Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202015321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015321

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

17 December 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the communal lifts within his building breaking down.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat on the 9th floor of the building. The building has two communal lifts.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the building on 9 July 2020 to inform them that work to replace the lifts would commence on 20 July 2020. It confirmed that one lift would be out of service for 21 weeks and the residents would be able to use the other lift in the meantime. Around this time, a series of external works to the building were also ongoing. The landlord provided a works update newsletter to all residents in January 2021 it confirmed that the new lift had passed its final inspections and had been fully operational since 11 December 2020.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised an enquiry via the landlord’s complaints team on 1 January 2021. He reported that there had been an unreasonable level of noise whilst the new lift was installed and that the new lift kept breaking down. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 6 January 2021. It advised the resident to report any faults to its customer services team or directly to the company responsible for maintaining the lifts in the meantime.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 12 January 2021 and explained that there was likely to be noise due to the construction work in the area. However, the noisy works were restricted to certain dates and times and had been advertised in advance via its newsletter and a new screen which had been installed. It said that the new lift had stopped four times to date. It noted that the lift controller recorded these instances and it was currently under investigation. It believed the cause of the instances had been abuse of the lifts and said a conclusion would be reached soon. It confirmed that the lift had been inspected by an independent body who had signed it off as ‘Installed to a very high standard’
The resident responded on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlords response. He said that the lift had broken down more than four times and he had witnessed three breakdowns that week alone. He added that someone had been stuck in the lift on one occasion. He asked how the lifts were being abused and why this would result in a breakdown. He said he was not satisfied that he had needed to suffer through the noisy installation works only to have the new lift break down. He said that other residents he had spoken to were not satisfied with the lifts and he did not consider the issue to be ‘teething problems’. He had been informed that the new lift needed new parts and asked why this was the case after a month of use. He also noted that the lift was much slower than the previous lift. He concluded by stating that the lift breakdown was having an impact on his health as he had needed to climb nine flights of stairs and suffered an asthma attack as a result.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 14 January 2021 and explained that his concerns were being dealt with as a service request rather than a formal complaint. it confirmed that his comments had been passed on and that he should receive a response within ten working days (by 26 January 2021). The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 25 January 2021 and said it would respond to his comments by 12 February 2021.
The landlord issued a response to the resident on 3 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay the resident had experienced and said that the matter had taken longer to investigate than originally anticipated. It confirmed that it had not found any service failure on its part.
2. It apologised for the lift breakdowns. It had investigated this matter and found that the entrapment was due to a component failure, which had been replaced. It noted that the other occasions were caused by interference to the doors. These were not caused by the lift or any component. The interference included items being placed in the rails of the doors. It confirmed that it would be monitoring its CCTV footage for further evidence. It added that it would pursue the evidence if it was sufficient.
3. It apologised again for the noisy works and said that the issues experienced were outside of its control as there was no issue with the lift itself. It was not able to control human interference with the doors but would continue to investigate this matter. Due to this it was not able to uphold the resident’s complaint.
4. It agreed that the issues were not just ‘teething problems’ and the further issues had been due to possible vandalism. It said that all residents should be vigilant in order to ensure that there was nothing blocking the doors. It was not aware of any other parts which needed changing in the lift other than the component which had already been replaced.
The landlord sent a further work update newsletter to all residents in February 2021 and confirmed that the new lifts met current regulations. It acknowledged that there had been instances where the misuse of the lifts had caused them to go out of service. It had discussed the issues with the manufacturer who advised that the lift doors should not be obstructed at any time and that continually obstructing the doors would lead to a fault being logged on the lift control panel. This would cause the lift doors to stay open on that floor and an out of service message to be displayed on all other floors. It said that if resident’s needed to take control of the lift, they could hold the door open button to prevent the doors from closing. It confirmed that the works to install both lifts was on target to be completed by June 2021.
A resident’s meeting took place on 10 February 2021 where the lifts were discussed:
1. The landlord confirmed that there was photographic evidence of someone jamming a piece of wood into the lift door to keep it open, the controls for the lift found this to be unsafe and had switched off. It said it had been made aware of two shutdowns. One incident had been due to a component failure and the other incident had been caused by an individual interfering with the door and debris being left in the lift tracks.
2. It added that there had been four breakdowns the previous year and two in 2021. It was still gathering information from its CCTV footage and lift controls to determine whether the cause of each breakdown was that the door had been blocked.
