Optivo (202208233)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208233

Optivo

24 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the lift maintenance issues.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, a flat, since 2008.
  2. Landlord repair records show that a contractor left the lift in shutdown (out of operation) on 10 September 2021 due to required repairs as the lift had broken down numerous times over the previous few weeks.
  3. The resident raised a complaint due to concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the lift maintenance. He asked why the landlord did not retain spare parts, to prevent repair delays. In his complaint escalation, he raised additional concerns over the length of time the lift had been out of use and asked the landlord to arrange a formal agreement whereby residents could use the lift in the adjacent building. The resident also raised concerns that the lift, being out of service, was not compliant with disability regulations.
  4. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it advised the resident its initial response timeframe for attending lift repair issues was four hours, but there was no timescale for completing the repair, as it was not feasible to hold spare parts for every eventuality; therefore, the timeframe depended on the availability of stock. It apologised that the resident had not been advised the lift was out of service and said it would review its communication procedures. The landlord advised that although the adjacent building would let residents use their lift in future when the lift in the resident’s part of the building was out of service, it was unable to invoke a formal agreement as it did not own nor pay charges for the other part of the building. The landlord had met with the resident to confirm the contracts and obligations that were in place regarding lift maintenance. It offered him £50 compensation in recognition of the time spent pursuing the complaint.
  5. When referring his complaint to this Service, the resident advised he wanted the landlord to arrange a formal system which enabled residents to use the lift in the adjacent building when the lift servicing his part of the building was out of service. He was concerned the landlord was not adhering to its disability policy and wanted it to review its policy to ensure it was able to identify residents that relied on use of the lift. He stated the lift was out of service for over a month.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he raised concerns regarding the landlord’s disability policy in relation to the lift being out of service and wanted the landlord to review its policy.
  2. Paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme states that a complaint relates “to the actions or omissions of a landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their…occupation of, property”. Paragraph 42(o) further explains that the adverse effect must have been “significant”.
  3. It is not disputed that lift repair issues will have an impact on residents with disabilities and the landlord should make suitable adjustments accordingly. However, the landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident advised the landlord of any disabilities or personal circumstances that would require adjustments to be made due to the lift being out of service. For the Ombudsman to consider a complaint there needs to have been a clear effect on the complainant’s own home, or their occupation of it. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest the resident would be impacted by the landlord’s disability policy in relation to lift repairs. As a result, we are unable to consider this element of the complaint.
  4. While the resident’s complaint to the landlord addressed several issues, when bringing his complaint to this Service, he confirmed he only considered the matters related to the lift repair as being outstanding. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the lift maintenance issues and the associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the lift maintenance issues

