London Borough of Hackney (202228593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228593

London Borough of Hackney

28 February 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 handling of repairs to the communal lift.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider:
1. The landlord’s record keeping.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1–bedroom flat on the second floor of a 3–storey building. He holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The building contains one communal lift. For the duration of the complaint, the resident’s friend corresponded on the resident’s behalf. For clarity, both the resident and his representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.
The landlord advised that the resident is elderly but did not have a record of any further vulnerabilities.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord received a report that a pipe in the communal hallway had burst. Water was reported as gushing out and entering the lift shaft. The leak was stopped on the same day.
The lift was switched off on 21 December 2021 as the motor room was flooded.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 to advise he had raised a complaint on 22 February 2022. He reported that he had limited mobility following a hip operation and was unable to go outside due to the lift not working. He had previously contacted the landlord but not received a response.
The lift was repaired and left working on 25 April 2022.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 25 August 2022. He complained about the length of time it took for the landlord to repair the lift, and the landlord’s lack of action to check on him.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2022. It said:
1. The lift was out of service due to a water pipe bursting which resulted in the motor room being flooded and the lift machinery being submerged in water.
2. It apologised that the resident did not receive assistance during the lift shutdown and advised this was not in line with its lift protocol.
3. It said that a housing officer’s telephone number would be located on the lift notice for future breakdowns.
The resident escalated the complaint on 7 September 2022. He remained dissatisfied that the complaint response did not address all aspects of his complaint. He did not feel that the negligence he experienced was reflected in the compensation offer.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 11 October 2022. It said:
1. It identified a 6–week period of unreasonable delays. It awarded £30 for this.
2. It apologised for the lack of support during the lift outage. It advised that senior managers had been made aware of the findings. It awarded £150 compensation for this.
3. The total compensation offered amounted to £180.
The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 April 2023. He remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. He feels that his vulnerabilities had not been considered. To resolve the complaint, the resident is seeking a higher level of compensation, the landlord to provide compulsory training to all staff, and the landlord to review its lift breakdown policy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the landlord and the Ombudsman of health issues he experienced, which he advised were worsened by the landlord’s delay to repair the lift. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s physical or mental health. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition.
Without that evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the repair. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
Paragraph 42g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes”. During the resident’s complaint, he raised issues about the impact which delays to the lift repair had on neighbours. He requested for his compensation offer to be extended to them. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman will only be able to consider matters which directly affected the resident or his occupation of the property, this includes the landlord’s offer of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that immediate repairs such as leaks which cannot be contained will be attended to within 2 hours. For normal repairs, the landlord will aim to respond within 21 days. If the timeframe needs to be extended for certain repairs, it will inform tenants.
The policy continues that there are a number of ways it can support vulnerable customers such as those who are frail, elderly, or with severe physical health problems. This may include giving greater priority for repairs or carrying out work outside of its policy.
The landlord’s lift breakdown protocol says that following notification of a lift breakdown, if the lift is going to be out for several hours, the London Fire Brigade should be notified and given an indication of which residents may need assistance in evacuating in the event of an emergency. All area managers should be sent an email with the shutdown list from the lift contractor so that residents can be updated.
The landlord should take the following actions after the lift is reported as broken down:
1. Fit a notice at the earliest opportunity stating the lift is out of action and include a possible return service date.
2. A housing officer must inform all residents immediately of the breakdown, likely timescales for the repair, and a description of where the landlord is within the repair process.
3. A housing officer should contact vulnerable residents in the block by visiting or calling. It should also send out letters to make the landlord aware of any mobility problems, or other vulnerability that is likely to be affected by the lift being out of order. This should include asking for contact details of relatives, friends and other organisations which are in a position to provide help and support.
4. If the repair is likely to take substantially longer than a working day to repair, the landlord should keep residents informed of the timescales. It suggests the housing officer may need to do this several times depending on the estimated time for the repair to be completed.
5. The lift contractor will keep the landlord informed on a regular basis of progress with the repair.
6. The area housing manager should inform the local ward Councillors of the lift breakdown providing them with the relevant details.
The landlord can support its residents in the event of a lift breakdown in the following ways:
1. Provide some practical help where it can if residents are unable to use the stairs and have no alternative means of help from friends.
2. Housing officers should be aware of residents’ needs and should respond to requests for help. An emergency referral can be made to the resident sustainment team.
3. If it is deemed completely unreasonable for the resident to continue to live in the block because of the length of time it takes to repair the lift, and the impact on their wellbeing, then temporary accommodation may have to be considered.
