Hyde Housing Association Limited (202203159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203159

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 January 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a lift breakdown.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background.

The resident’s tenancy started on 11 April 2016. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a 2-bedroom flat located on the second floor of a 4-storey purpose-built block containing 11 flats.
The resident is a wheelchair user and has the medical condition Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome.

Policies

The landlord’s lift policy states that:
1. Emergency repairs are to be resolved within 4 hours. If the lift is unable to be restored, the lift repair should be completed within 20 working days.
2. If the lift cannot be repaired, the contractor is expected to put an ‘out of order’ notice on the lift. The notice should include the date when the repair should be completed.
3. If the lift will be out of service for more than 48 hours, the fault should be reviewed daily so that actions can be logged and tracked.
4. In buildings which do not have an alternative lift and where the lift is likely to be out of service for more than 4 hours, the vulnerabilities of residents should be checked to assess and provide the support required. Also, communication should be sent to affected residents to enable them to plan for the period the lift will be out of service.
5. Regular updates are to be given to residents and the landlord is to assess whether a decant is necessary.
The landlord’s fire safety management plan states that it will ensure that residents are aware of the fire safety arrangements for the property.
The landlord’s fire risk assessment undertaken on 16 June 2022 gives the evacuation strategy as ‘stay put’ and notes that the building has a standard of compartmentation. With regard to means of escape, it does not record any disability information regarding the occupants of the building. It recommends that the landlord completes a personal emergency evacuation plan by June 2023 for residents whom it has identified will experience limitations escaping in the case of a fire.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. Complaints are responded to within 10 working days at the first stage and within 20 working days at the final stage.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the lift failed on 12 November 2020. The report is recorded as an emergency and showing as cancelled. Further reports of lift failures on 18 October 2021 and 13 January 2022 are recorded as cancelled.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord’s records show that there was a report that the lift was not working over the weekend due to a fault with the fire panel. The repair was showing as completed on 17 January 2022.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 5 April 2022 to complain that the lift was regularly out of service. The resident requested information about the action she should take if there was a fire in her flat. In response, the landlord advised that if the lift were faulty, they would try and get it resolved and that the enquiry about evacuation from the property would be raised with the fire and safety team and the resident would be updated.
The following day (6 April 2022), the resident reported that there were 20 young people smoking cannabis in the communal area. The resident advised that she did not know the people in the communal area. An action plan was agreed with the resident requiring her to supply diary sheets and to report any future incidents to the police.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 May 2022 about the reports of non-residents smoking cannabis in the communal hallway. The resident reported that she had seen two people in the communal hallway but had not reported this to the police. Also, the communal door was secure but there was a lag of around 15 seconds before it closed. The landlord agreed to send a letter to all people living in the building and to see if the police could organise extra patrols. The landlord confirmed the conversation in writing the same day and advised that the anti-social behaviour case review would take place on 27 May 2022.
On 11 May 2022, the resident rang the landlord to chase the complaint response. During the conversation, the resident advised that over the past 2 years, the lift broke down at least a couple of times a month.
The following day, the landlord contacted the Safer Neighbour Team. It requested additional patrols at the building following the resident’s report of non-residents smoking cannabis in the communal area.
The landlord rang the resident on 2 separate occasions on 12 May 2022. The landlord left a voice message informing the resident that it wanted to complete a personal emergency evacuation plan. The resident returned the call, advising that at the time it was not convenient to speak and she would return its call.
The resident telephoned this Service on 17 May 2022 to advise that the landlord had not responded to the complaint made on 5 April 2022.
Between 19 May 2022 and 27 May 2022, the following actions occurred:
1. The landlord sent a letter to all residents advising that non-residents were entering the building. It requested that the residents check that the communal door closed behind them.
2. The resident informed the landlord that she had not seen any non-residents in the building in the previous 2 – 3 weeks.
3. The landlord advised the resident that a case review of the anti-social behaviour would take place on 21 June 2022.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 1 June 2022 requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint by 17 June 2022.
In response, the landlord spoke to the resident about the complaint on 10 June 2022. The resident informed the landlord that the lift was out of service for a week in the first week of April 2022. On the first day, she was informed that the repair was raised for the lift but did not hear anything further. Since 2021, the lift broke down at least twice a month. A member of the fire safety team had completed a personal emergency evacuation plan which recommended that the current property was not suitable and that she should be moved to a ground floor property. In addition, there should be an information box on the ground floor but she had heard nothing about this. The resident concluded by saying that she was not kept informed about who was investigating the issues she had raised and she had to keep contacting the landlord. The landlord apologised to the resident for the experience she had.
