Lambeth Council (202315922)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315922

Lambeth Council

4 July 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy that started on 15 July 2013.
  2. The resident suffers from osteoarthritis and dementia. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the third floor of a larger block.
  3. The communal lift had several repair reports dating back to August 2022. The landlord attended to the lift on 3 occasions in December 2022, 3 times in January 2023, 7 times in February 2023, and 1 time in March 2023. On 5 April 2023, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord, reporting that the communal lift had not been functioning for around 6 weeks. She also mentioned that the landlord had not communicated with residents about this. She said the resident was unable to leave the property as a result.
  4. The landlord attended to the lift again on 15 May 2023, leaving it in service after this appointment. Following further problems in June 2023, it was decided that the only option was to replace the entire control panel of the lift. The landlord spoke with the manufacturers, had quotes completed and approved the works on 2 July 2023.
  5. The resident’s representative wrote to the Ombudsman on 1 August 2023, seeking to raise a complaint about the landlord. She said that the lift had been out of service for most of 2023, and continually since May 2023. The resident had been unable to leave the property during this time due to her vulnerabilities. The representative was unhappy with the landlord’s communication about these issues and was seeking a reimbursement of the lift service charges. She also wanted the landlord to help arrange getting the resident out of the block twice per week. The Ombudsman passed this complaint to the landlord on 18 October 2023.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 October 2023, escalating it straight to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2023. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience that the delay in repairs had caused the resident. It said that due to a severe shortage of available parts for the lift, it had been forced to undertake a total refurbishment which began on 30 October 2023. It said it expected these works to take several weeks to complete. It added that it would not be able to provide any alternative solution for the resident whilst the lift was out of action and signposted the service charge issue to a housing officer.
  7. The resident’s representative wrote to the Ombudsman on 4 December 2023. She was unhappy that repairs to the lift had been delayed, meaning these would now not be completed until 2024. She said that the resident was a prisoner in her own home and no further progress had been made from the date of her original letter. She was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of care when considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The representative followed this up with an update, advising that the resident had a fall and was in hospital as a result. To resolve her complaint the resident, wants a refund of the service charges paid for whilst the lift was out of order.
  8. The repairs to the communal lift were completed in February 2024. However, the resident’s representative has recently informed the Ombudsman that the lift was once again out of order and had been for several weeks as of July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. According to paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that ‘concern the level of rent or service charge’. The appropriate body to decide such complaints is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First Tier Tribunal can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to approach the First Tier Tribunal to seek a determination on the reasonableness of the lift service charges during the period the communal lift was out of order.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal lift

