord closed the resident’s second complaint at stage 2, despite the resident complaining about a new repair issue.

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.

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.

6. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timescale, usually within 12 months of the issues arising. The resident raised her complaint in January 2024. This investigation therefore focuses on events from January 2023 onwards, although we note that the issues began in 2022 when the landlord changed its lift contractor.
7. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that ‘next available’ repairs are non-urgent repairs that are required to rectify a fault and should be completed within 28 calendar days.
8. Following reports from residents, the landlord raised 3 jobs for lift repairs in January 2023. All of these jobs were assigned to its previous lift contractor. The landlord re-raised these with the correct contractor however, it is unclear when. The evidence indicates that there were delays in the repairs being completed, which was largely due to the new contractor awaiting parts. The landlord has not provided records to indicate when the lift was fixed on this occasion.
9. The landlord raised further lift repairs in May, June, September, October and December 2023. The repairs records indicate that the landlord raised all of these repairs with its old lift contractor. On 2 occasions during 2023, the previous contractor contacted the landlord to ask it to cancel the works order and said that it did not maintain the site. In September 2023, a note on the repairs records states that the landlord was unable to allocate a repair to the correct contractor on the system. There is no indication that the landlord took sufficient action to rectify this issue during 2023.
10. The landlord provided records to reflect when residents reported lift repairs, but it did not provide clear records of when it re-assigned the lift repairs to the correct contractor or when it completed repairs. The landlord acknowledged that this issue caused repairs delays. However, without complete repairs records, it is difficult for us to determine how much the failure to update its system contributed to the delays on each occasion. The landlord should ensure it maintains and provides all repairs records to the Ombudsman. However, the records were incomplete, which has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation.
11. The landlord raised a further repair for the lift on 31 January 2024. It is unclear whether this was a continuation of the December 2023 repairs, or whether this was a new issue.  The landlord again assigned the repairs to the previous contractor. The landlord’s records suggest the repair was completed on 14 February 2024. However, residents made further reports that the lift was out of service on 28 February 2024 and 11 March 2024. Again, it is unclear when repairs were carried out in response to these reports.
12. In its 14 May 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had raised repairs with the wrong contractor and it admitted that its corrective actions had fallen short of expectations. While it is appropriate that the landlord identified its failing, it did not state what it would do to resolve the issue. It should have reassured the resident that it would update its systems.
13. O 29 August 2024, a resident reported that the lift was out of service again. The landlord raised a repair which it again assigned to the wrong contractor. This shows that 3 months after issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord had still not updated its system.
14. The landlord’s repairs notes state that an engineer attended on 9 September 2024 and conducted repairs. However, the engineer identified further defects during this appointment, and repairs were delayed while the contractor waited for parts. The evidence indicates that the contractor completed the repairs on 25 October 2024, which was a month outside of the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. The landlord has not demonstrated that it provided regular updates to the resident about the status of the repairs during this time, which it should have done.
15. In its 28 October 2024 stage 1 response, the landlord said it was working to ensure any future repairs were allocated to the correct contractor. It also acknowledged that the most recent lift repair had taken sightly longer than anticipated to resolve.
16. The landlord’s records show it raised a new lift repair in April 2025, which it assigned to the new contractor. This indicates that the landlord has now updated its system.
17. In summary, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to update its system with the correct contractor within a reasonable timeframe. Although the landlord acknowledged this failing in its first stage 2 response, the issue occurred again in August 2024. Given there is only one lift in the building, the landlord should have taken proactive steps to ensure repairs were assigned correctly to ensure quick completion on every occasion. This was a failing by the landlord.
18. The evidence shows multiple lift failures during 2023 and 2024. The landlord listed the specific defects in its May 2024 stage 2 response. It said it would continue to monitor the lift and conduct inspections and services to help reduce breakdowns. These were appropriate steps, but the landlord should have specified how often it intended to inspect the lift to provide further reassurance that it was taking proactive action.
19. The resident told the landlord she experienced significant disruption while the lift was out of service. She reported her and her children have scoliosis, and she was concerned for their health due to the impact of carrying heavy bags upstairs. The landlord acknowledged this in its May 2024 stage 2 response however, its decision to close the second complaint indicates a failure to properly respond to the ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have addressed its complaint handling further below.
20. The landlord offered the resident £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused. The repairs issues occurred again after the May 2024 stage 2 response, and the resident experienced further distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not put things right, despite the resident making a further complaint about the new repair issues. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation, to remedy the further distress and inconvenience. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to confirm whether it has updated its system so that repairs are assigned to the correct contractor and to advise how often it will inspect the lift.

21. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will log new complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy states it will issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request. It says that if a decision is taken to close a complaint early, a fair and valid reason must be provided to the resident.
22. In relation to the first complaint, the landlord responded within the required timeframe at stage 1. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint on 29 February 2024 and it issued the stage 2 response on 14 May 2024. This was 31 days in excess of the 20-working day timeframe, and was therefore a failing. The landlord identified that learning was required to improve the quality of stage 1 responses to ensure residents feel their concerns are being acted upon in a meaningful way. The landlord offered £200 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failings, which was sufficient to remedy the impact on the resident.
23. The resident raised her second complaint on 30 September 2024. There is no evidence to reflect when the landlord logged the complaint. It issued the stage 1 response on 28 October 2024, which was 10 days in excess of the required timeframe.
24. At stage 2, the landlord closed the complaint and withdrew its stage 1 compensation offer because it said the complaint duplicated the resident’s first complaint. It said that it could not reconsider complaints that had already been determined under its complaints procedure.
25. Although both complaints were in relation to the landlord’s failure to raise lift repairs with the correct contractor, the resident’s second complaint was about the landlord’s handling of lift repairs reported on 29 August 2024. This was after the landlord’s 14 May 2024 stage 2 response, and was therefore a new issue. The landlord should have progressed the case to stage 2, particularly given that it had already logged and responded at stage 1. The issue regarding raising repairs to the wrong contractor was ongoing, and the landlord could have used the complaints process to address this and put things right. This was a complaint handling failing by the landlord.
26. The resident did not have the opportunity to have her complaint properly responded to, which likely caused distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation which is sufficient to remedy the impact of the failing.

Learning

27. The landlord did not update its systems with the correct lift contractor, which led to repairs delays. The landlord should consider how it can learn from this failing and improve its processes so that similar issues do not occur in future.
28. The landlord should also consider whether staff training is required regarding its complaints handling so that it responds in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord did not provide comprehensive evidence of the repairs undertaken. While we have seen evidence of repairs reports, the evidence is limited regarding when repairs were completed. The landlord should ensure it maintains and provides a clear audit trail of events and provides this to the Ombudsman.