Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202118063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118063

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

28 February 2022

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to an incident where the resident was trapped in the communal lift.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident lives in a one bedroom flat within a block on the 16th floor, her tenancy began on 7 April 1980.
3. The landlord’s lift maintenance agreement says that it will respond within 45 minutes to any lift trapping occurring between 8am-5pm on Mondays to Fridays.
4. The landlord’s maintenance agreement states that maintenance visits on communal lifts should be carried out once a month.
5. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to consider awarding compensation to residents where it has been responsible for a delay in resolving an issue or loss of facilities outside of its target timescales.
6. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. When a resident makes an initial complaint the landlord has 10 working days to reply. If the resident is unhappy with the response and wants to escalate the complaint, they must raise this with the landlord within 20 working days. If the complaint is escalated it will go to stage two. The landlord will then review the complaint and issue its reply within 20 working days, unless it agrees a different timescale for its response with the resident. If the resident still remains dissatisfied then the complaint can be escalated to this Service.
7. Summary of Events
8. On 27 August 2021, the following events took place:
   1. The resident was using the communal lift to take her downstairs when it got stuck just after the 14th floor.
   2. When the resident pressed the emergency button inside the lift it did not work.
   3. The resident had to use her mobile to call a friend waiting for her downstairs. Her friend called the police and they alerted the fire brigade to the situation.
   4. The fire brigade arrived about 45 minutes later and were able to get into the lift and free the resident by lifting her out.
9. The resident raised a complaint on 31 August 2021, as she was unhappy about the fact that the lift had broken down and that the emergency button had failed.
10. On 27 September 2021, the landlord told the resident that it required more time to issue its reply and that it would respond by 1 October 2021.
11. The landlord sent its reply to the resident on 4 October 2021, in its response the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its response to the complaint.
    2. Confirmed that the emergency button in the lift is checked on a monthly basis.
    3. Advised that on the previous inspection the emergency button had been working. However, a part had failed since then which had now been fixed.
    4. Stated that it is in the process of updating its equipment so that the checks are done automatically which it said should reduce the chances of the emergency button failing in the future.
    5. Explained that there are systems in place which allow the lift to be moved manually in the event that the lift is stuck between floors without any power supply. This means that the lift can always be exited should an emergency situation arise.
    6. Said that although it acknowledges the upset the situation would have caused the resident, its response time to lift trappings is 45 minutes. It noted the emergency services attended the scene within that timescale.
    7. Advised that there were no plans to put a concierge service in place at the property. However, it said it was installing a concierge at a nearby property with a CCTV system which would allow the concierge to monitor other blocks within the area.
    8. Stated that it was piloting a system which would alert it if a lift broke down regardless of whether or not an alarm is raised or a lift breakdown is reported.
       1. Offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
12. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response, in her reply to the landlord dated 14 October 2021,the resident said that:
    1. The landlord failed to recognise that the failure of the emergency button meant that the landlord did not assist her during the lift trapping. Had the resident not had her phone she could have remained trapped for some time.
    2. The resident no longer felt able to use the lift by herself and either had a neighbour accompany her or used the stairs which was inconvenient considering her age and the fact that she lives on 16th floor. She wanted assurances that this situation would not happen again and that the alarm would be checked more frequently than once a month as it is at present.
    3. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was insulting. The amount of stress caused by the incident has resulted her being prescribed medication to help cope with the impact.
13. The landlord sent its stage two response no 28 October 2021, in that response the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the ongoing distress and anxiety the issue had caused the resident.
    2. Confirmed that the emergency call button would now be tested every three days rather than once a month.
    3. Stated that although there is no emergency signage in the lift there are signs which give the landlord’s call centre number.
    4. Confirmed that it had inspected the emergency contact button since the incident and found that there was a fault which it had since fixed.
    5. Stated that having a back-up system in place is something that it is planning to implement for the future.
    6. Confirmed that there is a dedicated phone line available to answer emergency calls.
    7. Stated that since testing the emergency button it realised that the calls were connecting to the contractors for the lift rather than the landlord itself. The landlord said that whilst this was not a safety issue as the contractors call centre is staffed the calls should have been going directly to the landlord, as per its own process.
    8. Said that it would not normally pay compensation for a lift trapping as this type of situation is not something over which it had control. However, as a gesture of goodwill, increased its offer of compensation to £100 to recognise the distress caused and the ongoing impact of the incident.
14. The resident approached this Service on 11 November 2021, as she did not believe the compensation adequately reflected the impact of what of what had happened to her.

Assessment and findings

15. On 27 August 2021, whilst the resident was using the lift it stopped working just after the 14th floor, leaving the resident trapped inside. Whilst a landlord cannot be expected to prevent lift failures from ever occurring, it is reasonable to expect them to carry out sufficient checks to ensure the lift, and the facilities within it, are well maintained.
16. This Service has seen some of the landlord’s lift maintenance records covering the period from the start of August 2021 through to September 2021. The records demonstrate that the landlord conducted maintenance on the lift prior to the breakdown. In terms of the subsequent failure, the records showed that a part had failed which then needed to be replaced. Based on the evidence seen by this Service, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord could not have foreseen this failure and was not at fault for the lift breakdown itself.
17. In summary, from what this Service has it appears the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure the lift was maintained and inspected in order to minimise the chances of the lift failing. Therefore, the landlord was not at fault for the lift breakdown that occurred on 27 August 2021.
18. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it had been making routine monthly checks on the button before this incident happened. This service has seen the call logs for the emergency button for the previous 12 months before the lift trapping took place. The log shows that no calls had been made using the emergency button in the previous 12-month period. After the incident, the button was found to be faulty which indicates a fault developed following the landlord’s monthly maintenance check. As a result of the resident’s feedback, the landlord has said it will now inspect the emergency button every three days.
19. Undoubtedly the failure of the emergency button has caused much distress and anxiety to the resident. However, the landlord had a reasonable maintenance schedule in place for the lift (including the button) and has evidenced that it was sticking to that schedule to keep the lifts in working order. Therefore, whilst the situation is unfortunate it cannot be fairly considered to have been due to any failing on the landlord’s part. Since the resident raised her complaint about the incident, the landlord has increased the frequency of its inspections on the emergency button to every three days, which was an appropriate measure to take in response what happened.
20. In summary, the button developed a fault in-between the landlord’s inspections which meant the resident was unable to call the landlord’s emergency contact centre when she was trapped in the lift. The button was being inspected on a monthly basis which was, at that time, in accordance with its procedures. The distress and anxiety the resident has suffered was due to the unforeseen failure of the lift and, in particular, the button itself, rather than a failure by the landlord to properly maintain it.
21. The landlord originally offered £50 in compensation, which it increased to £100 when the resident escalated the complaint. This Service has not found any service failures in the way the landlord has maintained the lift or emergency button, or in the way it has handled the complaint. The landlord nevertheless used its discretion to make a compensation award to the resident which was resolution-focused and demonstrated that it took into consideration the distress the resident had experienced which was reasonable.
22. In summary, the landlord took appropriate steps to check and maintain the lift, including the emergency button. The resident was assisted by the emergency services within 45 minutes which is within the same timescale that she would have received a response even if the landlord had been able to attend. Therefore, although the situation was understandably distressing, there was no service failure by the landlord and its offer of  £100 as a gesture of goodwill was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its response to an incident where the resident was trapped in the communal lift.

Reasons

24. The landlord had undertaken reasonable steps to ensure the lift had been properly inspected and maintained. The failure of the emergency button, and the subsequent events, were not caused by any failure on the landlord’s behalf.