After the report of a burst pipe in the communal hallway was raised, the landlord logged the matter as an emergency repair and attended within 3 hours. Although it attended an hour outside of its target timeframe, its response was considered reasonable. The leak was resolved during the visit and no further concerns were raised regarding this.
It is concerning that during the emergency visit, no records were maintained to suggest that the lift was inspected until a contractor attended on 21 December 2021 and shut down the lift. Upon inspection of the lift, the contractor identified that the motor room had been flooded and the water needed to be drained. It was unsatisfactory that the lift machinery was left in a flooded state over the 2-week period and was possibly still being used by residents during this time. The landlord’s initial response to the water affecting the lift was not in line with the timeframes as per its policy.
On 3 January 2022, the resident phoned the landlord and advised that he and others in the building were vulnerable and required use of the lift. In accordance with the lift protocol, by this stage the landlord should have contacted the fire brigade, sourced an update from its contractors, fitted a notice on the lift, contacted all residents to identify any vulnerabilities, and provided updates on the likely timescale of the repair. It was unacceptable that the landlord had not taken any of these steps. The landlord exacerbated the matter by closing the work order following the phone call due to the “lift already shut down”. It failed to provide an update to the resident or respond to his concerns.
The lift contractor attended again on 10 January 2022 and identified that the water in the motor room had been contaminated with oil. It identified the need for a specialist to attend the site with a tanker to drain the water. This attendance evidenced little progress from its previous visit 3 weeks prior, and no follow up works were logged. The landlord showed a continued lack of urgency to attend to the lift repair.
The resident chased up again on 24 January 2022 to advise that the lift was still broken down and he had received no response to previous calls. He confirmed that the lift was the only one in the building. The note recorded following this call was the same as before and suggested the matter was passed to the contractor and then closed as the lift was switched off. It was unreasonable that the landlord continued to take no action to risk assess the resident’s situation whilst the lift was out of order.
The landlord attached a notice to the lift on 15 February 2022. This outlined what the outstanding lift repairs were. However, it did not contain an expected timeframe for the repairs to be completed by. Nor did it contain any contact details for a housing officer should residents require support. Moreover, the notice on the lift did not negate the landlord’s responsibility to provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of the repair. As per the landlord’s lift protocol, the housing officer should have been in regular contact with the resident.
There were significant delays totalling at 18 weeks for the landlord to complete the repairs to lift. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s explanation that an immediate repair was not possible due to the scale of the works. The contractors had to drain 4,000 litres of water from the motor room, remove and inspect all lift equipment which had been submerged in water, and re-build the lift equipment.
As per the repairs policy, the landlord can give greater priority for repairs affecting residents who are vulnerable and/or elderly. However, the landlord provided no evidence that it chased its contractor or stressed the urgency of the repair. The lack of urgency contributed towards lengthy delays. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to support the landlord’s assertion that 12 weeks of the delays to complete repairs to the lift were unavoidable. The lift contractor’s records lacked detail, and there were unexplained gaps where no action was taken. As such, the landlord is ordered to review its communication and processes with its contractors when dealing with repairs.
The landlord evidenced an ongoing disregard to its lift protocol when the lift was out of action. It did not check on the wellbeing of the resident, enquire about his vulnerabilities, or provide updates on the progress of the repairs whilst the lift was out of order.
The landlord was aware that the resident was elderly and received communication from him about the effect that the lift being out of order had on him. However, it did not provide support to assist the resident when the lift was out of action which was a major failing in the handling of this case. The onus was on the resident to source his own support. The landlord continued to undermine the impact on the resident.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010 to consider whether the circumstances of the resident placed him at a disadvantage when the lift was out of order, and whether any reasonable adjustments in relation to his accommodation, support needs or communication were required as a result. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it understood its duties under the Act to assess the needs of the resident and consider whether any reasonable adjustments could be made.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said, “you advised that shortly before the lift broke down, you had broken your hip and you had been instructed to take regular walks outside. However, you were not able to do this by yourself and had to rely on a friend to take you out, but he was only able to assist once a week and as a result recovery was slowed down significantly which left you feeling isolated and depressed”. There was a significant impact on the resident by the lift being out of order.
Records evidence that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s broken hip on 1 March 2022. Following this, an email on 30 March 2022 suggests that the landlord arranged counselling and wider needs support for the resident after he requested this. However, records do not confirm that the referral was completed.
