The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202003924)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003924

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of being stuck in the lift at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an Assured Shorthold Tenant, in respect of the property, since 14 October 2015.
  2. The landlord has provided copies of its service records and inspections for the lift at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman is satisfied that between 2018 – 2020, the lift was frequently serviced and inspected in line with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulation 1998. 

 

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a landlord is required to keep in repair the structure and exterior ‘of any part of the building’ in which s/he has an estate or interest. As such a landlord’s implied repairing obligations extend beyond the flat (or other dwelling) let to a tenant for her/his exclusive possession and includes obligations to repair common parts of the building such as communal lifts.
  2. Once the landlord has been informed of the repairs that are needed, the resident must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done. Liability only arises once a reasonable period of time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work / the effect the disrepair is having, and the landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Repairs and maintenance – group procedure

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its repair and maintenance procedure. The Ombudsman notes from this that for non-emergency repairs, the landlord aims to complete works within 28 days.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot see that there is specific mention to the landlord’s turnaround times for lift repairs within this procedure. The Ombudsman notes, however, from the landlord’s disclosure, that the landlord aims to resolve issues regarding residents trapped in lifts within two hours.

Complaints – Housing and support procedure

  1. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. This details the landlord’s approach to complaint handling and indicates that its process offers two opportunities for resolution:
    1. Resolution at its Front-Line Resolution (FLR) stage, normally offered within five to 10 days; and
    2. Resolution at its Investigation stage, where the resident remains dissatisfied, normally offered within 20 working days.

Compensation guidance

  1. The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. This indicates that for cases of serious inconvenience or a failure to follow a policy or procedure, the landlord’s normal payment would be up to a maximum of £25. The landlord’s guidance does, however, encourage staff to consider cases on an individual basis.

 

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman notes that on 30 October 2019, following several issues raised earlier in the year with the lift, the landlord wrote to the resident. While addressing concerns relating to the cleanliness of the lift, the landlord also confirmed that there had been a series of calls out following reports of a faulty lift between October 2018 and November 2018. This was successfully recommissioned on 22 February 2019. The Ombudsman notes that in recognition of the “ongoing failures of service”, the resident sought £200 compensation which was accepted on 18 November 2019. The Ombudsman has therefore not revisited this matter or included it within this investigation.

 

