Platform Housing Group Limited (202305172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305172

Platform Housing Group Limited

14 May 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 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the frequency of lift breakdowns at his block and the time taken for repairs to be completed.
2. The resident’s concerns about the impact the lift outages were having on him given his vulnerabilities.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 5 May 2017. The building in which the resident’s apartment is located is 15 stories high and there are two lifts. One lift serves the even numbered floors (the ‘even’ lift) and other one serves the odd numbered floors (the ‘odd’ lift). The resident’s floor is served by the odd lift.
On 29 December 2022, a fault with the even lift was reported to the landlord. Further reports of faults with the same lift were reported on 5 January, 28 February, 10, 14 and 15 March 2023. The landlord raised jobs for all of these reports which it sent to its lift contractor. For the purpose of this report this contractor will be referred to as ‘contractor 1’.
On 1 April 2023, the landlord commenced a new maintenance contractor, which a new lift contractor. This contractor will be referred to in this report as ‘contractor 2’.
On 3 April 2023, contractor 1 advised the landlord that the odd lift was ‘‘making a real bad noise’’ and so they put it out of operation. The landlord noted that the lift would remain out of operation until it had approved the repair quote from contractor 1.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord emailed contractor 2 to make it aware of an ongoing situation with the lifts at the resident’s block. The landlord said that contractor 1 attended a call out to the odd lift late the previous week, advised that ‘‘a significant repair’’ was required and had taken the lift out of service. The landlord said that it was waiting for a quote from contractor 1 to repair the lift and put it back in service. The landlord went on to say that, for the time being, it had instructed contractor 1 to attend the block for any callouts until the repair was completed and the lift returned to service. The landlord said that this was to ensure a clean handover to contractor 2 with both lifts in full operating order.
On 17 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the rate of lift outage at his property, which he said was unacceptable. The resident:
1. Confirmed that the lift to his floor served the odd number floors and had been out of service for approximately 29 days so far that year, and as he wrote was still out of order.
2. Said he was disabled and could not carry his mobility carriage up and down flights of stairs to get to the even lift when the lift to his floor (the odd lift) was not working. The alternative was that he left his flat using walking sticks, on which he could not walk very far, and negotiate a flight of stairs to get the (even) working lift. The resident said this was a severe detriment to his physical and mental health, and that he was not the only disabled person in the flats.
3. Said that he wanted the landlord to:
  1. Create a plan to bring the lifts to an acceptable level of service.
  2. Share this plan with residents and keep them up to date with the progress of implementation.
  3. Keep residents informed regarding the status of the lifts, including the expected length of each outage and an explanation as to why the lifts were out of service for each outage.
On the 27 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident an ‘early resolution’ letter. The landlord apologised to the resident for the issues he had had with the lifts in his block, for which it offered him a £50 voucher. The landlord went on to explain that:
1. Since the first week of April 2023, it had been working with contractor 1 to resolve the issue with the lifts and that major repair works had been quoted for. However, on starting the work it was found that a further part had failed. As the part had to be specially made the works could not be completed that day, 27 April 2023. The landlord said that it had made it clear to contractor 1 that this was to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
2. It had commenced a new groupwide lift maintenance contract (contractor 2) on 1 April 2023 and that once contractor 1 had completed the repairs, the lifts would be handed over to contractor 2. The landlord said that it would be instructing contractor 2 to carry out a full assessment of the lifts in order to identify any inherent issues and, if necessary, carry out further repairs/upgrades in order to reduce the likelihood of the lifts breaking down.
By 12 May 2023, contractor 1 completed the works. The landlord asked contractor 2 to mark the lifts at the resident’s block as active and to attend any call outs with immediate effect.
On 22 June 2023, contractor 2 reported that, for both lifts, ‘‘the shaft was begrimed and full of dust. A full clean should be completed as dust and debris could have a detrimental effect on some parts of the lift mechanics. The governor wheel in the wheel pit should be guarded’’.The landlord raised a repair with contractor 2 for both lifts in response to their report.
On 29 June 2023, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord asking that it provide its response to his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2023 and advised the resident that it aimed to provide its response by 21 July 2023.
On 11 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the odd lift had begun making ‘‘very worrying loud clacking, thumping and scraping noises’’. The resident said that the fault was intermittent, and the thumps were accompanied by jolts. The resident said he reported this on 25 May 2023 through the landlord’s customer portal, however he had not heard anything from the landlord since. The resident said that it appeared the job had been cancelled and attached a screenshot of his repair request.
