Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited (202229316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229316

Islington and Shoreditch Housing Association Limited

19 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to a communal lift.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the 5th floor of a block (the block). The block has a communal lift that services each floor.
After a series of malfunctions between January and August 2022, the communal lift was taken out of service in September 2022. This was to allow repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2022, asking for updates regarding the lift repair. She complained on 6 October 2022. She said:
1. For most of the year the lift had been continually out of service.
2. The lift had been out of service since 13 September 2022.
3. She had no response to her requests for updates from the landlord.
4. She sought a refund of her service charges.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2022. This was around 40 working days later. It said:
1. It had received daily reports from its lift contractor. Some of these reports were unclear.
2. The lift needed major work to bring it back into service. These should have been complete by 2 December 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022. She said the lift was still out of service. She asked for guidance from the landlord around escalating her complaint.
On 10 January 2023, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said that she had no response to her previous email.
The landlord acknowledged the request for stage 2 on 12 January 2023.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2023. It provided a description of the faults that led to the lift breakdown. It recommended substantial repairs to the lift to bring it back into service.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2023. This was around 19 working days later. It provided an overview of the lift repairs between 13 January 2022 and 6 February 2023. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. The lift had been out of service since 8 August 2022.
2. It had stopped the service charge for the lift for all residents of the block.
3. It had arranged for a contractor to identify and rectify the faults with the lift.
4. It would provide weekly updates on repairs going forwards.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the residents.
6. It apologised for the delays in its complaint handling.
7. If offered the resident compensation of £500. This comprised of:
  1. £400 for distress and inconvenience. This was the maximum it offered for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 February and 2 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The lift had not worked for around 7 months. There had been problems with the lift since she moved into the property in 2012. She wanted the landlord to repair the lift and provide an action plan on its future maintenance. She wanted the landlord to provide a date that the works would be completed. She wanted the communication from the landlord to be improved.
The landlord’s records show that it provided weekly updates to residents between 8 February 2023 to 10 May 2023. These included details of the works undertaken and answers to residents about the service charge for the lift. It set out that it would pay residents £4.49 per week from August 2022 until the lift was repaired in May 2023.
The landlord notified the resident that the lift had been repaired on 12 May 2023. This was around 8 months after the lift had been taken out of service. It had arranged for its insurer to conduct an independent inspection. It would refund the service charge for the lift until the end of May 2023.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to it on 13 October 2023. It said that it had inspected the lift on 9 October 2023 after new fault reports had been made by residents. The new reports had been made on 1 and 11 September, and 5 October 2023. It found the lift to be working, but noted some issues with the door locking mechanisms. It made recommendations to replace/repair some parts to improve its performance.
The resident reported that there have been further problems with the lift since the repairs were complete. She said that the landlord had made an offer to support her with getting heavy items to her property during the lift repairs in 2023. She told the Ombudsman that this consisted of a number for her to call for operatives to come to the property to help her. However, the service did not work on the times that she tried, as no one was available when she needed the help. There are no records of this offer in the evidence provided by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s complaint policy shows that it operated a 2-stage procedure. It set out that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Handling of repairs to a communal lift.

The records show that there was one lift that serviced all floors in the block. There were stairs that residents could use while it was not functioning. The resident lives on the 5th floor and described having difficulty accessing her property while the lift was out of service. She said that she has since injured her knee and will often not leave her home, fearing being stuck in the lift.
The landlord was required to ensure that the communal lift was well maintained and functioning correctly. It did not publish any timescales that residents should expect it to complete major or planned repairs. In this case the landlord took around 9 months to complete the works.
Although the resident was left without the use of a lift for a substantial period, the landlord’s records show that it responded to all reports of faults promptly. It arranged for suitably qualified contractors to survey the lift and report how to resolve the faults. It acted on the advice given to it by specialist contractors. When the original contractor was unable to resolve the problem, it arranged for a second contractor as recommended by the lift manufacturer. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord’s intention to resolve the repairs promptly.
Despite the change in contractor, there were additional survey reports and substantial repairs that were required to return the lift to service. These works were outside of the landlord’s control. However, it was responsible to ensure that it managed the works with timely communication with its contractor and the residents.
The landlord’s initial communication was poor. The records show the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. There was a period of around 2 months in August to October 2022 where there were no updates provided to the resident. The landlord should have shared the information it had with residents and given them some expectation when the repairs would be complete. This was not improved when it issued its stage 1 response in December 2022. The resident continued to ask for updates without response.
However, the landlord learned from its failings with communication when it issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and agreed to provide weekly updates to all residents. It followed through with the promise it set out at stage 2 and the evidence shows it provided weekly updates by email. Its decision to credit the resident with the lift maintenance element of her service charge for the full duration was reasonable. The landlord’s offer of £400 for the distress and inconvenience was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord reviewed the offer of compensation once the works were complete on 17 May 2023. When it made its initial offer of compensation, it had set out that it recognised the work would still be ongoing and would be for the whole period. It said that it had offered the maximum payment under its compensation guidelines and refunded the service charge payments between August 2022 and May 2023. Its offer reflected the full period that the list was out of service. The landlord demonstrated good dispute resolution principles when making its decision. The evidence shows that it was fair, put things right, and learned from outcomes.
Although the landlord’s offer of compensation and reduction in the service charges are clear, it is not clear about how it funded the repair works. It should have been clear with the resident how the repairs were funded and if she would receive additional costs in her future service charges.
The resident described the landlord making offers to provide support and assistance to residents during the works. There is no evidence of this offer within the evidence available to the Ombudsman. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer a reasonable adjustment to assist the residents while the major repairs were complete. It should have included the details of this offer in its response to the resident, or set it out in writing separately.
The resident reported that the adjustment was unsuccessful, because in most cases the support was not available. It is not clear from the evidence available if the resident informed the landlord about any failings of the support that she experienced. Without evidence to show either way, the Ombudsman has been unable to make any finding in regard to the adjustments made.
The resident said that the lift had begun to malfunction again once the major works were complete. The records show that the landlord arranged for its contractor to return and inspect the lifts. The contractor reported that no substantial repairs were required, but recommendations were made to improve the lift’s performance. It is not clear from the evidence available to the Ombudsman if those repairs were complete by the landlord.
Overall the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift. The landlord broadly responded to reports made by the resident appropriately. It sought specialist advice to remedy the faults with the lift. It recognised the failings in its communication and provided substantial improvement in the service following its stage 2 response. Its offer of compensation, combined with the reduction in the costs for service charges was reasonable. However, it should have been clear with the resident about her liability regarding the overall repairs.

Complaint handling.

The landlord did not comply with its policy and procedures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timescales set out in its policy. Its response to the stage 1 complaint was considerably outside of those timescales.
The landlord took around 40 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was significantly above the 10 working days set out in its policy. The complaint did not resolve the substantive issue, or provide assurance that it would proactively manage the case. It did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the dispute.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the failures of its stage 1 response. It referred to failures in its communication and the lack of responses. The response was detailed and addressed each part of the resident’s complaint individually. The offer of £100 compensation was reflective of the detriment caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the responses were provided outside of the timescales set out in its policy, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was reasonable in this case. It recognised that there were failings and offered means to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident a clear explanation of any costs she will be responsible for. It should set out how these costs are calculated and if they will be added to her future service charges.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should arrange for the repairs set out in its contractors survey from 13 October 2023.
The landlord should conduct a further inspection of the lift to ensure that the substantive issues with disrepair have been resolved. It should provide the resident with an update on its findings.