Summary of events

  1. On 24 November 2019 the resident reported being stuck in the communal lift at her property. The landlord’s notes show [as reported by the lift contractor] that at 14:23 the emergency button in the lift was pushed and an operative was subsequently sent out.
  2. Upon speaking with the landlord after her release, the resident informed it that she had to be rescued by the fire brigade. She advised that the lift was still faulty, and that she would be making a complaint about the days events.
  3. On the same day the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord, asserting that she had been stuck in the lift since before 14:00. She expressed that two individuals had fortunately heard her calling for help, but had it not been for them, she would have been stuck in the lift for a longer period. She explained that she was subsequently seeking £1000 for the distress she had suffered. She was displeased that she had been in the lift for more than two hours and no information had been provided on when the engineer would be attending to get her out.
  4. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 25 November 2019 and it was confirmed that the resident’s complaint would be responded to within five working days.
  5. On 29 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised for the inconvenience that the matter had caused the resident and explained that it generally aimed to attend to lift entrapments within two hours of being reported. The landlord apologised that this did not happen on this occasion. In recognition of the inconvenience caused, the landlord explained that it would make a goodwill gesture of £25.
  6. On 4 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. She expressed that she did not accept the landlord’s offer of £25 and requested that her complaint be escalated. She asserted that the landlord had no intention of dealing with her entrapment and text messages that she had received regarding power cuts showed this. She was not satisfied with the offer, given the seriousness, distress and panic attacks she experienced. She stated that had it not been for the two individuals who heard her calls for help, and subsequently called the fire brigade, she would have remained trapped.
  7. On 4 December 2019 the landlord confirmed for the resident that her complaint would be dealt with under the investigation stage of its complaints procedure. It explained that a response would be provided within 20 working days.
  8. On 2 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord explained that due to an unexpected staff absence, the response had been slightly delayed. The landlord noted, following its investigation:
    1. It could confirm that the resident contacted the Customer Service Centre (CSC) on 24 November 2019 at 16:21 to say that she had been stuck in the lift since 14:00 and had to be released by the fire brigade.
    2. The resident had pressed the emergency button, and this should have alerted the lift contractors who should have attended within two hours.
    3. The lift contractor was unable to confirm the time the operative arrived. Upon arrival, however, the operative reported that the lift had tripped out on the third floor. The lift was therefore reset.
    4. An operative had also attended on the same morning and confirmed that the lift was in working order. It concluded that the issues experienced by the resident were likely caused by a power outage which had affected the area earlier that day.
    5. The landlord apologised that following a text message from the resident, it did not respond or confirm that an engineer was on its way.
    6. The compensation sought by the resident was significant. It therefore referred the resident to the Ombudsman website for an indication of the level of compensation received in similar cases.
    7. The landlord concluded that it would award an additional £100, accounting for its poor communication (£25), unclear records (£25), overall inconvenience (£25), and the contractor not attending within the required timescale (£25). This was in addition to the £25 offered previously.
  9. On 16 January 2020 the landlord attempted to call the resident twice however was unable to make contact.
  10. On 21 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer and reiterated that she sought £1000 in recognition of her experience. The landlord explained that it had again reviewed the records, listened to the telephone calls, and spoken with the lift contractors. A response would be provided within 20 working days.
  11. On 27 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming again that it would review the resident’s comments and provide a response within 20 working days.
  12. The Ombudsman cannot see that there was any communication between this time and March 2019. On 19 March 2020 the resident therefore chased a response.
  13. On 19 March 2020 the landlord shared its final response (dated 31 January 2020). The landlord stated that it had fully investigated the matter and reiterated the points it had made on 2 January 2020. It added:
    1. It had spoken with the lift contractors who confirmed (using the operatives tracker) that they were contacted at 10:37 on 24 November 2019. The engineer attended at 12:10 and found the lift in working order. The engineer tested the lift and left it in service. On the same day at 14:07 the lift contractor received a call to say a passenger was stuck in the lift. At 14:21 a call was also received from the resident. The operative attended at 15:15 and released the passenger from the lift. The engineer advised that the lift had tripped out on the third floor and left the lift working at 16:45.
    2. It’s good will gesture of £125 had been made in line with its compensation guidance. In recognition of its poor communication following the resident’s text however, it would increase its offer of compensation to £150.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of being stuck in the lift at her property.