Later that day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it would respond by 27 June 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 21 June 2022 to advise that it had not received any further reports of anti-social behaviour. The resident shared her concerns that once the summer holidays started, the non-residents would gather in the communal area to smoke cannabis. The landlord’s records show that the anti-social behaviour case was closed that day.
A complaint investigator sent the resident a holding letter on 27 June 2022, advising that they were waiting to receive the personal emergency evacuation plan from the fire and safety team. The complaint investigator also advised that he would be on leave for 2 weeks, therefore the complaint response would be provided by 20 July 2022. An apology was made to the resident for the delay.
The resident made further reports on 15 July 2022 and 19 July 2022 that non-residents had been smoking cannabis in the communal hallway. The resident stated her concerns that the smoking in the communal hallway could result in a fire occurring and she would be trapped in the property.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 4 August 2022. It accepted that its communication with the resident could have been improved and upheld the complaint. It explained that the complaint response had been delayed as the complaints investigator had been away on annual leave and then had a period of absence due to COVID-19. A summary of its findings are:
1. The lift was out of service for a week in April 2022. The property manager had informed the resident on the first day that the fault was identified and signage was left on the lift door.
2. The reason for the lift being out of service was the lift doors being held open. This had caused the lift to trip.
3. A new lift contractor had been appointed and regular inspections would be carried out.
4. A personal emergency evacuation plan had been conducted on 21 April 2022 and it acknowledged that the resident had not received any further communication about this.
5. It confirmed that in the event of a fire, the resident should remain in the property. If the fire was in the property, the resident should leave the property and go into the corridor.
6. The resident was advised to contact the fire brigade about her personal circumstances so that it could update its records.
7. It advised that as the building had a ‘stay put’ policy, it had decided not to install a Gerda box in the property.
8. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced poor communication following the completion of the personal emergency evacuation plan and apologised for this.
9. It signposted the resident to speak with the tenancy team if she wanted to move to another property via a mutual exchange. It also provided contact information about the registration details to apply for a transfer.
10. It made a compensation award of £100. This was broken down as £50 for the recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and £50 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint on the same day. She advised that she remained unclear about the evacuation policy and the action she should take in the event of a fire. Also, she felt that the reported anti-social behaviour was connected to her complaint. The resident disputed:
1. That she was contacted on the first day that the lift was out of service. This impacted her as she was unable to leave the property to attend work.
2. There was signage on the lift advising that it was not working.
3. There was contact from the property manager, though he knew that she was a wheelchair user.
4. That the officer from the fire and safety team had signposted her to the fire brigade and requested that it listen to the call recording of the conversation.
The resident advised that her preferred outcomes were for the landlord to explain the action it proposed to take if the lift went out of service again. She also requested information about the service level agreement between the landlord and the lift contractor and asked for the landlord to explain:
1. What should happen if the situation reoccurred and she could not leave the building due to the lift failure.
2. The frequency of lift inspections.
3. Whether the:
  1. Personal emergency evacuation plan needed to be completed.
  2. Location of the property meant she should be moved to a ground floor property.
  3. Fire safety policy was in accordance with its disability policy.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 8 August 2022.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal communications showed that the contract with the lift company stated that lift call outs should be attended within 4 hours of being raised and repairs completed within 7 days. Repairs that take longer than 7 days are discussed in the monthly contract meetings and the common reason for delay in resolving lift callouts related to the availability of parts.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord’s internal communications showed that the reason for referral to the fire brigade was for a home safety check to be carried out and for it to register the resident’s specific evacuation requirements as a wheelchair user. It noted that the building had two fire action notices and the fire risk assessment had not identified a need for additional signage.
The anti-social behaviour case notes between 16 August 2022 and 10 November 2022 show that:
1. It was confirmed to the resident that tenancy action could not be taken unless the perpetrators were residents or visitors.
2. A block letter was sent following reports from other residents that non-residents had accessed the building either by being let in or tailgating other residents.
3. A Fire Safety Officer had checked and advised that smoking in the building would not cause the smoke alarms to sound.
4. At a visit on 19 October 2022, the rear communal doors were not secured. A discussion was to be had with the property manager as securing the rear communal doors may result in the tradespeople experiencing difficulty leaving the building.
5. An anti-social behaviour case review was held on 10 November 2022. The resident was notified that the access doors to the three blocks were secure and the police were patrolling the area. Also, CCTV had been passed to the police to see if the non-residents could be identified.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 November 2022, requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint by 25 November 2022.
On 21 November 2022, the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord advising that the resident remained unsure about the fire evacuation procedures. The MP requested that the landlord inform the resident about the action she should take and give an update on the suitability of the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2022 to advise that the non-residents had been in the building the previous weekend.