The landlord referred to the resident’s contact of 11 July 2023 in an internal email of 17 July 2023, in which it:
1. Noted that the repair on 25 May 2023 was not logged correctly and confirmed that the repair had now been logged with contractor 2 who it said would attend as an emergency.
2. Noted that it had emailed the resident advising that it had arranged for the emergency visit to take place.
On 20 July 2023, contractor 2 emailed the landlord to say that they had attended on 17 and 18 July 2023 and had to isolate the odd lift. The landlord noted that contractor 2 would be reattending on 24 July 2023 to ‘‘hopefully’’ put the lift back in service. The following day the landlord emailed the resident to advise him of this. The landlord also requested a 10 working day extension to its complaint response to ensure the lifts were in full working order before it completed its investigation.
On 24 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for keeping him up to date on this issue. As the repair process was now in the hands of contractor 2, the resident said that he was happy to allow an extension of 10 working days.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord noted that contractor 2 had attended site the previous day and found more parts were needed to put the lift back in service. The landlord said that contractor 2 would need to ‘‘fabricate a part for the suspension ropes to ensure they remain at the correct tension’’ and that these would be made up ‘‘over the next few days.” The landlord noted that it would like to put the lift back in service as soon possible and asked that it be kept up to date on the status of the repair. The same day the landlord emailed the resident to advise him of this and to say that it appreciated the inconvenience this would cause.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023, noting that it had spoken to the resident the previous day. The landlord apologised to the resident and upheld his complaint, due to the number of lift repairs raised and the length of time it had taken to get the lifts fully functioning. The landlord went on to:
1. Advise that it had recently changed contractors and referred to its new contractor (contractor 2) attending emergency call outs on 17 and 18 July 2023. During those visits the odd lift was isolated, and the contractor was to return on 24 July 2023 with the aim of getting the lift back up and running.
2. Confirm that its contractor attended on 24 July 2023, but found more parts were needed, which would take a few days to fabricate. The landlord said that it emailed the resident the same day to update him and to confirm that it was continuing to monitor the repairs to prevent unnecessary delays. The lifts were back in service on 3 August 2023, and it called the resident to speak to him the same day.
3. Say that it recognised that there had had been several repairs logged for the lifts at the resident’s block over the past few months and could understand why this would be a cause for concern.
4. Confirm that it recently appointed contractor 2 would be working in a ‘‘more proactive rather than reactive style of maintenance’’. The landlord explained that to do this contractor 2 would continue to service and monitor the lifts monthly and report back to the landlord with any findings. The landlord said that this would mean that it could arrange for the necessary repairs and maintenance work needed to keep the lifts functioning.
5. Offer the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for time taken to fully complete the repairs to the lifts.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to chase up the lift repairs.
  3. £50 for the repair received via its customer portal not being raised.
  4. £50 for the inconsistent service the resident had received while the maintenance was being transferred from one contractor to another.
On 6 August 2023, the resident submitted a repair report, together with a video which he said showed that one of the faults he had previously reported had not been repaired. The landlord’s repair records noted that contractor 2 attended on 8 August 2023 to carry out the repair and return the lifts to service.
The landlords repair records note that contractor 2 attended site again on 12 August 2023, due to a reported fault with the odd lift. The contractor traced the fault to the overload device being out of adjustment in the control panel. Contractor 2 re-set this and reported that as the lift had been overloaded this had caused an issue with the sensor. The contractor said they would need to reattend with tests weights to re-calibrate.
Faults with the even lift were reported and repairs raised with contractor 2 on 14 August, 12 September, and 13 September 2023.
On 14 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint.The resident said that:
1. He had had to submit ‘‘yet another’’ repair request 2 days after he had been informed that the repairs had been finished.
2. Following the overload advice, the 2 person limit notice for the even floors lift was only attached to the outside of 1 lift door for just under a month. The even floors lift was now out of service again, which had not done anything to restore his confidence in the reliability of the lifts.
3. The issue with the landord’s reporting service ‘‘failing to log’’ his repair did not seem to have been addressed. It was simply identified as a service failure.
4. He believed the landlord was in breach of the 2010 Equality Act. The resident said that the odd lift had been out of service for approximately 69 days so far that year and the even lift was currently out of service. The resident said that disabled people in the building were still being put at a severe disadvantage in regard to moving around, entering, and leaving the building, and that some had become trapped every time a lift went out of service. The resident said that these were stressful experiences ‘‘for us’’ and that this was not acceptable.
