London Borough of Ealing (202120786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120786

London Borough of Ealing

29 February 2024

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 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:
   1. The resident’s reports of the communal lifts within her block breaking down.
   2. The associated complaint.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the eleventh floor. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children. The building has 2 communal lifts.
4. The resident was experiencing issues with 1 of 2 lifts, until 8 November 2021 when she said both lifts had stopped working. As both lifts were not working and she had issues with damp and leaks, she complained to the landlord on the same day. She had submitted questions regarding the lifts as she had previously received letters regarding improvements to the lifts from the landlord. The resident complained the broken lifts were affecting her:
   1. financially – as she could not taker her daughter to private childcare and was paying fees
   2. psychologically – she needed outside space due to government lockdown and feared being trapped inside when a lift breaks down again
   3. socially – abandoned plans
   4. physically – it was difficult for her to go up and down 11 flights of stairs with her children
5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 November 2021 and committed to providing a response by 23 November 2021. The resident chased the landlord on 24 November 2021, to which it said that its complaint response would be sent 3 December 2021. The resident chased the landlord for a response again on 7 December 2021 and contacted this Service 2 days later. She subsequently sent 2 further chaser emails to the landlord prior to its stage 1 complaint response.
6. On 31 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. With regards to the lift, it apologised for the delay in repair and any inconvenience it had caused. It noted that one lift was out of order due to major repairs that were needed, but the other was in service. The parts had been ordered and contractors were to attend on 2 February 2022. The landlord also clarified that a caretaker routinely attends the block of flats, who can report any external or communal repairs. The landlord carries out block inspections twice per year but this was on hold because of COVID-19. The landlord had also commented on the report of a leak and damp issues in the property.
7. The resident was dissatisfied about the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She was still experiencing issues with the lifts. So on 3 March 2022, asked that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. The resident included the following in her escalation request:
   1. she was informed she could not have any repairs completed until her complaint had ended
   2. compensation was sought by her
   3. an explanation why one lift had been taped off for 6 months and what was happening with it
   4. plans for the lift that was not taped
   5. an answer to whether she could be moved or banding increased as the flat was no longer suitable due to the broken lifts
   6. all residents should be written to outlining the next steps
8. On 4 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. It told her a response would be provided by 1 April 2022. In March 2023, the resident had not received a response to her complaint and chased the landlord twice. The resident subsequently contacted this Service as she had no reply from the landlord. The Ombudsman then set a deadline for the landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response by 21 April 2023.
9. In the landlord’s final response on 21 April 2023, it upheld the resident’s complaint. It understood both lifts had been periodically out of service for some time, which it apologised for. When it attended on 3 April 2023, one lift was out of service, but a repair was made to the out of service lift. It referred her to its safer communities’ team and apologised for previously providing misinformation. This was regarding her ability to report and have repairs undertaken (while there was an active complaint). The landlord offered £50 and said it was for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
10. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she referred her complaint to this Service on 24 April 2023. She explained both the lifts were out of service again.

Assessment and findings

11. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes
12. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman will not find maladministration or service failure when the landlord had provided reasonable redress. The Ombudsman expects it to have done so within its internal complaints process. This encourages earlier resolution to complaints.

Scope of investigation

13. The resident initially complained of damp and leaks, alongside her complaint of the lifts breaking down. In her escalation request of 3 March 2022, she had not escalated the same issues regarding damp and leaks. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As such, in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, matters regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and leaks is one we cannot currently comment on.
14. In the event the resident does exhaust the landlord’s complaints process with regards to this issue, Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. A reasonable period is 6 months from the matter first arising.
15. It is noted that the resident has stated that the situation has affected her physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the broken lifts caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

16. Within the tenancy conditions, it states that the landlord is required to keep in repair the structure, exterior of the building and common parts. Common parts include corridors, walkways, stairs, lifts and gardens. The landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable time giving priority to emergency repairs.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair is to be attended within 4 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days. It commits to notifying residents of repairs and maintenance information on a regular basis.
18. Within the landlord’s repairs policy, it has a decants section. The landlord says it will consider decanting residents to undertake disruptive and intrusive repairs, giving full consideration to residents’ vulnerabilities and circumstances.
19. From December 2021, the landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to acknowledge complaints within 4 days and aims to respond within 20 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. Where it is unable to reply within the time stated, it commits to updating residents.

