London Borough of Islington (202508877)

Background

1. The resident lives on the 7th floor of a building with one lift. Her mother, a wheelchair user with significant care needs, lives with her. The resident complained to the landlord that the lift was often out of service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Repeated lift breakdowns
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the lift breakdowns.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord met its legal obligations to maintain and repair the lift and responded quickly to lift breakdowns. However, it did not identify that one lift part was causing regular break downs soon enough. When it became aware of the resident’s mother’s personal circumstances, there was no evidence it recorded this or took appropriate steps to ensure her needs were met.
7. There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint at the first stage of its complaints process. It acknowledged the delay and offered the resident appropriate compensation.

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.

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 complained about regular lift breakdowns since at least 2018. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process until February 2025. In the interests of fairness this investigation focuses on events in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint on 14 February 2025. Earlier breakdowns have been considered for context but have not formed part of our decision.
9. The landlord has clear, accurate records showing that it does regular inspections and maintenance to the lift in the resident’s building. It does 12 lift service inspections per year, and a technical audit every 6 months. These actions meet its legal obligations.
10. There were 22 lift breakdowns in the resident’s building in the year prior to the resident’s complaint.  The landlord has acknowledged that this was too many. Overall, the landlord’s records show that it responded promptly to lift breakdowns in the relevant period. Repairs were usually carried out, and the lift returned to service, on the same day. It also appropriately identified that several component parts of the lift needed to be replaced or upgraded during the relevant period. It did these repairs without delay. These actions will have minimised disruption to residents.
11. The landlord identified that some of the repairs were due to a faulty lift processor.  It asked its contractor to review these in March 2025 and fitted a new processor on 9 May 2025. The new part was not functioning correctly and needed replacement. The issues with the new processor were outside of the landlord’s control and we did not see evidence of any avoidable delays in it arranging a replacement.
12. However, the landlord’s records show high numbers of faults relating to the lift processor from at least 2022. There were 14 lift breakdowns caused by the lift processor in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint. These breakdowns were spread throughout the year with at least one each month other than July 2024.
13. It is good practice for landlords to look at repairs holistically, working predictively rather than reactively. The landlord did a ‘lift health check’ on the lift on 17 November 2024. It identified a trend of breakdowns relating to a thermistor it had already replaced, but there was no evidence it considered the number of processor-related breakdowns. This was a missed opportunity.
14. The landlord’s records show that during the relevant period, the other 8 lift breakdowns were for various reasons, ranging from a lock fault to accidental damage by residents. We did not find a common cause of the lift breakdowns other than those relating to the processor.
15. The resident asked the landlord to consider replacing the lift. However, the landlord has chosen to repair the lift and replace individual components. Landlords are entitled to repair items in the first instance rather than replacing them, although replacement should be considered if the item is beyond economic repair. This ensures value for money and reduces costs which would otherwise be passed on to residents through their rent and service charge. The landlord’s records indicate that breakdowns decreased significantly after the processor was replaced. There were 4 lift repairs reported in the 4 months after the processor was replaced, and on 3 of these occasions the lift was working when the engineer arrived, and no repair was required.
16. The resident’s building is 7 storeys high. Any lift breakdown will have a significant impact on residents, particularly those who, like the resident and her mother, live on the upper floors. During the complaints process, the landlord explained that it produces a twice-daily report on lift breakdowns. It uses the report to identify residents who may be more affected by the breakdown, including older adults, young children, and residents it is aware of with mobility impairments. It offers additional support to residents who may need this. This is an example of good practice.
17. In this case, the resident explained to the landlord that her mother is a wheelchair user who is unable to leave the building and that she missed care and support as her carers were not always able to access the property when the lift was broken. The landlord told the Ombudsman it was not aware of the resident’s mother was living in the property prior to the complaints process. We have not seen any evidence to contradict this. The landlord’s records show that the resident lives in a 1-bedroom property, and when the property was let to her, she was the sole occupant. As such, we accept the landlord’s account. As it was unaware that the resident’s mother was living at the property, it would not be expected to adapt its service delivery for her.
18. However, when the resident complained to the landlord, it became aware of her mother’s personal circumstances. There was no evidence that it acted in response to this information, or amended its records. This was a failing by the landlord.
19. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord does not automatically accept new household members as a part of residents’ tenancies. This means they may not offer the same support to the resident’s mother as to authorised household members. For example, she may not be considered as part of a rehousing application, and the landlord may not need to offer her temporary accommodation if the property was not habitable.
20. However, the landlord would still be responsible for some actions, like safeguarding. In her complaint, the resident gave information that could amount to a safeguarding concern, including that the resident’s mother had missed medication and meals. The landlord should have identified this and made the necessary internal referrals.
21. There were several other actions the landlord could have taken to follow best practice, including:
    1. Ensuring the resident and her mother had adequate support, referring or signposting them to services if appropriate.
    2. Offering the resident’s mother a person-centred fire risk assessment, including a personalised evacuation plan.
    3. Discussing whether the property was medically suitable for the family, and any rehousing options available to them.
22. Overall, the landlord’s response did not demonstrate professional curiosity or meet the commitments it makes in its accessible services statement to ‘notice if a resident may need additional support’. We recommend that the landlord consider additional staff training, to ensure that staff, including complaints handling staff, are confident in recognising welfare and safeguarding concerns and taking appropriate action.
23. These failures by the landlord may have caused the resident additional inconvenience and worry about her mother’s wellbeing. The landlord told us that it intends to speak to the resident about her mother’s occupancy of the property and ensure the household have adequate support. This is an appropriate step to put things right for the resident.
24. The landlord offered the resident a total of £200 in compensation for the time and effort she had taken to complain, and the intermittent lift service. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its errors and offer compensation, the compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s failures will have caused the resident. We have awarded an additional £150 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) says awards in this range are appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected, and the landlord has not acted to fully put things right.

25. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It says it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days. It says it will respond at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
26. The landlord responded within its complaints policy timescale during the second stage of its complaints process. There was a delay of approximately 2 weeks in its stage 1 complaint response. This delay will have caused the resident inconvenience as it prolonged the complaints process and the resident’s ability to refer her complaint to us for investigation.
27. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response and offered the resident £25 in compensation. This award aligned with its compensation policy. The award offered proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident. We find that it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord could consider asking all residents in high-rise buildings to contact it if personal circumstances mean they, or a member of their household, may need additional support in an emergency. This would help it to keep its records up to date.

Communication

29. The landlord should consider how it can improve inter-departmental communication, to ensure that information it becomes aware of during the complaints process is passed on appropriately.