The landlord’s records note that it received a report on 18 September 2023 that the even lift was out of order on the second floor and that the doors were not opening or closing.
The landlord issued its stage 2, and final response, on 19 October 2023 in which it:
1. Provided a further explanation of the service provided by contractor 2 and confirmed its response times as being between 1-4 hours for urgent repairs and 24 hours for minor repairs:
  1. Entrapment: 1 hour (in hours & out of hours).
  2. Repairs, In hours – Emergency breakdown (lift out of operation): 4 hours.
  3. Repairs, Out of hours – Emergency breakdown (lift out of operation): 4 hours.
  4. Breakdown (intermittent fault, minor repair): 24 hours.
2. Explained that works may at times necessitate the lifts being out of active service to residents, which will always be kept to a minimum where possible.
3. Advised that both the lifts in the resident’s block were due to have controller unit updates, which would take place on a future programme of works scheduled for 2024-25, the exact date to be confirmed.
4. Acknowledged that there had been issues with the lifts, which had impacted the resident and other residents within the block.
5. Apologised for the inconvenience this had caused the resident and said that it appreciated that he was limited to the use of just 1 of the lifts within the block, due to his ‘‘mobility constraints’’.
6. Offered the resident an additional £250 which, together with the £400 offered in its stage 1 response, bought the total compensation offered to £650.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 4 November 2023. The resident said that:
1. The lift for the odd floors had been out of service for approximately 69 days since 30 December 2022.
2. He did not have complete data for the lift serving the even floors, however it had certainly been out of service for at least 2 months since 30 December 2022, going out of service again on 24 October 2023 (5 days after the landlord’s final response).
3. The landlord had admitted that it did not have a record of some of the lift outages.
4. He logged complaints regarding the lifts on 29 December 2022, 17 April 2023, 25 May 2023, and 6 August 2023. Yet the level of service had not improved.
5. The lift outages in his block were frequent enough to be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 in respect to disabled access to communal fixtures and fittings within the building.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

The frequency of lift breakdowns at his block and the time taken for repairs to be completed.

The landlord is under express and implied obligations in the tenancy agreement (s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) to complete repairs and to do so within a reasonable time of being given notice of the same.
Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the communal lifts to the building. The repairs policy includes repairs to passenger lifts as Emergency Repairs and states that initial attendance at property will take place within 24 hours, with priority being to make safe or secure, and may result in follow-up work being required.
In its final response to the resident’s complaint the landlord confirmed its response times for lift repairs as being between 1-4 hours for urgent repairs and 24 hours for minor repairs, providing the following breakdown for each type of report:
1. Entrapment: 1 hour (in hours & out of hours).
2. Repairs, In hours – Emergency breakdown (lift out of operation): 4 hours.
3. Repairs, Out of hours – Emergency breakdown (lift out of operation): 4 hours.
4. Breakdown (intermittent fault, minor repair): 24 hours.
The landlord advised, in its evidence submission to this Service in March 2024, that its lift service contractors carry out monthly service inspections on both lifts, with all observations, repairs and maintenance items being noted on the service sheet and addressed, as necessary.
The landlord’s response to the reported repairs to the lifts in the resident’s block will be assessed against the above.
Over the 10 month period covered by this report, between December 2022 and October 2023, the odd lift was reported as faulty on a least 4 occasions.
Over the same 10 month period, the even lift which does not serve the resident’s floor was reported as faulty on a least 9 occasions.
In the majority of cases the contractor attended within the required timescales and returned the lift to service. However, there were 2 significant exceptions to this in respect of the odd lift, which serves the resident’s floor.
The first was following contractor 1 reporting to the landlord on 3 April 2023 that the odd lift was ‘making a real bad noise’. The contractor put the lift out of operation and was asked by the landlord to provide a quote for the required works. Despite the landlord asking the contractor that this be dealt with ‘as quickly as possible,’ the works were not completed until approximately 12 May 2023, over a month later.
The second was the resident’s report of 25 May 2023, which the landlord acknowledged was incorrectly logged. In this case the landlord took no further action to respond to the resident’s report until he contacted it again on 11 July 2023 to say that he had not heard anything.
Despite acknowledging that it failed to respond to the resident’s report of 25 May 2023, which it should have done within 24 hours, in accordance with its own response times for a Breakdown (intermittent fault, minor repair) it was not until 17 July 2023 that contractor 2 attended. This was not only 4 working days after the landlord has said that contractor 2 would attend as an emergency repair, but also over 7 weeks after the resident’s initial report of 25 May 2023.
