London Borough of Barnet (202220499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220499

Barnet Homes

25 July 2023

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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a stair lift.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house and the resident said that the tenancy commenced 19 years ago. The resident has advised she has mobility issues and poor mental health. A stair lift was installed in 2016 by the landlord’s adaptations team following an assessment by an occupational therapist.
3. On 17 August 2022, the resident reported the stair lift had stopped working. The landlord made arrangements with its contractor and an engineer inspected the stair lift the same day and identified that the batteries were swollen and needed replacing.
4. The next day, the contractor ordered new batteries with the specific current rating and reattended to install temporary batteries to provide temporary service until the correct batteries arrived. On testing the unit with the temporary batteries, the engineer found the stair lift still did not work and diagnosed a fault with the wiring loom which he considered needed to be replaced; the resident was informed that this may take a week to arrive.
5. On 19 August 2022, the contractor ordered the loom with an estimated delivery date of 25 August 2022 and also sent an engineer to carry out further investigation, but he was unable to return the stair lift to service. The resident made a formal complaint on 19 August 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the contractor’s handling of the issue and that she had been without a stair lift for over 24 hours.
6. The resident added to her complaint on 25 and 26 August 2022 stating she was reluctant to use the stairlift again after seeing the swollen batteries and was afraid it would break down again while in use. She also expressed concerns that the contractor’s manager had said that parts were difficult to obtain for this stair lift. The resident felt the landlord had not offered help or assistance during the time she was unable to get downstairs.
7. On 26 August 2022, as the loom had not arrived, an engineer reattended to see if he could carry out a repair without the loom. A faulty wire was identified by the engineer and a successful repair carried out; the new batteries were fitted and the lift returned to working order.
8. In the landlord’s final response of 12 September 2022, it:

a.     upheld the complaint.

b.     reiterated its stage one response which stated that it acknowledged delays in resolving the stair lift repair and explained there were factors that were out of its contractors hands that would have enabled a quicker fix.

c.      acknowledged its failure to keep the resident updated on a regular basis while the lift was out of service.

d.     apologised and offered the resident compensation of £160 for the inconvenience caused.

e.     said, as there had been a disconnect between the repairs identified in the out of hours service which was not acted upon by next day service, it had given feedback to the lift contractor and asked them to update their own internal process.

9. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 13 September 2022 following the resident’s report that the stair lift was beeping and would not charge. Its contractor’s engineer carried out a successful repair the next day.
10. The resident complained to this service in December 2022; she is seeking an increase in the compensation offer to at least £600 and for the stair lift to be replaced with a newer model. She has also said that she is unhappy that the temporary batteries were not installed on the contractor’s first visit; and that since a successful repair was ultimately carried out without the wiring loom, the same repair could have been made sooner, specifically when the temporary batteries were installed.

Assessment and findings

Lift maintenance and modernisation policy

11. The landlord’s lift maintenance and modernisation policy includes the following:
    1. To appoint/instruct a suitably qualified service provider for a fully comprehensive term contract which would include service and repairs for lifts.
    2. To deliver a customer focused service to residents by minimising the inconvenience of a lift being out of service.
12. In addition, the service provider is to use all reasonable endeavours to respond to call outs. During the service provider’s normal working hours it should respond within one hour of notification for malfunctions other than entrapments, and within two hours of notification outside of the service provider’s normal working hours.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the stair lift

