Abri Group Limited (202004696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004696

Abri Group Limited

17 September 2021

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 reports about the communal lift in the building.
2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will keep lifts in good repair and that it operates an appointment system based on a 24–hour emergency response or an appointment based job system for non-emergency repairs.
4. The landlord’s complaints policy undertakes to acknowledge complaints within 24 hours, explaining the timescales in which a response could be expected and outlining the investigation process that the dedicated complaint office would follow. It committed to responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days or, in more complex cases, in 20 working days. It also states that all written responses should be written in a clear manner.

Background

5. The resident lives in a third floor flat of a block. She moved into the property in 2014 under a shared ownership lease. The building contains a lift for communal use.

Summary

6. The landlord has provided copies of job reports from October 2019 where the lift had been serviced by its contractor on a monthly basis. In addition to the monthly service, the landlord has also provided reports from April 2020 of Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) inspections that were required by the HSE at least every six months by an independent contractor.
7. The landlord has provided system notes of a lift fault report dated 30 October 2019. The next record of a fault being reported was on 10 August 2020 at 3.42pm when it was detailed that the lift was not working. An engineer attended on 11 August 2020 and reported that the lift was working on arrival and tested with no faults found. The lift was reported as not working again at 2.18pm on 11 August 2020. An engineer attended that night at 11.45pm, resetting the lift and leaving it in service. His report identified heat as the likely cause of the fault, saying: ‘lift tripped pos due to heat, motor room cooler now but residents informed me that heat was unbearable during day. Recommend larger more powerful cooling fan.’
8. On 26 August 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the lift went out of action every summer in hot weather and that the small fan in the storeroom where the lift hydraulics were was not sufficient. She said that the lift could be out of action for weeks at a time, which caused her extreme problems as she was 68 years old and registered disabled. She said she had put up with the problem since moving to the property five years before. The impact on her now was that she could not manage the stairs and so could not leave home if the lift was not working. Furthermore, supermarkets would not deliver shopping if the lift was not working. She said she had been told by the landlord that there was nothing more that could be done to stop the lift overheating in hot weather.
9. On 1 December 2020 the landlord set out its position in an email to the resident. The landlord apologised that the resident had had to deal with lift problems and that the issues had been ongoing during the hot weather. It said it had ensured that multiple independent specialists inspected the lift, and it was advised that there was no method of action it could take to prevent the lift from breaking down due to the weather. It assured the resident that all action it could possibly take was taken. Furthermore, should there be a solution in the future, it would of course ensure that it carried out. The landlord offered the resident £60 as a gesture of goodwill for inconvenience.
10. The resident replied on 2 December 2020 to say that she was disappointed with the landlord’s response as it was only what she had been told over the phone before. She said the purpose of her complaint was to ask the landlord to try and resolve the problem. She said it was obvious that the fan and ventilation in the outbuilding where the lift hydraulics were located were inadequate and that a stronger fan and more ventilation was required. She said she sent an email to the customer service team about the mould and damp in the outbuilding but that no-one had followed that up. The resident reiterated the huge impact that the issue was having on her quality of life as it was denying her exit and entry to her home in the warmer weather.
11. On 23 December 2020 the landlord responded that it appreciated the resident’s frustration and the inconvenience caused during the hotter months of the year. However, it was not as easy as putting a larger fan in place and that multiple specialist contractors had agreed that there was no long–term fix. The landlord said it would continue to keep the matter under review and let the resident know if further options were found.
12. Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to her complaint on 16 March 2021. It said that the lift overheated during the summer months and was briefly out of service. This was investigated by its technical service department. Its external contracts surveyor arranged for multiple specialist companies to establish what action could be taken to avoid the breakdowns. Unfortunately, because of the location of the lift, it was not possible to increase the size of the fan. The specialists were unable to suggest alternative methods to stop the lift from overheating but advised that it would only happen in very hot weather. The landlord said that, if this did happen again, it would continue to raise emergency works orders so that its lift contractor attended as a matter of urgency. The landlord apologised again for being unable to offer a long term guaranteed fix to the issue at this stage.
13. On 18 April 2021 the resident explained her complaint to this service. She said that it was not true that the size of the fan could not be increased. There was plenty of room in the outbuilding to install two large fans, there was even room enough to install one of the large fans in the cage where the lift mechanism was located. Also, there was also plenty of wall space for a larger vent. The outbuilding is also used as a communal bike shed and is full of black mould and damp, which is a symptom of a lack of ventilation. The resident said it would be useful to have sight of the oil analysis which should be within the annual service report. The resident summed up that the outcome she was seeking was evidence of an oil analysis and evidence of the specialist report that the landlord says it had obtained. She also wanted two large electric fans to be fitted in the outbuilding, attached to a thermostat and for larger ventilation in the wall. The resident also provided a photo of the current fan/extractor which she described as being 20cm x 20cm and not an industrial item, producing no blow, suction or power whatsoever.
14. On 17 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that the stage 1 investigation had involved speaking to its internal teams and several specialists. The outcome was that it was unable to prevent the issue of the overheating arising, however work was ongoing to address the problem. The landlord apologised that the stage 1 response had not provided a better explanation of the work that had taken place. The landlord said that ‘this’ (but not providing dates) was the first break down of the lift this year, which was not considered unreliable. The request for a bigger or multiple fans would not make a substantial difference due to the building being a bike shed and so the landlord is unable to control the ambient temperature. The breakdown of the lift had been reviewed by its contract manager, the lift contractor and an independent lift consultant, who all drew the same conclusion that the design regarding the location of the lift motor is poor. It was unable to relocate the motor out of sunlight, but it was continuing to review what other work could be done to improve performance of the lift. It said that it had not received a request from the resident for an oil analysis report. However, it would not carry out this type of report as it was not the composition of the oil that was the problem, rather the temperature of the oil. The oil had been checked regularly as part of the monthly servicing of the lift. The landlord said that its contracts manager was due to visit again at the end of June 2021 to assess the lift and it would then provide the resident with any updates on work that might be required.
15. On 18 June 2021 the resident responded to the landlord stating that in hot weather the lift is out of action for at least a week and herself and others were denied the right to exit or access their homes. The resident said she had not reported the lift as not working this year (2021) because the summer had not yet arrived. The resident said she was making a second request for the latest specialist lift report that the landlord was continually saying they had from the lift maintenance people. She said she would also like a copy of the report from 2019 when the maintenance people said there was not enough ventilation in the outbuilding which had led to the landlord installing a fan, which was not large enough for the problem. The resident also pointed out that the motor was not in direct sunlight. The lift mechanism has a built–in fan and is ventilated through the roof of the outbuilding, but it does not even operate. This has been checked by the maintenance people and should be on the annual report.
16. On 30 June 2021 the landlord says it met with an independent lift consultant on site to discuss a solution and it also met with the resident to discuss the situation.
17.  On 2 July 2021 the landlord sent a summary of the situation to this service. It said that the lift only failed in extreme heat when the oil in the lift motor overheated due to the ambient temperature in the outbuilding. Once it cooled down, the lift would become fully functional again. It said that in the last 24 months there had only been one reported breakdown identified as caused by extreme heat and that no other residents had raised complaints about the lift breaking down in extreme temperatures. It noted that an engineer had recommended a larger cooling fan but, as the issue only occurred when the temperature exceeded 34 degrees and had only happened once in 24 months, it was not deemed appropriate.  A fan had been fitted in 2018 to help control the temperature and since then there had been an average of one call out a year for a heat related breakdown.
18. The landlord said that the outcome of the site survey on 30 June 2021 was that the external contractor was able to recommend an upgraded cooling system to extract heat from the outbuilding to mitigate the design fault of where the lift motor was placed. The landlord said that, based on what it now knew, an upgraded cooling system would benefit the resident, the block and meet its climate commitment, future proofing against hotter summers going forward. A plan was being put together which involved getting quotes for the work, so it was not possible for the landlord to provide a timescale although the landlord undertook to keep the tenants updated.
19. The landlord has recently confirmed that an air con unit was installed in the outbuilding on 16 July 2021 and that there had been no further reports of breakdowns, even during some rather hot spells. The unit switches on if the temperature rises above 25 degrees. As problems with the lift only occur at 30 degrees, the landlord was confident that the air con unit should solve the problem. It concluded that there were limited additional steps that could be take due to the construction of the outbuilding.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports about the communal lift.

20. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reporting of required lift repairs and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
21. The landlord has provided detailed evidence of regular inspections and servicing of the lift. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord carried out regular maintenance of the lift, in line with its own policies and procedures and statutory health and safety regulation.
22. There is a disparity in the information provided by the resident and the landlord about how often the lift stopped working due to heat, with the resident saying that it breaks down every summer, sometimes for a week at a time. However, the landlord has provided a record of call outs showing that there was only one call out about the lift being faulty in 2020 and only two in total in 24 months (only one of which was heat related). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman has no reason to conclude that the landlord’s records are inaccurate.
23. The reports of the lift not working in August 2020 were responded to within 24 hours, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
24. There is some disparity about the reasons for the landlord initially not pursuing a remedy for the overheating lift issue. It told the resident that it was not as simple as installing a new fan to reduce the ambient temperature in the outbuilding. However, in summarising the issues to this Service, the landlord said that as the lift had only overheated once in 24 months, it had not been deemed appropriate to act on an earlier recommendation of an engineer to install a larger cooling fan.
25. Furthermore, although the landlord has said that the lift had only overheated once in 24 months, its written correspondence to the resident talks about the issue being ongoing during hot weather and that it appreciated the resident’s frustration and the inconvenience caused during the hotter months of the year. This certainly seems to indicate an acknowledgement by the landlord that the problem with the lift was more frequent than the one recorded call out in August 2020 would suggest. The Ombudsman is conscious that it has not been provided with information about lift repairs prior to 2019.
26. The landlord’s email to the resident on 1 December 2020 talks about multiple independent specialists having inspected the lift. Its stage 1 response also mentions that it was arranged for multiple specialist companies to attend to the lift to establish if any action could be taken. The resident had therefore been asking to see copies of reports from those specialist contractors, which were not provided. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide details of the dates of these site inspections and copies of the reports from these specialist contractors or, if no actual reports, at least the correspondence between it and the contractors relating to these inspections. The landlord referred the Ombudsman back to documentation provided in its original submissions which related to routine logs from its normal contractors.
27. The Ombudsman asked to see a copy of a report from the site visit that took place on 30 June 2021 which resulted in an air con unit being recommended. Again, if no report was available, to provide correspondence from the independent contractor containing their findings and recommendations. The landlord has said that it did not obtain a report and has not provided any further correspondence relating to the site visit. 
28. The Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord’s written responses to the resident were misleading in the sense that they gave the impression, whether intentional or not, that a number of independent lift specialists had been consulted in a formal capacity to review the problem of the lift overheating in hot weather and that these specialists were different and separate to the companies that were already under contract to it.
29. Given the landlord’s comment that it would have been disproportionate to take action given the infrequency of the breakdowns, it is unclear what meaningful steps the landlord took to investigate the resident’s complaint when she first made it, beyond speaking to its regular contractors. However, the landlord did continue to engage with the resident and to further explore what solutions might become available, such that it received a workable recommendation at the end of June 2021. It would have been preferable if the landlord had kept the resident updated about what it was doing and when, and in particular, who it was talking to about trying to solve the issue and what their responses were.
30. That said, the formal complaint was raised in August 2020, so it is highly unlikely that the landlord could have put in place a long–term solution by the end of that Summer. Ultimately, by the height of the Summer of 2021, the landlord had identified and actioned a long–term solution. As the issue related to excess heat and the landlord took action to ensure the issue was resolved by the time the temperature might again increase to excessive levels, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no detriment experienced as a result of any delay in the landlord’s actions to resolve this case.
31. It is of concern, however, that, at no point in the landlord’s complaint responses, has it addressed the resident’s various reports about access to the property when the lift was out of use. It is clear from her reports that this affected her ability to conduct day to day essentials and that this had an impact on her general wellbeing. There is dispute about the length of any period during which the resident was affected by these access issues, however, that the resident was left housebound for any length of time, however short, would have been understandably concerning. The landlord could have used its discretion and at least discussed these concerns with her, including providing clarity about any support options that might be available in such circumstances.
32. The landlord’s overall response was satisfactory as it identified and put in place a long–term solution to the lift issue. However, it was appropriate that it recognised that the resident had been inconvenienced by this issue. In the circumstances, given the possible misrepresentation of the specialist information and the failure to address the resident’s concerns about access/wellbeing, the landlord’s decision to offer a small amount of compensation is considered both reasonable and proportionate to the detriment experienced.
33. Although the landlord offered the resident £60 compensation for inconvenience, that does not take into account the failings in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory. The landlord failed to meet its own timescales in acknowledging and investigating the complaint. In addition, its responses were not clear and transparent. Therefore, the award to the resident should include an additional amount for time and trouble in making the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that a total figure of £100 is sufficient to compensate the resident in this regard.