  1. As detailed above, the landlord is obligated to keep in repair the common parts of the building under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is therefore the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that following reports of the need for repair, prompt action is taken to restore its communal lifts to working order. The Ombudsman notes that on the morning of 24 November 2019 the landlord’s contractor responded to a reported fault with the lift and found no issues. The lift was tested and where no problems were found, left in working order. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman also notes from the landlord’s records that prior to this, the lift had been serviced, inspected and found to be in adequate condition. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the subsequent events concerning the resident were not caused by poor maintenance.
  2. The landlord also has a duty of care to protect the health and safety of its residents. It therefore should take prompt action where it (or its representatives) become aware that a resident has become trapped in a lift. The Ombudsman notes that on 24 November 2019 at 14:07 the landlord’s contractors confirmed receiving a call informing that a passenger had been trapped in the lift. Both the landlord and the lift contractors confirm that a second call was received at 14:21 from the resident (as well as the emergency button being triggered at 14:23). In the Ombudsman’s view, at this point and upon learning which of its resident had been trapped, the landlord (or contractor) should have informed the resident that an operative would be on the way to release her from the lift, and the expected timeframe. The Ombudsman appreciates that being trapped in a lift can be distressing and is displeased that the landlord failed to manage this situation appropriately. The Ombudsman notes that the resident additionally sent texts to the landlord’s CSC, however no response was received. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was inappropriate.
  3. With this said, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord recognised its poor communication at stage one, and in its final response, increased its offer of compensation (£50) to adequately reflect its omission. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation below to encourage the landlord to feedback the learnings from this case, to its CSC.
  4. Moreover, the landlord explained that its target timeframe for releasing residents entrapped within its lifts is two hours. The Ombudsman recognises that within the landlord’s final response, it asserted that the lift operative did this, attending the property at 15:15 and releasing the resident from the lift. While this may have been the case, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify any evidence to verify this. The Ombudsman notes that this also conflicts with the resident’s assertion that she had been stuck in the lift for more than two hours. The Ombudsman has subsequently been unable to determine whether the resident was released within this two-hour timeframe or not. The Ombudsman is content nonetheless, that the landlord still made an offer of compensation in recognition of the operative’s delay (£50 in total) and a further £25 for the resident’s inconvenience. This was reasonable.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted its services at 16:21 to report her release by the fire brigade. Based on the resident’s account, this would suggest that her release from the lift exceeded the expected timeframe by 14 minutes (as the initial report was made at 14:07). While the Ombudsman has drawn no conclusions on whether the resident was released earlier than this or not, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the offer of £75 compensation for this element of the complaint was proportionate in both instances. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to account for its unclear records at stage one.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in recognition of the distress and anxiety experienced by the resident, she sought £1000 compensation. The landlord subsequently directed the resident to its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s website in an attempt to manage the resident’s expectation. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was reasonable. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation guidance and can confirm that the offer made was in line with its suggested remedies / level of award.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1.           The Ombudsman appreciates that at stage one of its complaint process, the landlord explained that as a result of a staff absence, its response on 2 January 2020 was somewhat delayed. Taking into account the Christmas holiday period, this delay was minimal and therefore had no material impact on the case. On 21 January 2020 however, the landlord informed the resident that it would offer a final response within 20 working days. While its subsequent letter was dated 31 January 2020, the Ombudsman has noted that this was not received, and therefore had to be re-sent on 19 March 2020. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this letter was sent. The Ombudsman does, however, appreciate that letters do sometimes get lost in the post, and has therefore not considered this to be a failing. In the Ombudsman’s view though, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to retain evidence of postage. The Ombudsman has subsequently made a recommendation to reflect this below.
  2.           The landlord’s complaints policy indicates that where a complaint is made, a two-stage approach will be taken to achieve resolution. This is made up of an initial FLR and where this fails, a subsequent investigation. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord offered two responses within its investigation stage, therefore further prolonging the complaints process. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have offered its final response on 2 January 2020 (or earlier, where possible) and referred the resident to the Ombudsman Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  3. With this said, the Ombudsman is content that within the landlord’s final response, it made a reasonable and fair adjustment to the compensation previously offered.  In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s offer enabled it to review its handling of the matter and to satisfactorily resolve the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman therefore has not considered this to be a failing but has made a recommendation for future practice below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of being stuck in the lift at her property,

the landlord made an offer of redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
    1.                The Ombudsman cannot see any evidence to suggest that the landlord was responsible for the resident being trapped as records suggest that the lift had been appropriately maintained and serviced. With this said, there was a service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its available records (resulting in a lack of evidence to prove its response timeline). The Ombudsman is content, nonetheless, that the landlord appropriately recognised its shortcomings following the resident’s complaint, and upon review of its previous complaint responses, made an offer of redress which was satisfactory. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the additional length of time that the resident was trapped for and was reasonable in the circumstance. What’s more, the landlord made an offer of compensation to equally recognise the resident’s inconvenience, and this was appropriate.
    2.                It was appropriate for the landlord to provide its final response, upon learning that the resident had not received it on 31 January 2020. The Ombudsman appreciates that a considerable length of time had passed before the resident obtained this, however cannot see that the correspondence was chased before March 2020 and therefore the landlord would have been unaware of the missing post. Furthermore, while it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to outline its final position in the response dated 2 January 2020, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord felt it necessary to review its position, and offered a further adjustment to put things right. This was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that where a resident has reported being trapped in one of its lifts, it arranges an operative at its earliest convenience to attend to the issues and confirms this arrangement with the resident in question. This will enable it to manage the situation appropriately and to reassure the resident that help is on the way. The landlord should share the comments made in this report with its CSC to emphasize the importance of this and encourage the right behaviour moving forward.
  2. The landlord should ensure that it maintains appropriate records, such as proof of postage notes, if it chooses to provide its complaint responses by post. This will allow it evidence that the response has been issued in the instance that it does not arrive, and to accrue an adequate audit trail.