Places for People Group Limited (202427057)

Background

1. The resident has held a lease for the property, a third-floor flat in a block, since July 2018. The landlord (and freeholder) uses a managing agent (MA) to handle the day-to-day management of the block, including maintenance of communal areas and the lift. The resident pays towards the costs of services via a monthly service charge. Records show there have been regular services and ongoing repairs to the lift since February 2023, including reports of over-travelling (moving past its designated stopping point). The lift was upgraded in January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Lift repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
   2. No Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. Lift repairs were delayed while the landlord followed the statutory consultation procedure and carried out major work to upgrade the lift. The landlord has not recognised that it did not always progress repairs at the earliest opportunity and failed to keep the resident updated.
5. The landlord dealt with the associated complaint in line with its procedures and our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The lease says the landlord will provide building services to leaseholders who pay a service charge. These include the inspection, repair, servicing and maintenance of facilities relating to the building (including the communal lift). This is in addition to any upgrade and replacement of facilities and parts where appropriate. This means the landlord was responsible for lift repairs, albeit the MA carried out their day-to-day management.
7. There is no record of a lift fault in September 2023. However, an engineer found a fault on 5 October 2023 and switched the lift off. As it posed no risk, the landlord should have repaired it within the appointable repair period of 28-days. Although it arranged repairs for 2 November 2023 (just outside the target) they could not go ahead as scaffolding was needed to inspect potential further damage. The lift was repaired at some point (we do not know when) and confirmed operational during a service on 4 December 2023.
8. Although this was 60 days from identifying the repairs, this was not unreasonable, given further issues needed investigating. However, the fix was short-lived and an engineer again found fault on 8 December 2023 and left the lift out of service. This appears to have prompted the landlord’s decision to upgrade it.
9. The landlord’s repair policy defines replacements (and upgrades) as planned repairs. It aims to carry out such work within 90 days. It is positive the landlord obtained 2 quotes for the upgrade on 10 and 15 January 2024. These were for £20,475 and £24,393.73. The landlord expected leaseholders to contribute towards the cost.
10. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders before carrying out major work, which is not already part of a long-term agreement. Major work includes repairs, maintenance and improvements that would cost the leaseholder more than £250. The consultation process requires the landlord to notify leaseholders of the proposed agreement and reasons for the major work. It must invite written observations and allow leaseholders to nominate an alternative contractor. It must then consider any observations and give further notice about the proposed contractor, cost of work and estimated cost to the leaseholders. Landlords must give leaseholders at least 30 days to respond to both stages of the consultation process.
11. The landlord did not start the formal consultation until 12 March 2024, inviting initial observations by 16 April 2024. This was 49 days from when it obtained the second quote. While it met with residents to discuss the upgrade on 21 February 2024, it should have started the consultation process sooner, given its policy aimed to carry out the planned work in 90 days and residents had been without a lift for some time. This was a failure in service. The landlord should have been more proactive in progressing the major work.
12. After that point, the landlord followed the due consultation process. It provided a statement of estimate on 29 May 2024, inviting observations by 3 July 2024. It said it hoped to instruct work as soon as possible after the expiry of the observation period. However, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the outcome of the consultation until nearly one month later, after the resident had complained. While we understand the landlord needed to consider any observations and its next steps, it should have provided an update to the resident as the lift had been out of service for nearly 9 months at that point. The lack of communication frustrated the resident and caused her further time and trouble pursuing a complaint.
13. It is positive the landlord wrote to leaseholders again on 2 August 2024 to confirm its choice of contractor and provide an invoice for the payment towards the upgrade. It said it hoped to instruct the work as soon as possible but could not do so until it had collected the funds to pay on completion. However, it changed this position in its stage 1 response and said reserve funds meant it could instruct the work before the additional costs were raised. We have not seen evidence it went onto communicate a start date, as promised, and this was a failure in service.
14. While the stage 2 response did not specifically respond to the resident’s complaint that recent emails were not acknowledged, the landlord did acknowledge its communication could have been better. The resident only sent these emails up to 3 working days before she complained. It was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to have not yet replied at the point she complained.
15. The landlord did not detail its progress with the lift repairs but evidence shows it instructed the work on 28 August 2024. However, we have not seen evidence it told the resident this at that time. We understand its intent in suggesting a call with the MA, and that this may have resolved the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord should have addressed these as part of the Stage 2 response and provided an estimate of when it expected the upgrade to progress.
16. While the landlord had previously apologised for repair delays and acknowledged communication failures at both stages of the complaint process, it did not provide sufficient remedy for this. Its compensation policy says it can award between £100 and £600 for distress and inconvenience caused when residents repeatedly need to chase responses and when it fails to carry out repairs in line with its policy.
17. We would therefore have expected the landlord to have awarded compensation within this range. Its failure to do so means it has not recognised the detriment caused to the resident by being without access to a lift for longer than necessary and her not knowing when it would be upgraded. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. This was a further failure, which when combined with the other service failures amounts to maladministration.
18. We asked the landlord why the upgrade did not take place until January 2025, when it instructed work in August 2024. It told us the upgrade parts needed to be ordered, built and imported and the installation took several weeks. While it has not provided supporting evidence, it has provided records that show the installation started at the beginning of December 2024.
19. Overall, its explanation is reasonable, given the scale of the work. However, we have not seen that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident during this time or told her when she could expect the lift to be upgraded. Its repair policy says it will actively engage with residents about repairs but we have not seen evidence it did so. Most of the updates were reactive and prompted by contact from the resident. This led to further time, trouble and inconvenience progressing the issue. Again, the landlord has not recognised this.
20. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the lift. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been maladministration that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to address the detriment.
21. We understand why the resident feels the landlord should reimburse service charges paid during the time the lift was out of service. However, for the most part, the landlord was following due process. Further, the work was major and took an extended time to carry out. The landlord was still paying towards a lift maintenance contract during this time and towards the repairs and upgrade. While the request is justified, it is not appropriate for the landlord to reimburse all the service charges for the period the lift was out of service.

22. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it answered the complaint at both stages within the timescales set out in its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

23. The landlord provided sufficient evidence for us to assess the complaints.
24. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains landlords can avoid failures when they let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord followed our spotlight report recommendations.