On 5 December 2022, the landlord rang the resident to acknowledge the complaint and emailed her the same day, advising it would provide its complaint response by 12 December 2022.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 December 2022. It advised that it agreed with the findings in the initial complaint response and recognised that since the complaint response its communication to the resident had remained poor. The key findings were:
1. It repeated that the property manager had contacted the resident on the day the lift fault was reported and signage was placed on the lift door.
2. It recognised the inconvenience experienced by the resident and the need to do more to support residents with access and mobility needs.
3. It was working to improve communication with residents when the lift was out of service.
4. It advised of the service level arrangements within the lift contract and stated that repairs that took more than 7 days were discussed in contract review meetings.
5. It recognised that entering and leaving the building was a problem for residents with mobility issues and that any mechanical component is subject to failure.
6. It had awarded a new contract to improve lift servicing which was a key factor in the award of the contract.
7. Passenger lifts are serviced monthly. For buildings with mobility impaired residents, it was planning to have a fixed date for service visits. Bi-annually a thorough lift inspection is undertaken.
8. It could not substantiate the advice given regarding contacting the fire brigade. However, it suggested that the resident do so as the fire brigade would carry out a home safety check.
9. It confirmed that there are fire action notices in the building and the fire risk assessment did not identify the need for additional signage to be installed.
10. It advised that its fire signage contractor would review the block signage and it would act on any recommendation that it received.
11. It confirmed that the building had a ‘stay put’ policy in case of a fire. The resident should remain in the property until the fire brigade arrived and should only go into the communal area if there was smoke or a fire directly affecting her property.
12. The property construction provides a degree of fire protection to each property. Its fire safety management plan takes account of the Equalities Act 2010.
13. The personal equipment evacuation plan had been reviewed and there was no specific recommendations regarding the resident moving to another property.
14. The property manager was aware of the concerns about smoking within the block and the risk that this caused.
15. The complaints handler no longer worked for the landlord which contributed to the delay in the complaint being progressed to the final stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord apologised for this.
16. It awarded the resident compensation of £350. This was broken down as £200 for its complaint handling delays, £50 for its poor communication and £100 for the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced.
On the same day, the landlord informed the MP that the resident had been advised that in the event of a fire, she should remain in the property. Further, she had been signposted to the fire brigade so that their records could be updated regarding her particular circumstances.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 October 2023. The landlord advised that it had reviewed the compensation it had awarded during the complaint process and increased the compensation award to £950. This was broken down as: £350 for its complaint handling failures; £100 for the resident’s patience during the complaints and repair process; £150 for customer effort; £350 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord stated that it had increased the complaint award as its previous communication did not acknowledge the delay in repairs, distress and inconvenience to the resident. It had taken too long to respond at both stages of the complaint procedure and to capture the resident’s experience. Also, it did not take into proper account the delay in restoring the lift, distress, impact and the poor communication that the resident experienced.
Part of its concluding remarks stated that “it could have done more to turn things around by raising works, seeing them through” and apologised for the “difficulties experienced with having your home restored to a satisfactory standard.”

Assessment and findings

It is understandable that this situation caused frustration and distress to the resident. She was understandably concerned to ensure her safety in the event of a fire, particularly given her personal circumstances and the location of her property within the building.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a lift breakdown.

The landlord’s records of communal repairs show that between April 2020 and April 2022, there were 4 instances when the lift was recorded as out of service: 12 November 2020, 18 October 2021, 13 January 2022 and 17 January 2022. Three of the reports are showing as cancelled which suggests that the reports of lift failure were not frequent but intermittent.
The incident complained about in April 2022, though not disputed by the landlord, is not reflected its records. Therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate the actual date that the lift failed or the date that the lift was restored. The landlord’s complaint response failed to correct this as its complaint investigation also does not provide the dates that the lift was out of action. This is not reasonable and meant that the landlord was not in a position to properly review how it handled the lift outage.
The resident disputes the landlord’s account that she was notified when the lift went out of action which resulted in her being unable to leave the property to attend work. The lack of evidence has meant that it is difficult to determine the exact course of events to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately to inform and alert the resident that the lift was out of service.
The contractor is expected to put a notice on the lift advising that it is out of order and when the repair will be resolved, followed by regular communication from the landlord. There is no evidence that this occurred. The resident has also stated that as a wheelchair user, any signage needs to be placed at an appropriate height that can be read from someone seated in a chair.