When contractor 2 attended on 17 and 18 July 2023, they identified that other parts were needed and isolated the lift. They then identified that further parts were needed when they attended on 24 July 2023. The repairs were completed on 3 August 2023 and the lift bought back into service. However, by this time the resident had been without a working lift to his floor for an additional 2 weeks.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex or specialist parts or equipment are required. However, in both cases it is evident that there was a long delay in the repairs being carried out, most especially following the second report. There was also an acknowledged failure by the landlord to respond appropriately to the resident’s report of 25 May 2023, which resulted in an further unreasonable delay in the repair to the lift being addressed.
With the exception of the resident’s report of 25 May 2023, it is evident that the landlord did provide the resident with regular updates, and in the case of the July 2023 outage said that it appreciated the inconvenience this would cause. However, it is unclear whether the information provided by the landlord to the resident at this time included any information about the expected length of each outage or when he could expect the lift to return to service.
Having considered all the evidence in this case, whilst there were clear failures by the landlord with regards to the repairs to the lifts at the resident’s block, it is the view of this Service that through its complaints process the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for those failures.
This is because, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint throughout the complaints process. It acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the number of lift repairs raised, the length of time it had taken to get the lifts fully functioning and the impact this had had on the resident and other residents of the block. In recognition of its acknowledged failures, the landlord also offered the resident a total of £650 compensation. This figure is in line with the amounts suggested in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations where there have been failures by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
The landlord also sought to reassure the resident that the service would improve going forward, explaining that it had appointed a new contractor who it said would provide a ‘‘more proactive rather than reactive style of maintenance’’. This approach was evidenced in the reports of 22 June 2023 in which contractor 2 advised the landlord of some maintenance issues with the lifts, which the landlord then raised orders for them to address.
It also advised the resident that both lifts were to have due to have controller unit updates, which would take place on a future programme of works scheduled for 2024-25. Whilst this Service understands that the landlord may not have had a date at that time, saying that ‘the exact date to be confirmed,’ is likely to have provided little reassurance for the resident. It would have been more customer focused for the landlord to have added that it would provide the resident with updates on a regular basis. These could be jointly agreed, so that the resident could be reassured that the landlord was continuing to take the issues seriously and to manage his expectations.
With this in mind, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to agree with him a process by which it will keep him up to date with regards to the progress of installation of the controller units. It has also been recommended that the landlord discuss with the resident any contingency plan that may need to be put in place were these works to require either or both of the lifts at this block to be out of service for an extended period of time.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact the outages were having on him given his vulnerabilities.

In his communication with the landlord the resident raised concerns that the landlord had breached its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It is not within the remit of this Service to determine whether there has been an actual breach of the Equality Act 2010, as this is a legal matter. However, we can consider whether the landlord responded in accordance with its obligations under that Act to the concerns raised and whether that response was fair and reasonable.
Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard also requires registered providers to “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”
The landlord’s Reasonable Adjustments Guide acknowledges its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 in circumstances where:
1. Where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
2. Where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
3. Where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The policy also notes that ‘substantial disadvantage’ is defined in the Equality Act 2010 s.212(1) as ‘more than minor or trivial’ and that it will discuss a customer’s requirement with them directly and will look to reach an agreement on what may be reasonable in the circumstances presented.
In its evidence submission to this Service in March 2024, the landlord advised us that in the event of a fire alarm, if residents need to evacuate, they are required to use the stairs. In instances where customers become disabled or their mobility is affected in some way, then then it addressed this by means of a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and a person-centred fire risk assessment (PCFRA). In some instances, particularly where there is a serious deterioration in mobility, residents will be offered a management move to a more suitable site.
The landlord went on to tell this Service that in November 2019, the resident was noticed to have a leg injury by the onsite team and as a result was added to the (PEEP) register for 12 months. The landlord said that this meant he would have been prioritised by the fire service in the event of an emergency evacuation scenario. The landlord then went on to say that the resident had not notified the onsite team about any current mobility issues.
However, whilst it may have been that the onsite team were not aware of the resident’s ongoing mobility issues, it is evident that, at least as early as his complaint of 17 April 2023, the landlord had been made aware of these and the impact the lift outages were having on the resident. In his complaint of 17 April 2023 the resident told the landlord:
1. He was disabled and could not carry his mobility carriage up and down flights of stairs to get to the lift that was working, which he said was a severe detriment to his physical and mental health.