3. An operative from the lift company was also in attendance and provided further information about how the lifts worked and what to do in an emergency.
The landlord wrote to all residents on 20 February 2021 to explain that due to an intermittent fault, it had to take the remaining lift out of service. Its contractor was currently sourcing a part and it said that there was a chance the work would not be completed until 22 February 2021. It offered its support to those with mobility issues and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2021 and said that the lifts were not working and residents were using the stairs in the dark. He was concerned that there would be an accident.
The resident emailed both the landlord and the Ombudsman on 3 March 2021 to raise a complaint and explained the following:
1. He expressed concern that his previous complaint had been dismissed by the landlord as a service request. He added that since his previous correspondence, the lifts had broken down, once for 3-4 days. He did not feel that this was due to customer interference, which was previously suggested and believed that this was a fault with the lifts themselves.
2. He said that he wanted the matter dealt with as a formal complaint bearing in mind that the lifts had broken down on multiple occasions and three people had been trapped inside despite the lifts only being operational since December 2020.
3. He added that the landlord had not updated residents with regard to the previous breakdown which had lasted for days. He asked why residents were not updated once the repairs were completed. He said that the landlord had sent letters after the initial breakdown but nothing further. He asked why the brand-new lifts required several new parts. He also said that he had sent several emails to a member of staff but had not received a response.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 March 2021.
The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 10 March 2021 and confirmed that the lift had now been repaired and was in full operation. It said it would be speaking with the resident it had identified to be responsible for the recent damage.
On the same day, a residents meeting took place and the lifts were discussed. The landlord advised that the lift stoppages were currently being investigated and that it would update residents once this was completed. It said that due to the serious nature of the acts of vandalism, it was unable to share the videos recorded on its CCTV. It noted that some stoppages had been caused accidently and the perpetrator had not realised that they had caused the issue despite the notices in the lift. It added that the lift door needed replacing due to a recent incident, this would take place at night to avoid any disruptions to residents and the lift was currently safe to use.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the impact that the interruptions to the lift service had caused to the resident and his neighbours, especially when this happened at weekends. It confirmed that it was investigating the cause of the breakdown and said that the information from the lift had been sent to the manufacturer for analysis. Once it had received the results it would act accordingly. It said that it could take up to two months to obtain the findings and decide what to do next.
2. It said that it did not have any record to suggest that the lift was down for 3-4 consecutive days. It had been made aware that there was a 3-4-day period where there was a series of service interruptions with the lift then being returned to service. It added that it should have more information about the nature of the issue once it received information from the manufacturer.
3. It said that it knew that there had been three entrapments since December 2020 but it had only received evidence from the fire department for one incident. It said that it had asked for those who had been trapped to come forward but failing that it would rely on the findings from the manufacturers to determine the cause of the entrapments. It hoped that there would not be further breakdowns but said that it would keep resident’s informed through the electronic notice boards in the communal area for residents to see.
4. Following an entrapment in January 2021, it had to replace a component on one of the lifts. This resulted in the lift being out of use and a new part required. The part had since been replaced and it hoped to identify the cause of the interference following the investigation.
5. It apologised for the lack of response from one of its members of staff, it had spoken to them and they apologised if it was not clear that the responses should come from a different member of staff. It asked the resident to confirm whether the resident had sent any emails and had not received a response. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate his complaint further if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident requested information from the landlord on 23 March 2021 regarding the breakdowns of the lift as well as the repair appointments associated with the lift breakdowns.
The issues with the lifts were discussed at a residents meeting on 7 April 2021. The landlord advised that it was reviewing its CCTV footage with its legal team in relation to the recent incidents. A resident asked whether permanent notices could be displayed within the lifts and the landlord confirmed it would review this. The landlord issued a further works update newsletter in April 2021. It confirmed its investigation into what happened when the lifts had stopped working. would take a number of weeks to complete and that it would be able to discuss the investigation with residents once its legal team had advised on what actions it should take.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 19 May 2021 as the lifts were continuing to break down. He added that one was out of order the previous day and expressed concern that the lift was not fit for purpose. He sent a further email on 20 May 2021 and expressed dissatisfaction that the lifts broke down on a weekly basis. He again asked for his complaint to be escalated.