Had its contractor informed the landlord that the lift would be out of service for more than 4 hours, it was required to contact the resident to assess her support needs and if any adjustments were required. There is no evidence that this happened nor that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy to consider whether a decant was appropriate for the resident while the lift was out of service. The resident has stated that the lift was out of service for a week, consequently she was unable to leave the property. There is no reason to dispute the resident’s account of these events. The landlord has accepted that its communication with the resident was poor and from what can be seen, it did not use the various communication methods available to maintain contact with her. The lack of contact and support will have had a significant impact on the resident.
The resident asked the landlord to explain the actions it would take if the situation were to reoccur. The landlord failed to address this in its complaint response. This is not appropriate as the landlord has accepted that components fail, as the lift ages yet it did not take steps to reassure or reduce the uncertainty experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s final complaint response reviewed the communication experienced by the resident and advised and that it was working to improve this. In addition, it provided the service level agreement its contractor worked to and gave the reason for the lift failure. It made a compensation award of £50 for the poor communication and time and trouble that the resident experienced plus £100 for distress and inconvenience. After the complaint response, the landlord reviewed the compensation level and increased the award to £350, stating that it had not previously correctly reflected the delay in restoring the lift and the distress and impact on the resident. It added £150 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
Although the landlord eventually offered compensation within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for occasions where a failure has adversely impacted a resident, this was not achieved through the complaints process. It took that landlord 10 months to appropriately review its offer of redress which meant that it missed the opportunity to do so within the complaints process and without the Ombudsman’s involvement.
Further, through its complaint investigation reviews, it failed to assess that it had not acted in accordance with its lift policy as it had not checked whether the resident should be decanted until the lift was brought back into service. Its silence about what she should do if the situation reoccurred did not sufficiently reassure the resident that it had understood or taken the situation seriously. While it accepted that its communication was poor, it did not establish that its failure meant that it had not properly assessed the resident’s support needs or put in place adjustments that would have given her some independence. Had it done so, this would have identified the impact on the resident of being unable to leave the property while the lift was out of service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.

The landlord’s fire risk assessment for the building states that the evacuation strategy for residents is to ‘stay put.’ This is in line with relevant fire safety guidance for residential buildings. The landlord has assessed that the compartmentation within the building is adequate to provide sufficient coverage in case of a fire.
The landlord is required to complete a personal emergency evacuation plan for the resident as she uses a wheelchair. A copy of the assessment has not been provided to this Service. However, the resident had confirmed that this was carried out by the landlord, in line with the fire risk assessment which recommended that the landlord carry out a personal evacuation plan for any disabled people resident in the building.
It is noted that the resident maintains that in case of a fire, she is uncertain about the action she is required to take and requested that the landlord confirm that the contents of the personal emergency evacuation plan applied to her. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the building had a ‘stay put’ policy and that there was no recommendation that the resident needed to move to an alternative property.
Fire notices are required to be displayed in the building, informing residents of the actions that they are required to take. The resident has stated that the location of the of the fire notices and those on the noticeboards cannot be read while using the wheelchair. The landlord in its final complaint response agreed to get its fire signage contractor to review the signage in the building and to act on the recommendation that it received. This was reasonable approach to take to ensure that it met its commitments under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that all residents were able to read the statutory information.
The landlord acted appropriately when it informed the resident to inform the fire brigade of her presence in the building as one of its functions is to offer fire safety advice to residents. It was reasonable for the landlord in its complaint response to give the resident information about how she could find alternative accommodation either by obtaining a mutual exchange or registering for a transfer. This gave the resident the opportunity to make an informed choice about her long-term occupation of the property.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s fear that the presence of non-residents in the building smoking in the building increased the risk of a fire in the building. The evidence shows that the resident’s reports were investigated and it managed her expectations by explaining the limitations to the action that it could take as the perpetrators were not residents of the building. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that it was willing to explore ways to remedy the situation by giving advice to other residents in the building about avoiding allowing access to non-residents.
The landlord’s fire risk assessment is in line with the Government’s guidance to landlords and residents on fire safety. The landlord has informed the resident that in the case of a fire, the ‘stay put’ policy applies and this investigation has not seen that the landlord has deviated from that position. It was appropriate for the landlord to reassure the resident by signposting her to the fire brigade to obtain more information about fire safety.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded reasonably and proportionately to the resident’s concerns. It arranged for its fire safety officer to visit the resident and it confirmed the evacuation strategy that she should use.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 10 working days at its first stage and 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident complained to the landlord about the time that the lift was out of service on 5 April 2022. From what can be seen, the resident’s conversation with the landlord on the day was not registered a complaint even though the resident expressed that she was unhappy with the reliability of the lift.
