Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202225734)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225734

Notting Hill Genesis

12 June 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 response to multiple reports that the lift in the resident’s block was broken.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is a housing association. The property is a fifth and sixth floor flat.
  2. On 12 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the lift in her block had been breaking down weekly. She stated that it had impacted her due to having blood cancer and it hindering her medications being delivered. She also stated that every time the lift broke she could not leave the building or come back to her flat. In response the landlord arranged for its lift contractor to attend that day. The lift contractor reported that they had found the lift was out of order on the ground floor, found no apparent fault and, after a full operational test, left the lift in good working order. `
  3. There were then three further call outs made between 13 July and 2 September 2022, following reports that the lift was broken. It is not clear who reported the breakdowns. On 29 July 2022, the lift was reset, on 1 August 2021, the lift was tested and on 2 September 2021 the doors were found to be not closing and an obstruction removed. On each occasions, the lift was reported as having been left in good working order.
  4. On 2 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. She stated that the lift was constantly breaking down and that she could not leave or return to her home if it was not working, which it was affecting her life.
  5. On 14 September 2022, the door open limit was reported as being stuck on fault, the door operator control box was swapped over with another block, and the lift contractor noted that they would monitor the fault. The fault occurred the following day, 15 September 2022, and the lift contractor carried out a ‘relearn’ on the new door operator control box and replaced the main car operating panel (COP) board. On 20 September 2022, the lift contractor reported that they had again replaced the COP board. On each of these occasions, the lift contractor said that they had left the lift in good working order.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 21 September 2022. It explained that, due to the frequent breakdowns, it had requested its lift contractor to carry out a full investigation, which had been carried out on 20 September 2022. The investigation determined that the issue was with the COP (mother) board. The part was ordered and replaced on 21 September 2022, restoring the lift to full service. It apologised for the inconvenience the lift fault had caused and the time it had taken to get it resolved. It understood this had specifically impacted the resident and hindered her ability to get in and out of her flat due to her vulnerabilities. In recognition of the personal distress and inconvenience experienced if offered £200 compensation. It also offered £50 to apologise for the delay in providing its complaint response. It stated that £250 was the maximum it could offer.
  7. On 22 November 2022, the landlord offered the resident an additional £250 compensation in recognition of the additional distress and inconvenience caused to her in light of her vulnerabilities. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day as she felt that £500 was not enough.
  8. The landlord provided its final response on 18 January 2023. The landlord stated that the fault-finding process was time consuming and frustrating for residents and that it had impacted her more than others due to her health issues and it apologised for this. It agreed with the decision at stage one to offer the maximum amount of compensation and with an additional £250 being offered. It also stated that the lift had been working well since the COP (mother) board was replaced.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service because she did not think the compensation offered was enough for all the months she could not use the lift.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days from the date of the report of a repair. The policy also states that a repair can also be considered an emergency where a resident is vulnerable and carrying out the works will ensure they are able to remain safely in their home due to their vulnerability.
  2. Given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to reports of the lift being broken as emergency repairs.
  3. Between 12 June 2022 and its final response of 18 January 2023, the landlord responded to reports of the lift being broken on eight occasions. Whilst on each occasion time the lift was promptly attended, various actions taken, and reported as being left in working order, the lift repeated failed.
  4. It is acknowledged that it can be difficult to identify the cause of an issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. When it became apparent to the landlord that the breakdowns were becoming regular it arranged for an investigation to be carried on 20 September 2020 and a resolution was actioned within a day of the fault being identified.
  5. In this case, there were no delays in attending the lift each time a break down was reported. However, it took the landlord until 21 September 2022, fifty-three working days after the expected completion date, to complete the repairs. This was recognised by the landlord as a service failure for which it apologised and offered £500 compensation to put things right.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states a high impact service failure has a maximum of £250 compensation. In this case, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable. It offered the resident the maximum its compensation policy would offer in order to put right how long it took to resolve the issue. The lift was not out of action for four whole months but rather at several different times throughout June, July, August and September, and each time the landlord attended the same day and left the lift in working order. As that was the case the £250 was a reasonable offer. In addition to this the landlord also, and appropriately, took into consideration the impact this had on the resident given her vulnerabilities and offering an additional £250. Therefore, a determination of reasonable redress has been made. This being on the basis that the £500 has been, or will be, paid to the resident. It should be noted that the landlord’s failure would have been maladministration but for it apologising and offering an reasonable and proportionate level of compensation.
  7. Whilst the landlord reasonably compensated the resident for its failures, it has been noted that in its final response of 18 January 2023, the landlord stated that the lift had been working well since the COP (mother) board was replaced on 21 September 2022. However, there was a further report on 13 January 2023, five days before the landlord issued its final response. The lift was reported as not working again and when attended it was noted that a new door control box was needed and the lift reported as being left in good working order following a full operational test. Although it is acknowledged that almost four months had passed since the landlord had completed the repairs on 21 September 2022, it was an oversight by the landlord not to have checked what the most recent position was with regards to the lift and provided the resident with an update of the new report on 13 January 2023. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to write to the resident to apologise to her for this oversight and to confirm what actions were taken during that visit.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord pay the resident the £500 compensation offered, if this has not already been paid to the resident. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.
  2. That the landlord writes to the resident to apologise to her for not referring in its final response to the report that the lift was not working on 13 January 2023 and to confirm what actions were taken during that visit.