MHS Homes Ltd (202411599)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor flat with her young child. The Landlord took over the management of the property on 29 January 2024 from another landlord. She complained that the lift kept breaking down intermittently, which made it difficult for her to leave her property with her child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a broken lift.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken lift.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a broken lift

4. The landlord took steps to support the resident, apologised and offered proportionate redress.

Complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within its policy timescales at both stages.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord did not provide any repairs records in relation to the lift. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation has, therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
7. The landlord took over the management of the property on 29 January 2024 from another landlord. The resident said she reported the lift failure the same day. The evidence shows that the lift was already out of service when it took over the property. It contacted the former landlord to understand the historic issues which was a positive step and showed its commitment to understanding and resolving the fault.
8. The landlord attended to carry out repairs but without repairs records we are unable to determine whether it did so in line with its repairs policy timescale. While it had no lift policy at the time, we note that its website states it will attend lift reports within 4 hours. The evidence does not show whether it met this standard. This reflects poor record keeping and a lack of effective repair monitoring. The landlord should keep full repair records, including reports, attendance, actions taken, and the date repairs are completed.
9. The resident made 6 reports to the landlord that the lift was not working between January and June 2024. We are unable to establish whether it was the same repair each time or a new issue. Its stage 1 response said it had taken over the property with a faulty lift and had completed a repair, but further faults arose. It is reasonable that it needed to reattend to new faults. However, there is no evidence to show whether it considered the frequency of the lift breakdowns or any long-term solutions.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident for its poor communication and acknowledged it should have offered support sooner. It offered to remove her rubbish while the lift was out of service. This was a positive step and showed it understood the inconvenience caused and considered her personal circumstances. However, in June 2024, when the lift failed again, the resident had to chase the landlord to collect her rubbish. It would have been good practice to have noted her circumstances and committed to provide the same service again given the repeated lift failures.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised it had not previously considered its compensation policy and offered £150 for its communication failures and for not considering the resident’s individual needs. Its offer was reasonable and in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there had been a failing which adversely affected a resident.
12. The landlord’s stage 2 response refers to the resident declining its offer of temporary accommodation. This was an appropriate offer to make and shows it considered her circumstances, however, we have seen no evidence of its offer. The landlord must ensure its records clearly show all contact and actions taken.
13. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident asked it to reimburse her for online food shops and takeaways. She said she incurred the costs when she was unable to leave her home because the lift was out of service. It took 2 months to respond to her request, stating that its policy did not cover these costs. The delay in responding was unreasonable, however it acknowledged this and offered an additional £100.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy says that if a resident is out of pocket due to a direct result of its actions or omissions it will consider compensation for ‘takeaway food’. We are unable to establish from the evidence and lack of repairs records if the inconvenience caused by the lift breakdowns was due to the landlords’ actions or omissions. However, the total compensation of £250 is reasonable and reflects the service failures and inconvenience for the period the complaint covers.
15. The resident has told us that there continues to be intermittent issues with the lift, causing inconvenience for her. She has told us she has made further complaints to the landlord about this. We have made a recommendation for it to consider the frequency of the intermittent faults and determine a lasting solution.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
17. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and escalation within its policy timeframe of 5 working days. It issued its stage 1 response in 8 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days, inline with its policy.
18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that when it acknowledges the complaint at stage 1 it will include ‘the outcomes you wish to seek’. At stage 1 the landlord was unaware of what the resident wanted as a resolution, which is not in line with its policy. However, it recognised this at stage 2 and appropriately apologised.

Learning

19. At the time of the complaint the landlord did not have a lift policy. However, it advised us this was being drafted. This is a positive step in ensuring it has clear policies to support transparency and decision making.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should keep complete and accurate repair records, including reports, attendance times, actions taken, and when repairs are completed. This will support fair complaint reviews and improve its ability to monitor performance. It may wish to refer to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

21. Communication was inconsistent, and delays caused avoidable frustration. The landlord should improve how it updates residents during repairs and ensure responses are timely, clear and recorded.