Following contact from the resident, The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 21 May 2021 to ask it to progress the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. It said that it had been concerned with the number of call-outs since the lifts installation (nine call-outs between 3 January 2021 and 18 May 2021), which was above average, particularly for a new lift. It explained it was not unusual for complex machinery to have experience some teething problems, the issues merited further investigation to establish whether there were any underlying faults. It acknowledged that the issues may have caused a high level of inconvenience due to the other lift being renewed and unusable.
2. It said that it had uncovered the cause of the high number of breakdowns and had put in place a number of measures to address the situation. It confirmed that it had reviewed its CCTV footage and found that there were some service interruptions caused by misuse, such as the lift being locked off during cleaning, the lift doors being wedged open and the lift being held open by a child. This had led to the lift needing to be commandeered by its operatives and contractors which it acknowledged was far from ideal.
3. It had briefed its cleaning contractors and said that the lift must be reactivated immediately once cleaning had been completed. Previously the cleaner had left the doors of the lift open and the lift had deactivated. The process of turning off the lift had been standard practice during cleaning for some time but it acknowledged that this would need to change to avoid causing unnecessary inconvenience whilst the other lift was being renewed.
4. It acknowledged that its communication with all residents around the scheduled shutdowns needed to improve and it was not enough for it to inform residents through the use of the electronic notice board on the ground floor. It had discussed this internally and said that it did not wish to come across incidents where residents had reported that the lift was broken down when it had actually been deactivated for cleaning. It had also found that on occasion the lifts had been commandeered by one of its teams who were removing items from a vacant property. it had advised its staff that it should write to residents of any affected block to confirm the period in which a lift may be out of use for this purpose, so that residents are aware that the lift had not broken down.
5. It confirmed that it did not have any call-out logs to show a breakdown of 3-4 consecutive days, however, it acknowledged that residents of the block may have been under the impression that the lift was down for an extended period given that there had been multiple shutdowns in succession. It confirmed that all reports of entrapments were attended to within its timeframe of four hours. It added that in most cases the relevant contractor had attended within two hours.
6. It said that in January 2021 it had to replace a component of the lift following an entrapment. This came at no additional financial cost as it was within the one-year defects period for the lift. It said that it had spoken to the member of staff about having not responded the resident’s emails. They had apologised that it had not been made clear that the responses would come from a different member of staff, who was the main point of contact.
7. It said that it had not found any evidence to support the resident’s claim that the new lift was not fit for purpose, but that it was clear that the resident had cause for complaint. it said that the measures it had outlined had resolved the issues and it confirmed that there had been no further lift call-outs since measures were put in place. The lift had also been tested by a lifting regulation body and would also be tested by the landlord’s insurers. It hoped that this gave the resident some reassurance that the lift was fit for purpose.
The landlord issued a further works update newsletter in July 2021 and confirmed that the work to install the new lifts had been signed off. It confirmed that its investigation into the breakdowns had been completed and was available for residents upon request. It said that the manufacturer was currently investigating the issues with the lift floors. It was also planning to install steel frames to replace the temporary ‘do not obstruct the lift doors’ notices.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He felt that the landlord had supplied incorrect information about the number of breakdowns and this was much higher than stated. The lift breakdowns were causing significant distress and he was concerned that being trapped in a lift would be extremely triggering and traumatic. He added that he had seen no proof that the lifts had been inspected three times by independent contractors and expressed concern that the issue had not been resolved despite the alleged inspections. He expressed concern that the landlord was referring to people holding the lift doors open as mis-use when this was likely to happen in a building of its size. He added that the other lift did not breakdown in this way and said that something must be wrong with the installation. He also wanted to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the noise of the lift installation and the breakdowns.
The resident has recently reported to the Ombudsman that the lift has broken down again.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lifts within his building breaking down.

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the communal lifts in the building. Residents are advised to report any issues with the lifts directly to the lift company, which is responsible for all maintenance needed to the lifts. The contact details are supplied on notices in the lifts and on the ground floor of the building. Lift breakdown response time is 4 hours with repairs to be completed within 12 hours. There is a target response time of 45 minutes if someone is trapped in lift and 60 minutes if they are trapped outside of normal working hours. The landlord carries out monthly inspections and testing of the lifts where an engineer would check the safety features on a lift, in addition to cleaning, lubricating and adjusting all components for optimum performance
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation would be payable when there is no access to another lift in the same block and the lift has been out of service for seven consecutive days or more. Compensation would not be paid if a lift is unavailable due to vandalism. Compensation of £5 per week will be paid for each week that the lift is unavailable after five days failure. The payment will be increased to £10 per week for vulnerable residents.