2. The alternative was that he left his flat using walking sticks, on which he could not walk very far, and he would still have to negotiate a flight of states to get the working lift.
These were clearly concerns that are neither ‘minor or trivial’ and therefore the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to respond to those needs. This would not only be in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 but also the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, and the landlord’s own reasonable adjustments policy.
Despite this, neither at the time of the resident’s initial complaint, nor, throughout the complaints process is there any evidence of the landlord recognising its obligations with regards to the concerns raised nor of it doing anything to seek to address those concerns. It is noted that in its final response the landlord made passing reference to the resident’s ‘‘mobility constraints’’ and acknowledged that these limited him to the use of just one of the lifts within the block. However, this was quite dismissive and there was no suggestion that it might wish to discuss the resident’s requirement with him directly nor that it would look to reach an agreement on what may be reasonable in the circumstances presented. That it did not do so was a significant failure on its part, this being something that the landlord would have been obliged to do, not only under the Equality Act but also its own reasonable adjustment policy.
It is not for this Service to decide what may have been reasonable in this circumstance and it is acknowledged that there may be limited actions the landlord could take, save for ensuring the lift was operational again as soon as possible. However, that the landlord failed to offer at any point to discuss the resident’s concerns and requirements with him directly or to see if there was anything it might reasonably be expected to do to assist the resident when the lift to his floor was out of service, represents maladministration on its part.
It was not until almost 1 year later, and only after our involvement that the landlord told this Service that it was ‘going to do’ another personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and a person-centred fire risk assessment (PCFRA for the resident.
Whilst this is welcome, the landlord has continued to fail to recognise its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2020. This is because it again made no reference to discussing the resident’s concerns with him, to providing him with any reassurances or referencing any contingency plan for circumstances, where there was no fire or other need to evacuate the building, but he simply would have difficulties accessing or leaving his flat if the lift to his floor was not operational.
Having considered the evidence it is clear that the landlord should have taken steps to address the resident’s concerns regarding his ability to leave and return to his home when the lifts were out of service at a much earlier point, and that it missed multiple opportunities to do so. This represents maladministration by the landlord which resulted in unnecessary upset to the resident and him understandable feeling that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
To make this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him a further £500 compensation. The landlord has also been ordered to meet with the resident to discuss what support, reasonable adjustments or contingency plan the landlord might need to consider putting in place for circumstances where there was no fire, or other need to evacuate the building, but where failure of the lift to his floor would result in him having difficulties accessing or leaving his flat.
Given the landlord’s failure, throughout the complaints process, to recognise and respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the impact the outages were having on him given his vulnerabilities, the landlord also been ordered to review the findings of this report and to advise this Service what learning it intends to take a result. The review is to consider both its obligations set out above and the recommendations made in this Service’s spotlight report on Attitude, respect, and Rights: A relationship of equals.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days following receipt and the landlord will aim to provide its response within 10 working days.
2. Escalations to stage 2 will also be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord aiming to provide its response within 20 working days.
3. At both stages, and in circumstances where the complaints may be more complex and need more time, the policy states that the landlord made sure that this is agreed and that the resident is kept in regular contact.
Prior to its formal complaints process the landlord has an early resolution stage where it states it will attempt to resolve the issue within 4 working days of receipt. If the issue cannot be resolved early, the complaint will be formally acknowledged as a formal complaint within 5 working days of receipt, in line with stage 1 of its formal complaints process.
This Service’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
In its self-assessment against the Code, the landlord said that it does not have a stage ‘0’ but where it felt issues could be dealt with quicker than the 5 working days of acknowledgement, it will attempt to complete an early resolution. If it is unable to resolve within that time a formal complaint will be acknowledged and logged within the 5-working day of original receipt. This was reviewed this as part of the landlord’s 2023 self-assessment against the code, the landlord stating that it felt that this still added value for its customers, but it had reaffirmed to colleagues that this was only for issues that could be dealt with quickly.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 17 April 2023. The landlord did not provide a formal stage 1 response to this complaint but rather provided an informal, early resolution, response on 27 April 2023. Whilst the landlord’s complaints policy allows for it to provide such a response, prior to the complaint being considered through its formal complaint process, it is evident that this was not a matter that it was reasonable to deal with quickly. Nor did the landlord provide its response within the 4 working day timeframe, it not doing so until 8 working days after receipt.