  1. The landlord’s website states it is responsible for repairs to lifts. Its communal lift management policy noted that if a lift defect requires an immediate response, it will be taken out of service and isolated by the contractor. The landlord’s passenger lift and lifting equipment management plan states that in an emergency a contractor will attend within one hour, otherwise it will attend within four hours. As such, the landlord is required to assess the lift following any reports of repair issues and complete any required repairs in line with its policies.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the lift was shut down on 8 September 2021 as repairs were required to resolve a recurring issue. It is unclear when the repair was completed and when the lift was reinstated as the repair records had not been dated; however, it appears to have been repaired before 24 November 2021, as the resident reported the lift had broken down again. The landlord subsequently responded appropriately to the resident’s further report as a contractor attended on 25 November 2021 and the lift was left working. In its stage two response, the landlord advised a contractor inspected the lift on 20 January 2022 and found there had been no faults in the previous 30 days.
  3. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear records of repairs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, in instances such as this investigation, the landlord may not be able to evidence that it followed its own policies and procedures or took appropriate and/or reasonable actions. However, in this case, as the information available indicates an estimated repair date (between 8 September and 24 November 2021), the gaps in the landlord’s record keeping has not impacted the outcome of the investigation.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that although it has an initial four-hour response timeframe for lift repairs, it does not have a response timeframe for completing the works, as it depended on the availability of parts. This was a reasonable explanation as the landlord would not necessarily have control over the delivery time of the required parts. However, it should ensure that it takes steps to complete the repair as soon as possible.
  5. The resident had requested the landlord to retain spare parts to prevent delays in completing lift repairs. Social landlords have budget restraints and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to ensure it provides an effective repair service. As outlined by the landlord in its complaint response, it would not be feasible for it to hold all possible lift spare parts due to the financial implications, as it explained there were various different models of lifts throughout its other properties. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to order parts when required.
  6. When there were appropriate reasons for delays in completing the works, the landlord should have provided updates regarding the repair and considered whether any interim solutions would be appropriate. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to notify the resident that the lift was out of service. It was reasonable that it identified this was not in line with its service standard and it demonstrated that it had taken steps of learning as it explained it would review its communication process for when lifts were out of service. However, there is no evidence to suggest the resident was updated on the progress of the works or provided with an estimated timeframe for completion of the works. This was not appropriate and amounts to service failure.
  7. While the lift was out of service, as an interim solution the resident was able to use a lift in an adjacent part of the building. As the resident had access to an alternative lift, the impact of the outstanding repair was reduced. The resident requested that the landlord enforced the arrangement as a formal agreement. It was reasonable that the landlord explained it would not be able to implement use of the adjacent lift as a formal agreement, as it did not own or pay any charges for the building. It would therefore not be within the landlord’s remit to implement such an agreement. However, the landlord acted reasonably when reassuring the resident that a verbal agreement was in place with the concierge of the building and residents would therefore have access to the alternative lift when required.
  8. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to complete the lift repair within an appropriate timeframe, given that it had to order the required parts. However, its communication was not comprehensive, so the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the lift repair would be completed. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord which it has not acknowledged. An Order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to award the resident £50 compensation due to its communication failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling procedure refers to four stages, which are an initial expression of dissatisfaction, followed by a two-stage complaint process and then a review panel. However, its complaint resolution policy outlines a two-stage procedure, with the review panel at the second stage.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) recommends landlords use a two-stage complaint process to ensure their complaints procedure is not unduly long. If a landlord deems a further stage to be necessary, it should outline the relevant reasons. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report that the landlord reviews its complaints procedure to ensure it is in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. Furthermore, the policy and procedure should align in order to properly manage residents’ expectations regarding the timeframe for the complaints process.
  3. The Code also states that landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint), survey feedback, expression of dissatisfaction and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible. It is reasonable for a landlord to attempt to resolve a complaint informally in the first instance; however, this should be quick and should not take longer than around a week, so it does not delay the complaint going through the formal process if necessary.
  4. The resident referred to the matter as a complaint in his email on 20 September 2021. As a result, it was inappropriate for the landlord not to handle the issue in line with its formal complaints process, and instead manage it as an expression of dissatisfaction. This caused an unnecessary delay in resolving the complaint. However, as the landlord issued a response within ten days and the resident subsequently escalated it the same day, the delay was not significant and there was no adverse effect on the resident. Despite this, the landlord should consider providing additional staff training, if required, to ensure that complaints are correctly differentiated from expressions of dissatisfaction and service requests.
  5. The landlord reasonably handled the resident’s stage one complaint, as although it slightly exceeded its timeframe of ten working days, it managed the resident’s expectations regarding when the response would be issued.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage two on 28 October 2021. The landlord issued a response on 29 December 2021; however, it was identical to the response sent on 22 October 2021. The complaint was subject to a review panel on 5 January 2022, and the landlord sent its final response on 21 January 2022. As demonstrated in this case, when there are additional complaint stages, there is a greater chance of encountering delays. 
  7. In its final response, the landlord offered £50 compensation due to the delays in responding to the complaint. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delays that had occurred during the complaint procedure and its decision to offer a small amount of compensation was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedy guidance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s concerns regarding the lift maintenance issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation due to its poor communication regarding the lift repair.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with proof of compliance within the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to ensure it is in line with this Service’s complaint handling code and that there is consistency between its published policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord should review its staff training requirements to ensure complaints and expressions of dissatisfaction are differentiated and handled accordingly.
  3. The landlord should review its repairs record keeping practices.