In this case, the evidence supplied by the landlord shows that the lift engineers had attended to each reported breakdown within the published timescales and on some call-outs the lift was found to be working as normal on arrival. On each visit the lift was returned to service on the same day. It is not disputed that the number of breakdown reports since the lift began its operation was higher than average, particularly for a new lift. This clearly would have caused inconvenience for residents in the building. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the lift stoppages by reviewing its CCTV and working alongside the lift company to find a resolution.
The landlord investigated the reported breakdowns and found that when the door was obstructed, the lift would show as out of service for other floors. It identified that on some occasions the lift had been put out of service by its cleaning staff or contractors removing items from a vacant property. The landlord apologised and took steps to rectify this by speaking to the staff members involved. It had identified that stopping the lift had previously been general practice when cleaning the lifts and that this would now need to change given the new lift specification. It was reasonable that the landlord did not identify this issue until the new lift was installed and functioning. Once the issue was identified, the landlord took appropriate action to resolve it.
Following investigation, the landlord and lift company had found that there were no faults with the lift itself, following the replacement of a part in January 2021. On some occasions, routine maintenance was needed, such as readjusting the pully system, however this was not detrimental to the lift’s performance. it is noted that there were a number of entrapments and some of these were caused by the doors not closing fully due to an obstruction. The landlord had explained that the new lift met different regulations to the old lift and would not close onto people. If the lift detected an obstruction it would remain open and switch itself off for safety reasons.
Whilst the landlord would be responsible for arranging repairs to the lift if issues with the components had been identified and responding to reports that the lift was not in service. There were limited steps it could take to prevent human interference with the lift such as people blocking the doors from closing or leaving debris in the lift tracks. The landlord took reasonable steps to identify the perpetrators of such incidents using CCTV footage and raising its concerns directly with the individual responsible.
It also made reasonable efforts to communicate with all tenants regularly through direct letters, monthly newsletters and residents meetings regarding the lift stoppages. It gave clear advice to all residents on how to prevent the lift stoppages and asked them to hold the door open button if needed rather than obstruct the doors. It is noted that the resident has advised that several emails he had sent were not responded to. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the emails the resident sent. However, the landlord has apologised for any miscommunication and explained that the resident’s emails should have been responded to by a different member of staff rather than the staff member he had contacted. This apology and explanation were reasonable to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
The resident had requested compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lifts repeatedly going out of service. It is not disputed that the issues are likely to have been inconvenient for the resident and other tenants in the building. However, in line with its compensation policy, the landlord would not be expected to offer compensation in this case as there is no evidence to suggest that the lift was out of service for more than seven consecutive days and on some occasions, it was out of service due to vandalism.
The resident has recently reported to the Ombudsman that the lift has broken down again. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate recent incidents because our investigation is focused on the period up until the landlord gave its final response to the complaint in June 2021. The Ombudsman can only investigate matters which have been reported to the landlord as a formal complaint and have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Whilst the recent issues with the lift may be linked to the previous problems, the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to these new incidents and therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider them as part of the current complaint. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the recent lift shutdowns he can raise a new complaint about this through the landlord’s internal complaints process. He may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaint procedure. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new timescale for response.
The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 3 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 24 March 2021, which was five working days outside of its timescale at stage one. This delay is unlikely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience, however, it is noted that the resident also needed to contact the Ombudsman for assistance to ensure that his complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have communicated with the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 19 May 2021. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 16 June 2021, which was within its 20-working day timescale for complaints at stage two.
Overall, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst there was some delay at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process, this was not significant and was unlikely to have caused significant inconvenience. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that complaints are acknowledged within a reasonable timescale and residents are made aware if there is likely to be a delay in providing a complaint response at any stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lifts within his building breaking down
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The lifts breaking down was likely to have been inconvenient for the resident and his neighbours, especially given that the other lift in the building was also out of service while it was being refurbished. However, the landlord has made reasonable efforts to keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigations and it has demonstrated that it had been in regular communication with the lift company to find a solution. The lift company had attended each report of breakdown within its specified timescales.
There was a small delay in issuing a stage one response, although this was not likely to cause significant inconvenience to the resident.