Overall, the resident experienced over 4 months of delays waiting for the lift to be repaired and received no contact. This delay, along with the landlord’s lack of communication, failure to consider his support needs, or offer any support amounts to maladministration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord awarded £180 compensation to the resident in its final complaint response. This comprised of £150 for the lack of support during the lift outage and £30 for a 6-week period of unreasonable delays. The compensation awarded was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident given his vulnerabilities or its complete disregard to its lift protocol throughout the repair. Further, the offer was not reflective of the full extent of its delays to repair the lift.
The Ombudsman considers that the sum of £1,000 is proportionate redress for the identified failings to reflect the significant impact on the resident whilst the lift was out of order.
It is noted that the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had not followed its lift protocol or offered sufficient support to residents during the lift breakdown. It said it would feedback the failures to the heads of service and ensure that staff follow the lift protocol in future. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has taken sufficient action to ensure a recurrence does not occur. As the failings were significant in this case, the landlord is ordered to provide training to its staff on its lift protocol and how to support vulnerable residents.

The landlord’s record keeping.

As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited. For example, its repair logs lacked detail. As such, the Ombudsman was unable to conclude what actions the landlord took in response to the lift repairs. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it was unable to confirm what repairs contractors carried out on occasions.
Following phone calls from the resident, records suggest that repairs had been passed to contractors. However, no records were maintained to corroborate this. The landlord was unable to evidence that it took appropriate steps to address the repair. This was unacceptable.
Further record keeping failings were identified by the landlord’s lack of communication records with the resident. The resident advised that he contacted the landlord on several occasions when the lift was broken to explain the impact this had on him. The landlord’s call note records were extremely limited. This likely contributed towards the landlord not taking follow up actions. For example, after 2 phone calls the landlord closed work orders when it should have taken further action.
Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” These failings were evident in this case.
Due to the above, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that a stage 1 complaint response will be issued to residents within 10 working days of a complaint being raised. The landlord will arrive at an outcome which determines whether fault is found. The response should detail the reasons why the landlord has reached its conclusion, and the response will include details of the resolution offered. Once an escalation request is received, the landlord will not unreasonably refuse to escalate the complaint through all stages of the complaints process. At stage 2, the landlord aims to issue a response within 20 working days.
The resident advised the landlord that he raised a complaint on 22 February 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of a formal complaint being logged until 25 August 2022. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The response time was in accordance with its policy.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaints. For example, it did not address the resident’s dissatisfaction at the time taken for the lift to be repaired, the reported physical and mental impact on the resident caused by the lift being broken down, or his request for compensation. This would have caused frustration to the resident who provided detailed information to the landlord.
On 7 September 2022, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Following this, the landlord de–escalated the complaint back to stage 1 and requested for the stage 1 officer to issue a further response. The landlord was not satisfied that all aspects of the complaint had been responded to and felt that compensation should have been awarded at stage 1. However, the landlord did not update the resident of its decision. This was inappropriate. Further, the decision to de-escalate the complaint was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”. This is because it causes unnecessary delays for the resident to progress their complaint. In circumstances where the landlord identifies failings in its stage 1 response, it should address these in its final stage 2 response.
On 22 September 2022, the resident chased up the landlord as he had not received acknowledgement of his stage 2 complaint. It was unreasonable that the resident was left without updates and had to follow up with the landlord. During the call, the landlord advised it had de–escalated the complaint back to stage 1. The resident said he did not want this and asked to receive a stage 2 final complaint response. Following this, the landlord agreed it would escalate the complaint and issue a stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord issued acknowledgement on 10 October 2022 and a final complaint response on 11 October 2022. The response was issued 24 working days after the resident requested escalation. Although the response was issued outside of the landlord’s target timeframe of 20 working days, the delays were not significant. However, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration for the following:
1. The landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the complaint at stage 1.
2. The landlord not addressing the stage 1 shortcomings it identified in its final response or offering to put things right for this.
3. Inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of updates after his escalation request and its decision to de-escalate the complaint.
As such, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100 to put things right for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
2. maladministration regarding the landlord’s record keeping.
3. maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings identified in this report when handling the lift repairs.
The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £1,100 inclusive of the £180 already offered comprised of:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident when the lift was out of order. (This amount is inclusive of the £180 already offered).
2. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures as identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to complete a review into its communications and processes with its contractors when dealing with repairs. A particular focus should be on the level of detail which contractors record.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to train its staff on the lift protocol to ensure they are aware of the steps which must be followed when a lift breaks down. Further training should be undertaken on how to support vulnerable residents, with a particular focus on what steps should be taken when repairs are outstanding.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman within the next 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to read the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)).