Complaints Handling

34. The resident first made her complaint to the landlord on 26 August 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 24 hours, setting out the timescale in which the resident could expect a response. Although the landlord had some phone calls with the resident in response to her concerns, it did not respond to her complaint within 10 working days. In fact, when it did eventually respond in writing, by email on 1 December 2020, it was not a formal stage 1 complaint response. Although it did set out its position in relation to the lift, it did not explain how the resident could escalate her complaint or provide referral rights to this Service. Indeed, it was only after contact from this Service that the landlord provided its official stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2021.
35. The landlord therefore failed to deal with the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaints’ procedure. Even allowing for delays due to the Covid pandemic, the Ombudsman considers that the time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint was unreasonable. There are also concerns that the landlord did not address all of the issues raised by the resident, such as her desire to see specialist information and her wellbeing/access issues. As such, a further amount of compensation, to reflect these complaints handling failures, is considered reasonable.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for any service failures identified with its handling of the resident’s reports about the communal lift.
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

38. The landlord provided a long–term solution to the lift issue. Though this took some time to put in place, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no significant detriment to the resident from this delay and that the landlord’s offer of compensation for any inconvenience experienced was reasonable. There are concerns about how the landlord handled the complaint however and a further amount of compensation is considered reasonable to reflect any additional distress/inconvenience that resulted from these failures.

Orders and recommendations

Order

39. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation to reflect the service failures identified with its complaints handling.
40. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 15 October 2021.

Recommendation

41. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £60 in compensation that it previously offered during the complaints process.