London Borough of Camden Council (202448622)

Background

1. The resident lives on the 14th floor of a high rise block of flats which has 2 lifts. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident told us he has disabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. We have looked at the landlords:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the lift.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the handling of the concerns about the lift.
   2. There was service failure in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the lift

4. The landlord attended to each lift breakdown in line with its repairs policy. While the lift was out of action for a prolonged period on the first occasion, it showed that it undertook inspections to find the root cause of the issue and ordered the necessary parts.
5. However, its communication with the resident throughout was lacking, it did not keep the resident updated on the repairs.
6. It also did not evidence that it spoke to its contractors about the lift use to consider if alternative arrangements could be made for particularly busy periods of lift use.
7. It did not evidence that following the second prolonged lift breakdown it took a proactive approach to repair the lift.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not comply with the Code at stage 2 of the complaint process; it did not acknowledge this or offer redress for the delay.

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.

9. During 2024, the 2 lifts in the block of flats broke down 27 times: 1 lift 18 times, the 2nd lift 9 times. On each occasion the landlord attended, in line with its repairs policy, as an emergency repair within 3 hours.
10. The evidence also shows that the landlord appropriately serviced the lift regularly throughout the period of the complaint, in line with its obligations.
11. One of the lifts went out of service on 11 July 2024. The landlord attended within three hours, in line with its policy, but could not complete the repair as it needed parts. The repair log shows further inspections on 15 and 25 July 2024, with parts ordered during the latter visit. Although the landlord did not fix the lift at the first visit, the evidence shows the delay was due to waiting for necessary parts, not a lack of effort by the landlord.
12. It is unclear from the evidence when it repaired the lift, which suggests a record keeping issue.
13. Where a lift is out of action for a period, we would expect to see the landlord have clear and effective communication with its residents to manage expectations. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord did so. While it is not for us to determine how long it would take to repair a lift, effective communication with residents would help to ensure all are aware of the progress of any repairs.
14. The block where the resident lived had two lifts. Although one lift being out of service was inconvenient, the other remained operational, meeting building regulations. After the landlord repaired the first lift in July 2024, it failed again in November 2024. While this caused disruption, a second lift was still available at the time.
15. On 25 August 2024, the second lift also went out of action. While we understand this would have caused disruption to the resident, the landlord attended and repaired that lift within its published timescales. Its swift action was appropriate and minimised the disruption caused.
16. The landlord originally said it was due to repair the first lift again on 13 December 2024; however, it was unable to do so. It has provided no evidence to show why this was the case. This is further evidence of a record keeping issue.
17. The lift was still out of service on 13 February 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. During the period of the lift being broken, the landlord has not provided evidence that it gave updates to the resident about the repair. While we acknowledge that lift repairs can be complex, the landlord should maintain regular communication and keep residents informed of progress and any delays.
18. We would also expect to see the landlord take a proactive approach to the repair to ensure it was taking swift action to understand the fault and source the required parts as soon as possible. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to satisfy us that it did take swift action to try to resolve this second prolonged fault at the earliest opportunity.
19. In the formal complaint, the resident said the text updates in relation to the lift had stopped. While the landlord responded to say that it had referred the issue to its IT team, it gave the same response at stage 2 highlighting that it had in fact taken no action to resolve the text update issue for the resident. It is not appropriate that it did not investigate the issue. Had it been able to send out regular updates, it may have avoided the need to raise a complaint.
20. While the landlord noted in the stage 2 response that the lift manager would contact the resident to give an update, we cannot see that it did so.
21. During the period of the lift being out of action, the resident said there were times where the wait for the lift was prolonged due to the contractors in the building who were completing works on the block. Given the extra pressure on the lift and the knock on effect on the resident, it would have been useful for the landlord to have spoken to the contractors to consider if alternative arrangements could be made, particularly during busy periods of lift use. Doing so could have balanced the disruption to residents and the importance of completing the repairs to the building. It has not evidenced that it gave the issue any consideration.
22. In his formal complaint, the resident asked how the landlord would prevent future lift failures once repairs were complete. The landlord explained that it regularly serviced the lift and, if recurring faults made repairs uneconomical, it would consider replacement. This response was reasonable, the landlord is entitled to continue to repair the lift where the faults are unrelated and by servicing the lift regularly it was doing all it could to ensure the lift remained in working order.
23. It is not a failing that one of the lifts was out of action for periods as the block had another working lift. We are also aware that lift repairs are often complex and where parts are needed, it can cause delays waiting for these. However, in this case the landlord did not show that it had effective communication with the resident throughout the period of the faults. It did not consider the impact on its residents of only 1 lift being in action while there was increased footfall in the building. When the lift broke again in November 2024, it has not shown that it took a proactive approach to repair the lift at the earliest opportunity.

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident complaint and provided its stage 1 response within the timescales set out in the Code.
    3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint within the timescales set out in the Code.
    4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 17 days outside of its published timescale. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its complaint response. These delays amount to a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s records in this case were lacking. It did not evidence that it kept a log of communication with the resident and its contractors in relation to the lift repairs. The logs provided showing the lift repairs and inspection visits were not clear and it was often hard to understand when a fault occurred and when it resolved the issue. The landlord must consider how it can improve its case management system to ensure it keeps clear and accurate repair logs.

Communication

26. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor; it did not evidence that it had regular and effective communication with the resident throughout the period of the lift repairs to manage his expectations. The landlord needs to consider any systems it can implement to ensure it keeps residents informed when the lift breaks and when the repair is complete with updates given in the interim to manage expectations.