Whilst the landlord’s early resolution letter invited the resident to let it know if he felt that his complaint remained unresolved, it failed to advise him that this was an informal response or to provide him with any further information about what the next steps would be should he wish to progress his complaint to its formal complaints process.
Whilst this Service has not seen correspondence from the resident stating that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response or requesting that his complaint be escalated to the landlord’s formal complaints process, it is evident that he was still awaiting the landlord’s response to his complaint when he contacted this Service on 29 June 2023 to say that this had not been received.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints process it should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. In this case the landlord acknowledged the response until 7 July 2023, 1 day outside of 5 working day timescale. The landlord said in its acknowledgement that it would provide its response by 21 July 2023, which was in accordance with the required timescales.
The landlord did not provide its response on 21 July 2023, but instead wrote to the resident asking that the deadline be extended for a further 10 days ‘‘to ensure the lifts were in full working order before it completed its investigation’’. This was agreed by the resident the following day. The stage 1 response was therefore due, and was issued, on 4 August 2023 as agreed with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint on 14 September 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints process it should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. This Service has not had sight of the landlord’s acknowledgement; however, the landlord’s final response was issued in line with the above timescales, on 19 October 2023.
Once the landlord had accepted the resident’s complaint under its formal complaints process, its responses were in line with the timescales set out in its complaints process. However, it is evident that the landlord’s decision to take the resident’s complaint through its early resolution stage caused unnecessary confusion and delay to the progression of the complaint. Given that the resident logged his initial complaint on 17 April 2023, had the landlord accepted this as a stage 1 response, he could have expected to have received its response by 8 May 2023 (5 working days for acknowledgment and a further 10 working days for response). However, in this case the resident did not receive a stage 1 response to his complaint until 4 August 2023 some 3 months later.
In addition to responding to complaints within a reasonable period of time, the Code, also expects landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. However, whilst the resident repeatedly made reference to it, at no point during the complaints process did the landlord address the resident’s specific concerns that it was breaching the Equality Act.
Given the above, a finding of maladministration has been made with regards to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, for which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £250 compensation. It has also been ordered to review the findings of this report, and then to write to this Service to explain what learning it can take from it specifically in relation to its use of an early resolution stage in its complaints process and ensuring that it responds to all points raised in the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the frequency of lift breakdowns at his block and the time taken for repairs to be completed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the impact the outages were having on him given his vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Having considered all the evidence in this case, whilst there were clear failures by the landlord with regards to the repairs to the lifts at the resident’s block, it is the view of this Service that through its complaints process the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for those failures. It acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the number of lift repairs raised, the length of time it had taken to get the lifts fully functioning and the impact this had had on the resident and other residents of the block. It also offered the resident a level of compensation that was in line with amounts suggested in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations where there have been failures by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the concerns raised by the resident regarding the impact of the lift outages on him due to his vulnerabilities or of it doing anything to seek to address those concerns. This was not in accordance with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, nor its own reasonable adjustments policy.
Whilst the landlord’s formal complaints responses were issued in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, its decision to take the resident’s complaint through its early resolution stage caused unnecessary confusion and delay to the progression of the complaint. The landlord also failed to address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint, specifically his repeated concerns that it was breaching the Equality Act.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident an additional £750, made up of:
  1. £500 for its failure to act in accordance with its obligations in response to the concerns raised by the resident about the impact the lift outages were having on him given his vulnerabilities.
  2. £250 for the failures identified with regards to its handling of the associated complaint.
2. Meet with the resident to discuss what support, reasonable adjustments, or contingency plan it might need to consider putting in place for circumstances where there may be no fire or other need to evacuate the building, but where failure of the lift to his floor would result in him having difficulties accessing or leaving his flat.
3. To review the findings of this report and to advise this Service what learning it intends to take a result in relation to both its obligations set out above regarding residents’ vulnerabilities and the recommendations made in this Service’s spotlight report on Attitude, respect, and Rights: A relationship of equals.
4. To review the findings of this report, and then to write to this Service to explain what learning it can take from it specifically in relation to its use of an early resolution stage in its complaints process and ensuring that it responds to all points raised in the complaint.
5. To confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

That the landlord pay the resident the £650 it offered in its final complaint response, if this has not been paid already. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord making this payment to him.
That the landlord contact the resident to agree with him a process by which it will keep him up to date with regards to the progress of installation of the controller units.
It has also been recommended that the landlord discuss with the resident any contingency plan that may need to be put in place were these works to require either or both of the lifts at this block to be out of service for an extended period of time.