The resident’s reports of the communal lifts within her block breaking down

20. It was not disputed both lifts had broken down throughout the scope of this investigation. However, the extent to which both lifts were out of service or usable was disputed. This Service was provided with limited information on the timeline of events prior to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. There was evidence that 2 repairs had been approved and 1 was pending.
21. On 30 November 2021, the landlord chased internally about improvement to the components of the lifts. This needed prior approval but was completed on 17 February 2022. Improvements to the tapehead system was logged on 4 November 2021, however the landlord said it was hard to source the parts. The landlord’s records show it was completed on 22 February 2022, so 76 working days had elapsed. There is a further entry in the landlord’s records which noted both lifts required motor oil changes. It also wanted to install air conditioning in the motor room. This was first logged 13 December 2021 and was completed in 31 working days. However, there is no record of other works or inspections that were carried out in relation to both lifts during this period. The first record the landlord acknowledged that major works or replacement was needed to 1 lift, was in its stage 1 complaint response. However, it said that another lift was in service.
22. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it was unclear what repairs were to be made and to which lift. The landlord had not demonstrated it was treating any of the repairs as an emergency. Even if it had not prioritised these repairs, it was outside of its 28 working day commitment. There was no mention of timescales for the planned works either, which was unfair on the resident. This would have left the resident confused and frustrated.
23. The landlord had said it holds no records of the resident reporting a breakdown of the lifts. However, her complaint submission of 8 November 2021 put the landlord on notice she was experiencing issues with both lifts. The Ombudsman expects landlords to use its complaints process as a way to gather data and make strategic decisions. In the resident’s escalation request in March 2023, she told the landlord the lifts had broken down 4 more times since 31 January 2023. So, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to use this information and taken steps to inspect and repair the lifts. The lack of records means that either the landlord failed to take action in respect of this issue or had failed to properly document the action it had taken.
24. Either way, from the evidence submitted by the landlord, there are documented recurrences with the lifts breaking down from November 2021 to April 2023. There were separate instances in February 2022 and March 2022 where the fire brigade was called to help release people trapped in the lift. On 11 May 2022 a repair was made to restore power. The landlord received reports that 1 lift was out of service on 7 February 2023. It did not complete this until 14 working days later which would have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. From 27 February 2023 to 21 April 2023 inclusive, there were 15 entries on the landlord’s records for repair call outs. Its response time to these reports of the lift breaking down were reasonable. While this was the case, the prolonged nature, severity, and frequency of the recurrences meant it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have proactively surveyed the lifts. As it did not, it led to further inconvenience to the resident as the ability to make right first-time repairs may have been missed.
25. The resident said despite the landlord fixing the lifts, they would breakdown again shortly after. She also felt that she could not rely on the lifts and was aware that other residents had been trapped within the lifts. Throughout the period from November 2021 to April 2023, the landlord should have continued to gather data and use this data to devise action plans. Where problems with the lifts were repeated, it should have looked at whether its repairs were of the quality required. This Service had not received a copy of any major improvements the landlord planned to make to the lifts. Outside of this, it had not demonstrated how it used any of the data to find a more permanent solution. Therefore, by not doing so, it was unreasonable as it was unable to reassure the resident and manage her expectations.
26. Additionally, this Service would have expected to see the landlord’s clear decision making regarding any disruptions to the resident and those around her. Especially as it acknowledged that the lifts were overdue improvement or replacement. At the outset, it should have assessed the risk to the resident without functioning lifts for any period of time. The risk assessment ought to have taken into account the resident’s circumstances and considered interim mitigations such as whether a temporary decant was appropriate. The resident was concerned about having to repeatedly climb the staircases with her young children and her struggles to carry heavy items. Yet the landlord did not provide any commentary or consider any further support it could provide, which was unfair.
27. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to have communicated clearly to deliver a good service. It is understandable that faults can occur with the lifts, but where this happens, it is important that the landlord updates residents with estimated timeframes. These updates should be provided proactively and not only in response to complaints. The landlord’s communication throughout was poor. This would have added to the resident’s distress as she was not kept informed of its actions at the time.
28. Overall the landlord had overlooked its poor communication, service delivery and its poor record keeping. It was unclear the combined total time both lifts were faulty. In the landlord’s responses it did not demonstrate any learning. An apology to the resident after it acknowledged that lift replacements were overdue, did not outweigh the detriment to her. This Service therefore makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the communal lifts within her block breaking down. Orders have been made with regard to the prolonged disruption with the broken lifts and the resident’s experience.