13. The landlord is expected to assess a resident’s requirements and vulnerabilities in order to establish whether repair works may have a greater impact on certain individuals. The landlord should subsequently offer appropriate interim solutions if necessary.
14. This does not necessarily mean that a fault will be resolved quickly; in some cases, as here, the nature of the fault and the method of rectification mean that an immediate resolution is not possible. The landlord’s primary focus should be on taking appropriate steps to repair the stair lift in a reasonable timeframe, if possible arranging temporary fixes in the interim and keeping the resident informed as to the progress of the matter whilst managing their expectations.
15. The landlord took appropriate action by arranging for its lift contractor to attend the property within three hours of the resident’s call. The contractor made a number of visits subsequently, but because of the delay in the arrival of the part ordered, the resident was unable to go downstairs to the kitchen for a period of nine days and was reliant on members of the family who lived with her to provide food. The landlord did attempt an interim solution by installing temporary batteries, which resulted in the finding of the faulty wiring loom. The major part of the nine day period arose from the wait for the delivery of the wiring loom, and the available evidence indicates this was outside of the landlord’s control.
16. With that said, this service does not underestimate the inconvenience experienced by the resident in being unable to go downstairs for nine days. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect the landlord to have continued to update the resident during this period and to check if there was any further assistance it could provide. This would have been in line with its policy ‘to deliver a customer focused service to residents by minimising the inconvenience of a lift being out of service’.
17. The landlord did not do this, so it was appropriate that it acknowledged there had been failings in its communication and in offering assistance, and made an offer of compensation. This service’s remedies guidance states that if there was failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord had acknowledged its failings, to put matters right, compensation in the range of £100-600 would be appropriate. The resident has advised that she is not the sole occupant of the property as her partner and son live with her so were able to assist with her food requirements. Therefore, this service considers that the offer of £160 was proportionate to remedy its lack of assistance and communication during the time when the stair lift was inoperable.
18. With regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord said there were no vulnerability flags on its neighbourhood team system. This is of concern given that the landlord installed the stair lift as part of disabled adaptation works, and as there was a stair lift in the property the landlord should reasonably have been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Therefore, a recommendation has been made below to ensure that the resident’s property has a vulnerability flag applied.
19. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s view that since a successful repair was ultimately carried out without the wiring loom, it appears that the same repair could have been made sooner, namely when the temporary batteries were installed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the specialists it employs to accurately diagnose a repair and decide on how best to return a stair lift to service as speedily as possible.
20. Once the engineer established that the fault was of an electrical nature, they ordered a new wiring loom and explained this was because the manufacturer recommends changing the whole part. Therefore they gave a reasonable explanation for the decision to replace the entire wiring loom. When the loom did not arrive by the estimated delivery date, the contractor promptly revisited the property to see if it was possible to carry out an alternative repair to the stairlift whilst awaiting the part.
21. The landlord has said that the wiring loom arrived after 26 August 2022; however, it has not been installed and remains in the contractor’s store. The contractor has advised that to install it would result in a two to three day disruption. The Ombudsman considers the most important thing was to get the stair lift functioning, which the contractor was able to do without replacement of the loom. Given the length of time the resident had been without a stair lift, it was reasonable for the landlord and its contractor to adopt this approach.
22. The landlord advised that the current fix was a permanent fix and it was safe to continue to operate the stair lift. If a fault develops in the wiring loom in the future, the loom held in stock will be available for installation. In the Ombudsman’s view, this approach was reasonable;however for the resident’s peace of mind a another recommendation has been made.
23. However, there were other points that the resident raised in the complaints process that were not acknowledged or addressed by the landlord. The resident raised concerns that the temporary batteries could have been installed by the engineer on his first visit. The temporary batteries were installed around 24 hours after the breakdown was first reported and it was by doing so that the engineer identified the faulty wiring loom. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect the landlord to address the resident’s point, particularly given that she had been left confined to one floor of the house while the stair lift was not working.  There is no evidence to suggest it did so and this is a failure on its part.
24. Furthermore, the resident raised on more than one occasion her concern that the stair lift was showing its age, was anxious it may fail in the future and requested a replacement. There is no evidence to show the landlord addressed or responded to this concern in either of its responses and this would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. This, again, is a failing on the landlord’s part.
25. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.  It is acknowledged that it identified a failure on the part of its contractor in relation to raising repairs identified during out of hours calls. However, there is no evidence that it has taken steps to ensure that it offers assistance to disabled residents at the earliest opportunity following reports of repairs to disabled adaptations, or that it has put processes in place to ensure it is in regular contact with its disabled residents awaiting a repair to an adaptation.
26. Taking into account these failings that have not been put right by the landlord, a finding of service failure has been made. To put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident for its failure to respond to all concerns she raised about the stair lift breakdown, and to take steps to improve its service delivery going forward.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a stair lift.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident a further £100 for failing to address all her concerns about the stair lift breakdown .
    2. inspect the stair lift and ensure that it is fit for purpose. Following this, it should confirm in writing its response to the resident’s request for a replacement stair lift.
    3. take steps to ensure that it offers assistance to disabled residents at the earliest opportunity following reports of repairs to disabled adaptations, and communicates adequately with its disabled residents awaiting a repair to an adaptation.

Recommendations

29. Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that the landlord does the following:
    1. if it has not already, pay the resident £160 offered in its stage two response.
    2. approach the resident to establish if she is agreeable to having the new loom installed at the earliest possible opportunity at a time convenient to her. This allows for planned disruption as opposed to unexpected disruption if the current loom unexpectedly develops a fault. If the resident is not agreeable, the landlord should liaise with its contractor to check that the wiring loom remains in stock and is clearly labelled as being a part for this specific resident’s stair lift.
    3. ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.