The landlord missed a further opportunity on 11 May 2022 when the resident chased the complaint response. At this point, it could have recognised its failure to act in accordance with its complaint procedure to register and to obtain further information from the resident about the complaint.
The resident contacted this Service to obtain a response to the complaint. Following our intervention, the landlord contacted the resident on 10 June 2022 to discuss the complaint. The complaint response was eventually provided on 4 August 2022. This took 83 working days. It is noted that the landlord requested time extensions on 27 June 2022 and 1 July 2022. The reason given to the resident for these extensions was that the landlord did not have all the information to answer the complaint and the complaint investigator was away due to planned leave and then a period of sickness. Whilst this went some way to keeping the resident updated, the time taken to resolve the complaint was not reasonable as it significantly exceeded its published complaint handling timescales.
The landlord’s initial complaint response made a compensation award of £50 for its complaint handling delays. While the landlord apologised for the complaint handling delays, the compensation award did not reflect the inconvenience and unacceptable delay experienced by the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day (4 August 2022). The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 August 2022 and provided its final complaint response on 12 December 2022. The landlord took 89 working days to provide its final complaint response. This was not reasonable as it again exceeded its published complaint handing time frames and the resident had to again chase the landlord for its complaint response. The delays in the complaint process caused the resident distress and frustration.
Good communication from a landlord is imperative to providing reassurance that a complaint issue is being taken seriously and treated with the appropriate priority. The landlord’s final complaint response acknowledged that its delay contributed to the poor communication experienced by the resident and it increased its compensation award for its complaint handling to £200. It apologised and advised that part of the delay was attributed to the relevant complaint investigator leaving its employment. Organisations are expected to have handover arrangements to handle situations such as this. Therefore, when members of staff leave organisations on a planned or unplanned basis, the complaint investigation should not be significantly delayed as it was in this case.
The final complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns about future lift breakdown. The landlord failed to inform the resident about the action it would take if the lift failed for more than 4 hours. This was not appropriate as the resident had already informed the landlord of the impact on her when the lift had previously failed. Also, the resident wanted assurance that the landlord had plans in place so that if the situation reoccurred, she would not be impacted in the same way.
The landlord reviewed its compensation award in October 2023. The compensation award for its complaint handling failures was increased to £350. It also awarded £100 for the resident’s patience during the complaints and repair process (in addition to the previously assessed £500 for the lift repair related matters). While this compensation increase meant that its offer was more reflective of the extent of its failings, this was again not achieved until 10 months after the complaints process.
The landlord’s October 2023 review stated that the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s repair service when this was not the case. The correspondence also stated that it was hoped that the property was restored to a satisfactory condition. As it was the landlord’s decision to undertake the review of the compensation awarded to the resident, it should have provided the resident with clear and accurate information. This should have included setting out its position about her concerns about the reliability of the lift service and the evacuation strategy from the property. The inaccuracy in the correspondence indicates that the review response was not specifically tailored to the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the time taken by the landlord to respond to the resident’s report of a lift breakdown.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While not disputed the landlord’s records do not show that for a week in April 2022, the lift was out of service. There is no evidence that it maintained contact with the resident or liaised with her to assess her support needs. Furthermore, it failed to assess whether for the time that the lift was not operational, a decant to another property was appropriate.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that the evacuation strategy for the building was to ‘stay put’ and in its final complaint response agreed to review the signage in the building. The resident has confirmed that the landlord completed a personal emergency evacuation plan and signposted her to the fire and rescue service to obtain other fire safety information. In addition, the landlord responded appropriately her reports of anti-social behaviour occurring in the building.
The resident had to contact this Service to get the landlord to respond to her complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within its published time limits at both stages of the complaint process. This caused the resident to experience an unacceptable delay in obtaining a response to her concerns. It took the landlord 10 months beyond the end of the complaints process to make revised compensation awards that fully recognised its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified within this report;
2. explain the action it will take in the event of a lift failure in the building that exceeds more than 4 hours, including what support it will offer her and with whom she should liaise.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident £950 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report as outlined in its letter dated 17 October 2023.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its record-keeping process for repairs to ensure that it, and its lift contractors, fully log and monitor reports of lift outages; it should create an action plan to demonstrate how it will improve its record-keeping for lift repairs and provide this Service with a copy.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to supply the resident with a copy of her personal emergency evacuation plan.
The landlord is to consider whether the resident can be supplied with a fob to exit the neighbouring building in the event of an emergency. It should write to the resident with its decision and provide this Service with a copy.
The landlord to confirm to this Service that it has undertaken the signage review of the fire notices as advised in its final response of 12 December 2022 and provide the resident with the outcomes of the review.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.