The associated complaint

29. The resident’s initial complaint was promptly acknowledged by the landlord in 2 working days, which was positive and in line with its policy. It committed to providing a response on 23 November 2021. As she had not heard from it, she chased the following day, to be told a response would be provided by 3 December 2021. She then chased on 7 December 2021 and 23 December 2021. It did not provide its stage 1 response until 57 working days after she complained. This was inappropriate and exceeded the timescales the Ombudsman expects. The landlord did not provide any learnings at this stage or acknowledge its complaint handling delays.
30. The resident then escalated her complaint on 3 March 2022. It committed to responding by 1 April 2022, so this Service would expect it to have responded by then. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 complaint response until over 13 months later. This was following the resident’s direct chaser emails to the landlord and our intervention of 14 April 2023. There was no record that the landlord provided any updates to the resident during this period of delay, which was inappropriate. The landlord’s timeliness in complaint handling amounts to maladministration and would have left the resident feeling that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
31. When chasing a response to the complaint on 2 March 2023, the resident had mentioned to the landlord damp and mould associated with leaks. This was prior to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response but was not responded to. It is unclear as to whether a separate complaint had been setup for this and the resident would not have found any clarity from the landlord with regard to this. The Ombudsman expects that where additional complaints were raised during the investigation, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. By not doing so, it deprived the resident the opportunity for a 2 stage consideration of her complaint regarding damp and mould associated with leaks.
32. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its final response. It had offered £50 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident expended in pursuing the matter. It was unclear if this was attributed to her pursuing her complaint or a complaint response. The landlord had identified the resident was provided misinformation by it in relation to whether works can be carried out while she had an active complaint. So, it had identified learning as a result of the complaint, to relay back to its staff.
33. While this was the case, the £50 offered by the landlord does not mitigate the detriment on the resident’s overall complaint journey. As the landlord omitted to escalate the complaint in a timely manner, it caused additional delays and inconvenience to the resident. 
34. The resident may have received an earlier opportunity for resolution by progressing the issues internally or eventually to the Ombudsman. The experience would have caused her distress and inconvenience, and she would have had to expend more time and effort in trying to find a resolution to her complaint. The £50 offered was not proportionate to all the failures. As such, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made that factors in the cumulative effect on the resident.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

35. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
36. Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of call outs prior to February 2023. Many of the entries in the records provided post-date the internal complaints process. The landlord did not provide its contact with residents regarding the planned lift programme. It had mentioned this programme was in the latter stages of completion to this Service.
37. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have good data management and to either use or analyse the information that was already recorded on the systems. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it either did not have, or did not provide, records to substantiate its claims and help this investigation. An order has been made regarding the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the communal lifts within her block breaking down.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, compensation totalling £600, comprised of the following:
       1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of the communal lifts within her block breaking down.
       2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience experienced in addition to the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures identified.

If any of the £50 previously offered had been paid, it can be deducted from this total.

42. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
    1. If it has not done so already, produce a lift condition survey for both lifts in the block. This survey should confirm if applicable the reasons for current lift unreliability, actions that it may take to reduce the frequency of breakdowns and confirmation of which of these actions it will complete and when. It should provide a copy of this survey to the residents of the block and this Service.
    2. The landlord is to review the case to understand why the communication failures happened and how to avoid them.
    3. If it has not done so already, self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023.
    4. Cross-reference and review its complaint handling response times with the Ombudsman’s updated complaint handling code, released 8 February 2024.
43. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.