Lambeth Council (202220014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220014

Lambeth Council

2 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a broken lift.
2. As part of this investigation, this Service has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives as a secure tenant in a seventh floor flat. She is elderly and has disabilities. The complaint has been made on her behalf by her son.
4. On 8 September 2022, the landlord received a report that the only lift in the block of flats was not working. A contractor attended the same day but could not repair the lift. A second attempt to repair the lift was made on 9 September 2022. As this did not resolve the problem, the landlord arranged for a specialist technician to inspect the lift. The technician attended on 16 September 2022, and identified that replacement parts were required.
5. On 6 October 2022, the resident’s son complained about the delay in repairing the lift. He also complained about a lack of communication about the repairs. He said the landlord had not provided any support, and his mother had been unable to leave her home because of the broken lift.
6. The lift was repaired on 10 October 2022.
7. In its first complaint response on 2 December 2022, the landlord said the replacement parts were not held in stock, as they were bespoke, and had to be manufactured. It acknowledged there was a delay between the lift breaking down on 8 September and a technician arriving on 16 September. It said it would address the delay with the contractors. It apologised for the delay and offered £100 as a gesture of good will.
8. The resident’s son escalated the complaint on 8 December 2022. He said the landlord had shown no urgency and had not ensured the lift was repaired sooner. He said the landlord had not communicated with his mother and it had cancelled meetings with residents where the lift repair was going to be discussed. He said his mother had incurred additional costs because she had not been able to have her supermarket shopping delivered, and instead relied on relatives bringing more expensive shopping from local shops. He said residents should receive a rent rebate to acknowledge the costs to them.
9. The landlord’s final response on 16 January 2023, repeated the apology for the delay and said the replacement parts had taken time to manufacture.
10. The resident’s son remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. He said the landlord’s final response failed to address the issues raised. He said the landlord should apologise, provide compensation for additional costs, and review its processes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident’s son asked the landlord to compensate his mother for the additional costs incurred while the lift was out of order. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, this Service cannot consider the complaint for costs. This is because the Scheme says that this Service will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within this Service’s authority or expertise to award costs in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
12. This Service can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to reports of a broken lift

13. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident says the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs and maintenance to the external fabric of housing blocks and estates. This includes lifts. The landlord’s estates and neighbourhood management policy says the landlord will ensure lifts are safe and well maintained. The landlord’s responsibility for the lift is not disputed.
14. The landlord’s repairs manual says urgent emergency repairs will be attended in 2 hours and fixed within 24 hours, and emergency repairs will be fixed in 1 working day. It says emergencies include lift breakdowns. In line with its policy, this Service would expect the landlord to repair the lift within 1 working day, where possible.
15. When the lift fault was reported on 8 September 2022, the landlord made an immediate attempt to repair the lift on the same day, in line with its policy. When an immediate repair could not be made, a second attempt was made the following day. When this also failed, the landlord identified that it needed to bring in a specialist technician. This Service finds that the landlord’s initial approach to dealing with the report of the broken lift was reasonable.
16. However, records provided to this Service show that the technician did not inspect the lift until 16 September 2022. This was 8 days after the original report of a fault. This delay was unreasonable. Records show that on 20 September 2022, the contractor told the landlord it had inspected the lift and was awaiting information on costs. The landlord thanked the contractor for the update. The next communication was on 30 September 2022, when the contractor told the landlord that it had spoken to a supplier who would manufacture parts by 7 October 2022. The contractor told the landlord it intended to carry out work on 10 October 2022.
17. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the lift should have been repaired as an emergency within 1 working day, where possible. This Service accepts the landlord’s explanation that there was a need to manufacture replacement parts, which meant an immediate repair was not possible. However, there was an 8-day delay between the lift fault being reported and the specialist technician carrying out an inspection and identifying the need for replacement parts. Records provided by the landlord indicate there was then a further 2-week delay until the contractor instructed a supplier to manufacture the parts. Once the parts were manufactured, there was then a further 3-day delay until they were fitted. The landlord has provided no evidence that it chased the contractor or stressed the urgency of the repair. This Service has found that a lack of urgency from the landlord contributed to a lengthy delay, which may have been avoided. During this time, the resident was significantly inconvenienced as she was unable to leave her flat or receive deliveries. The failure to repair the lift in a reasonable time was maladministration.
18. The landlord’s repairs manual says it will keep residents updated. The resident’s son has told this Service that his mother had no communication about the repairs during the period the lift was out of order. He said the only information was an out of order notice on the lift. This Service understands that the resident management organisation tried to arrange meetings with the landlord to discuss the repairs. The resident’s son told this Service that 5 meetings were arranged and then cancelled by the landlord. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the repairs. Because of this, the landlord did not follow its repairs policy, and this was service failure.
19. The resident was vulnerable, had disabilities, and lived in a high-rise block. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered the impact of the broken lift on the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to ask whether she needed any support or considered whether reasonable adjustments were appropriate. The lift was out of order for over a month. The resident’s son has described how his mother was unable to leave her flat or receive visitors or deliveries during this time. This Service would have expected the landlord to check on the wellbeing of its residents while the lift was out of order for a prolonged period, especially those likely to be vulnerable. The landlord failed to carry out any checks. This Service has found that there was a failure in the landlord’s duty of care towards the resident. Because of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the length of time the lift was out of order, and the impact it had on the resident, this was maladministration.
20. This Service finds that the landlord failed to deal effectively with the repair to the lift and did not consider the effect the broken lift had on the resident. There were 3 separate failures over the month the lift was out of order:
    1. A failure to repair the lift in a timely manner.
    2. A failure to follow its repairs policy and keep the resident updated.
    3. A failure in the landlord’s duty of care towards the resident.
21. This Service has noted that the landlord offered the resident £100 for delays in repairing the lift in its first response. This amount was unreasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s failings were significant and had a detrimental effect on the resident. The failings caused distress and inconvenience. When the resident attempted to leave her flat, her son has described how she had to crawl on the stairs. This was a loss of her dignity, and she did not make a further attempt to leave. In effect, the resident was denied her liberty for the month that the lift was out of order. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a significant failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate for its failings as follows:
    1. £300 in recognition of the failure to repair the lift in a reasonable time, inclusive of the £100 previously offered.
    2. £100 in recognition of the failure to follow its repairs policy and keep the resident updated.
    3. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure in its duty of care towards the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations of how landlords will deal with complaints. It says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to in 10 working days, and escalated complaints in 20 working days.
23. A complaint was first made on 6 October 2022, and a response sent on 2 December 2022. This took 41 working days. The complaint was escalated on 8 December 2022, and a response sent 24 working days later. The escalated complaint was responded to in a reasonable time. However, there was a failing by the landlord in the time it took to respond to the original complaint.
24. The Code also encourages a positive complaint handling culture, where landlords use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. This Service has noted that the landlord’s final response did not address the points raised in the escalated complaint, meaning there was a lost opportunity for learning.
25. Issues with the landlord’s complaint handling were highlighted in this Service’s February 2022 special report. The special report predates the events investigated in this report. However, similar issues with the landlord’s complaint handling have been noted in this case. The landlord has previously been ordered to consider its complaint handling procedures to assure itself that the complaint handling failures identified would not happen again. The landlord should review the handling of this case to establish whether any further improvements are required.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of a broken lift.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report, acknowledging its failures and the way the resident was treated.
29. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered by the landlord for delays in carrying out repairs. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £300 in recognition of the failure to repair the lift in a reasonable time, inclusive of the £100 previously offered.
    2. £100 in recognition of the failure to follow its repairs policy and keep the resident updated.
    3. £300 in recognition of the landlord’s failure in its duty of care towards the resident.
30. The landlord is ordered to review its procedures to ensure it effectively manages lift repairs that are carried out by contractors to avoid similar delays.
31. The landlord is ordered to review what communication with residents it will put in place when a lift is out of order for more than 3 days.
32. The landlord is ordered to look at what processes are required to put in place appropriate support to vulnerable residents when a lift is out of order for more than 3 days.
33. The landlord is ordered to review the handling of this complaint to establish whether any further improvements are required.
34. The landlord is ordered to confirm to this Service that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

35. It is recommended that the landlord updates information it holds to ensure it has information about the vulnerabilities of residents in high-rise blocks.