  1. The landlord’s repair policy has lift breakdowns listed as an emergency repair. It says it will attend to these and fix the problem within 1 working day. For larger planned repairs, it says that it will complete these within 90 days.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that communal lift faults can be difficult to diagnose and resolve. It can be time consuming to diagnose a suitable repair and it may become a lengthy process where a major programme of works or a section 20 consultation is required. As such, there is no specific timescale within which the landlord should complete a lift repair or upgrade but its actions should be reasonable, and it should consider the impact of the repair on the resident and provide regular communication throughout.
  3. The landlord’s repair records demonstrate that it responded to reports of lift faults within the timescale set out in its repair policy, usually arriving and attempting to diagnose and remedy the outage within the relevant 24-hour timescale. There were instances when restoring the lift to function took longer than this. However, these usually required specialist repairs that meant a 24-hour fix was not possible and there was no failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. However, given the number of times the landlord was called out due to various lift problems, it should have sought a long-term solution at an earlier stage. As early as 15 February 2023, a technician put on his job sheet that the lift should be considered for an upgrade, noting errors with the main processor. At this time, the fault appeared intermittent but getting worse with the landlord having to attend on 6 occasions within a month. Given the ongoing nature of the problem, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought a long-term solution rather than allowing the outage to continue for another 4 months before the upgrade commenced. This delay meant that the resident was frequently inconvenienced by ongoing failures and the landlord missed an opportunity to begin the renewal of key components.
  5. After deciding the communal lift needed to be upgraded, the resident was left without a functioning lift from the beginning of June 2023 until February 2024. Given the resident’s issues with mobility and living on the third floor, this severely limited her ability to access and leave the property, likely causing distress and inconvenience to her. Her representative has indicated that this has had an impact on her ability to attend necessary medical appointments.
  6. The landlord completed a referral to Adult Social Care when the lift was initially broken. This took place in March 2023. It also said that it believed the resident was receiving support from her daughters and nephew. Whilst the resident may have had some support from family, the landlord still has a responsibility to ensure that it is considering all of the steps it can take to alleviate problems the resident may be encountering due to its failures or outstanding works. While the lift upgrade was pending and the landlord was aware this meant a long-term outage, the landlord should have pro-actively checked how this could impact its residents and sought to mitigate this impact as much as possible.
  7. The landlord does not appear to have had any dialogue with the resident or her representative about possible reasonable adjustments that could have been made to help her with entering and exiting the property. The landlord left the vulnerable resident without means of leaving the property over an extended period and did not assess exactly what impact this would have in terms of her safety and quality of life. Whilst the resident was waiting for the lift to be repaired, she suffered a fall, resulting in her having to attend the hospital. Whilst it is not possible for us to conclude that this was directly caused by the lift outage, the landlord’s failure to pro-actively assess risks to the resident and the lack of direct communication with her about the issue was unreasonable.
  8. If the landlord decided there was a high risk to the resident during the lift outage but it could not provide the necessary support, it needed to consider if the property was still suitable for her or not. For example, the landlord does not appear to have considered the safety aspect of the resident being unable to evacuate the property in the event of a fire. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed with any parties how the resident’s safety and support needs were being met whilst the lift was out of service.
  9. Options such as decanting the resident whilst the lift was out of action and implementing a tailored evacuation procedure should have been considered by the landlord as soon as the long-term nature of the lift repair was identified. The landlord’s failure to establish risk and introduce relevant mitigations was unreasonable.
  10. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receipt of the complaint and provide its response within 10 working days of this. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord says it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the receipt of the escalation request.
  11. When the complaint was sent to the landlord by the Ombudsman, it immediately escalated this to stage 2 of its complaint process without first investigating at stage 1. This represented a failure in service from the landlord to fairly consider the resident’s complaint or allow her to fully access the complaints procedure. The purpose of the stage 2 process is to allow the landlord to review its earlier response and consider why the resident remained unhappy with this. Its failure to investigate at both stages of the complaints process meant the landlord missed an opportunity to thoroughly review its actions.
  12. Although this Service is unable to determine that the level of the resident’s lift service charges was unreasonable, we have considered how the landlord responded to this concern. Despite this being mentioned as part of the reason for the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, the landlord’s only response through the complaints process was to signpost the resident to a housing officer. This advice was insufficient as the landlord should have pro-actively drawn this concern to the attention of the housing officer and outlined its stance in the final complaint response.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s delay in progressing a long-term solution to the consistent lift outages and its failure to assess risk to, and discuss potential support for, the resident during the period the major works were pending represents maladministration. The resident is vulnerable and her representative clearly explained the impact of her being left in the property without means of entering and exiting. The landlord also failed to communicate reasonably with the resident in regard to its plans for returning the lift to service and the related charges. For these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £800 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range for failures which had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a communal lift.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
      2. update her on any steps it is currently taking to ensure the lift is more reliable;
      3. advise her if it is willing to reimburse any service charges, how it has reached this decision and what her options are if she disagrees with the outcome.
    2. Pay the resident £800 compensation for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of the communal lift repair.
    3. Undertake a risk assessment of the resident’s current circumstances, considering the impact on her of being unable to use the lift. The landlord should contact the resident’s representative (who holds power of attorney) to ensure she is able to be present for, or contribute to, the assessment.
  2. Within 2 weeks of completing the risk assessment, the landlord should provide the resident with an action plan and a timetable for how it will manage, or eradicate, any risks identified. If it establishes any health and safety concerns that cannot be addressed, it should consider whether decanting the resident is required and explain its decision.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.