Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202109014)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109014

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

11 May 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the servicing of the communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder in a block of flats, and is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about the servicing of a communal lift in the block where he lives. He thought the lift had not been serviced as it should have been, and pointed out that he and other residents paid for this in their service charge.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord said the lift required bi-monthly inspections, and said these had taken place. It provided the resident with servicing worksheets for 2020 to evidence this. It also confirmed the servicing schedule for the following year, but did not agree with the request for a resident to be present whilst servicing of the lift took place. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for its complaint handling, as it said its complaint response had fallen outside of service level agreements.
  4. The resident asked this Service to look into his complaint. He said he thought the lift had been serviced in June 2020 and the details were being copied over to other worksheets. He also said there was no plan for repairs to known issues with the lift. The resident thought the landlord ought to refund the lift servicing charges from 2020.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the lease, the landlord is required to maintain common parts, including the lift.
  2. The landlord has explained that the communal lift is serviced on a bi-monthly basis. It says this is based on the lift manufacturer’s requirements. The residents of the block of flats each pay a proportion towards these servicing costs.
  3. Whilst the resident does not think that the lift servicing takes place, the landlord has provided the resident with a copy of the lift servicing worksheets completed by its lift contractors for 2020. That was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
  4. The worksheets show that the lift was serviced at least every two months during 2020, thereby meeting the requirement for the lift to be serviced bi-monthly. The only exception to this was in May 2020, when the contractor could not gain access to the property. The contractor reattended in June 2020. The landlord has confirmed that the residents were not charged for the May 2020 service, due to the contractor not being able to gain access. This Service considers that it was an appropriate action by the landlord.
  5. Although the resident thinks the contractor’s June 2020 servicing worksheet was copied for later visits, there is no evidence to support his assertions. This Service, therefore, has no means of investigating his claims.
  6. However, it is noted that the lift contractor identified that some repairs were necessary to the lift in its worksheets, yet according to the resident, not all of those repairs have been done. It would be appropriate for the landlord to look into this, and arrange for the necessary repairs to take place.
  7. The resident requested that the landlord provide him with the servicing schedule for the lift. He wanted a resident from the block of flats to witness the servicing taking place. The landlord confirmed the schedule for the coming year, which was the months in which the servicing was due to take place. However, it said it could not provide the resident with set times that the contractor would attend, as it did not think this was practical. That does not seem unreasonable, given that a servicing contractor may need to be flexible with the time and date it attends for the service.
  8. Overall, although it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide evidence of having completed all the noted works when inspections were conducted, there is no evidence of significant failure in its handling of the lift servicing.   

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the servicing of a communal lift.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to make arrangements for any outstanding lift repairs to take place, and keep the resident updated about this.
  2. The landlord to advise this Service within four weeks if it intends to comply with the above recommendations.