Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Vivid Housing Limited (202016235)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016235

Vivid Housing Limited

6 June 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident has shared ownership of the property and holds a lease agreement with the landlord. She occupies a property within a block of flats served by a communal lift which was originally installed in 1982. The resident first raised a complaint about the communal lift on 21 November 2018 when she highlighted that the doors were getting jammed. The landlord’s stage one complaint response explained that the lift was “dated” and it would be monitoring it. After it arranged an independent inspection of the lift, it was recommended that the lift be modernised or replaced within six to twelve months. This commenced on 4 March 2019 as the lift became unusable in February 2019.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 May 2021 about the standard of the repair work done by its lift contractor. She said that the lift was constantly breaking down and trapping the elderly residents of the block within it. It advised her in its stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021 that it had instructed an independent inspection of the lift, enclosed the report to her, and provided an action plan for the repairs. In its response to the resident’s escalation of the complaint, the landlord arranged for the same independent specialist to carry out a post-inspection.
  3. After the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord provided an update to the resident on 16 September 2021 in which it advised that the post inspection had identified that nine of the original points required further attention. It provided an action plan to her of how and when these would be addressed, and confirmed that some had already been completed. 
  4. Lift breakdowns were reported to the landlord on 28 and 30 September 2021. It attended both of these repairs the same day and found the lift to be working. On 12 October 2021, a lift fault was reported and it attended this the same day to carry out a repair. It reattended later the same day to verify that the repair was successful.
  5. On 26 January 2022, the resident informed this Service that she did not consider that the landlord had resolved her complaint. She continued to be concerned over the safety of the lift, which continued to break down, and it had not confirmed to her that the lift was in good working order. The resident wanted an assurance that the lift would not breakdown in the foreseeable future. She relayed verbal confirmation from the landlord that it would not replace the lift and expressed dissatisfaction with the level of the service charge it charged her. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted:
    1. The landlord to replace the communal lift.
    2. Assistance from the landlord to move elsewhere.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has said that she wanted the landlord to replace the lift to resolve her complaint. While this is not a resolution which the Ombudsman is able to order, the Ombudsman will consider whether the actions it took to resolve the reports of the lift malfunctioning were reasonable and in accordance with its obligations.
  2. It should be clarified that it is beyond the remit of this Service to consider the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of her service charge. Dissatisfaction with the level of, or liability for payment of, the service charge is a matter more appropriately considered by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to seek independent advice on bringing the matter before the Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this.
  3. Additionally, the issues and landlord’s response post the completion of its complaints procedure have been noted for context but, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, they will not be assessed within this report.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it will keep in good and substantial repair the common parts of the property, including the lifts. Therefore, it was its responsibility to ensure that the lift was in good working order and to ensure that repairs required were carried out within a reasonable period. When a landlord receives a report of a repair for which it is responsible, it is reasonable for it to inspect the issue and complete any remedial works identified.
  2. The landlord instructed an independent contractor on two occasions to inspect the lift. It first did so on 8 February 2019 and the report from this recommended that the lift was modernised within a year and that it increased its scheduled service visits from twice a year to every two months. The landlord followed the recommendation and commenced modernisation of the lift in March 2019. Its records also showed that it increased its regular service visits to bi-monthly.
  3. When the resident raised her recent stage one complaint on 26 May 2021 about the frequency of the lift breaking down, it acted reasonably by arranging for an independent inspection of the lift. This demonstrated that it took her concerns seriously and was committed to resolving the matter.
  4. The independent inspection report was issued on 10 June 2021 and listed 22 recommendations to be addressed. This was provided to the resident by the landlord in its stage one complaint response with comments from its contractor to detail its plan for addressing each recommendation. It was reasonable for it to address these issues with its contractor, to ensure that the specified works were completed. It was also clear that the landlord was being transparent with the resident, by providing her a copy of the report.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage on 6 July 2021 as she wanted the lift to be replaced and believed that the replacement of parts on an old lift was not cost efficient. While this was an understandable concern on her part, given the age of the lift, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors. The independent inspection report noted that the lift’s original parts continued to be supported by the manufacturer and the recently added parts during the modernisation of the lift “are all a good quality [and] remain within their design life expectancy”. Considering this, it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct works to prolong the life expectancy of the lift and improve its reliability; it conveyed this to the resident in its final complaint response on 6 August 2021.    
  6. In its final complaint response to the resident, the landlord also acknowledged that she wanted a post-inspection of the newly completed work to be carried out. It confirmed that the independent company it previously instructed would carry out a post-inspection of the site on 25 August 2021. The landlord advised that it would provide this report to her. This was a reasonable response from it which again acknowledged her concerns, demonstrated its transparency and commitment to resolving the lift issues.
  7. In conclusion, the landlord responded reasonably to the complaint by instructing an independent specialist to inspect the lift and carried out the recommended remedial works, in accordance with its obligation under the lease. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord.
  8. It is noted that the resident wanted help from the landlord to move to another property. As she is a leaseholder, there was no obligation on the landlord to assist with a move, given that there was no evidence of exceptional circumstances which it may have taken into consideration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal lift.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Continues to monitor the reliability of the lift and consider replacement if necessary, in accordance with its asset compliance policy.
    2. Considers providing assurances to the residents of the block that the lift has been regularly maintained, possibly by sharing the bi-monthly service reports from its contractor.