Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sovereign Network Homes (202218988)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218988

Network Homes Limited

22 August 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 handling of repairs to the communal lift.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a flat situated on the second floor of the building. The building has one communal lift. For the duration of the complaint the resident’s son has corresponded on the resident’s behalf. For clarity, both the resident and her son will be referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report. The landlord does not hold a record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that between 7 October 2021 and 27 October 2022 its operatives attended to service, repair and/or reinstate the communal lift in excess of 35 times, usually following a report of it not working.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a formal complaint on 8 September 2022 because she was unhappy with the constant issues with the communal lift. She explained she was disabled and had had to cancel medical appointments as she was unable to use the lift to get out of the building. She requested that a permanent solution be found.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, dated 22 September 2022, following a review of its repair records for the previous six months, it acknowledged that there had been a number of breakdowns. It said that it had made every effort to return the lift to full service as quickly as possible on each occasion. However, on one occasion, multiple component failures resulted in the repair time being extended. It explained that should the lift ever be out for longer than a period of seven days, it would look to contact the resident to ascertain any vulnerabilities within the household and look to accommodate and provide support during this period. It recognised that this approach was not applied on this occasion and as a result it said it would ensure its records were up to date so it could accommodate those with limited mobility. In light of the above, the landlord partially upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for any distress this had caused.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 September 2022 because the lift had broken down again. She was dissatisfied with the lack of action in finding a permanent solution.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 28 October 2022 it concluded that, in light of the many breakdowns in the last few months, it believed that the current situation was not manageable long term. It said that, to date, it had attended and put the lift back into service well within its service level agreement, with one exception of when a part was required. Nevertheless, it said it would need to find a lasting resolution, which may include replacing the lift. The landlord informed the resident that the lift had been highlighted as requiring extensive upgrade/refurbishment works and a proposal had been submitted to its finance department, which would be reviewed over the next few months. It cautioned that there was no guarantee a funding would be allocated for the 2023/24 financial year, but that should the budget proposal be signed off (around February/March 2023), a lift replacement could go ahead.
  7. In the meantime, it said that it would be working with its lift contractors to ensure they were working smarter than before and, following several suggestions and discussions, it would continue dialogue to ensure it found the best possible solution. It also said that it had asked that spare parts were kept in storage, to reduce the likelihood of further delays whilst it waited for a decision on a lift replacement. In conclusion, the landlord reiterated its apology regarding the resident missing medical appointments and awarded £130 compensation for the time and trouble she had faced over the past 6 months.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to this service on 1 December 2022 because she remained dissatisfied that a permanent solution had not been found. She said she has a medical condition and was unable to use the stairs, and relies heavily on the communal lift to attend hospital appointments. As an outcome, the resident wanted the lift replaced. 
  9. This service asked the landlord in July 2023 for confirmation whether or not the lift was indeed replaced, when this occurred, or whether an alternative solution was found that provided a permanent solution. The landlord confirmed in August 2023 that the lift was not being replaced this year (2023/24) due to an issue with another lift that required urgent replacement and therefore it would be looking to schedule the lift replacement for the next financial year (2024/25). It added that it was monitoring the breakdowns daily and undertaking urgent repairs to the lift should it fail. It said that the overall performance of the lift had improved and when the lift had failed in recent months, the issues were quickly resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident has contended that the issue with the communal lift dates back a few years. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This, however, it at the Ombudsman’s discretion, and decisions regarding timeframes will be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances.
  2. In this instance, it is evident that issues with the performance of the communal lift date back much further than the 6 months the landlord considered during its internal complaint procedure. As such, the Ombudsman reserves the right to consider extending beyond the timeframe that the landlord reviewed, and therefore this report will review the 12 month period between October 2021 and October 2022.

Assessment

  1. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the communal lift. The landlord’s lifts and domestic lifting appliances safety policy states that its designated contractor is responsible for identifying and completing remedial works to all lifts and they should complete these works in a timely fashion.
  2. The lifts and domestic lifting appliances safety policy does not specify timescales for what constitutes a ‘timely fashion’. However, the landlord’s repairs policy provides the following guidance for types of repairs, depending on their urgency:
    1. Emergency repair: The landlord aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe. It states that emergency repairs are situations where there is a risk to someone’s health or safety, a home is not secure, or there is damage that is rapidly getting worse.
    2. Routine repairs: The landlord aims to attend to attend within 5 working days of reporting the repair. Routine repairs are repairs which are unlikely to cause serious health and safety problems or serious damage if they are not fixed straight away.
  3. According to the landlord’s repair records, the lift breaking down was considered as an emergency call out, as it was the only lift in the building, and therefore contractors should attend within 4 hours and make safe. Any remedial repairs required subsequently should then be attended to within 5 working days.
  4. While the landlord’s response times, for the most part, to the reports of the lift breaking down were in line with the timeframes stated in its repairs policy, there is no indication in the evidence provided that the landlord considered or investigated why the communal lift was experiencing so many call-outs in such a short time period prior to the resident raising a formal complaint.
  5. The resident’s main complaint was not that the landlord’s contractors did not attend within a reasonable timeframe on each occasion when the communal lift had ceased to operate. Rather, it was the lack of a permanent solution, as the issue had extended over a long period, which was having a negative impact on her successfully entering and exiting the building.
  6. A fundamental aspect of basic repair management is to proactively establish whether more proportionate interventions are needed in order to find a permanent resolution to an ongoing issue. It is fine, up to a point, to take a trial- and-error approach. However, there comes a point where a more thorough investigation is required, to establish the cause of the issue so that a long-term solution can be found.
  7. The landlord’s repair records show that the lift breaking down had been an ongoing issue for at least a year (October 2021 to October 2022), and as such should have warranted a more significant intervention from the landlord at an earlier stage. Instead, it was only when the resident reached stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, on 28 October 2022, that it began to acknowledge the full extent of the issue and consider alternative solutions that would hopefully provide a permanent solution.
  8. This delay in taking a more pro-active approach at the earliest opportunity was a failing on the landlord’s behalf, as it should not have taken the raising of a formal complaint to instigate finding a permanent solution. In view of this, the landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and any changes which may been needed to its processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this service to confirm the findings of this case review within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.
  9. While it is acknowledged that the landlord, as a result of the complaint, was looking to instigate better dialogue with its lift contractors, to ensure it found the best solution, and that it had learnt from the complaint by looking to ensure that spare parts were kept in storage, to reduce the likelihood of further delays in the future, it is still the case that a permanent solution has yet to be implemented that satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  10. Part of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles is to put things right. In this case that means finding a permanent solution to lift breaking down so frequently. The landlord’s proposal detailed in the stage 2 response, to put forward the lift for an extensive upgrade/refurbishment works, was not an immediate resolution, as the resident would still need to wait until the proposal had been signed off, but it was nevertheless a potential permanent solution. The landlord confirmed, on 10 August 2023, that the proposal had been deferred to the following financial year (2024/25) and thus a further delay to resolving the complaint is inevitable.
  11. This would not necessarily constitute a failing on the landlord’s part as it is acknowledged that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The replacement of a communal lift is considered substantial and it was therefore reasonable that it submitted a proposal to its finance department for review before a decision could be made. Moreover, although likely a cause of frustration for the resident, the decision to prioritise a more urgent lift replacement was also reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. That said, the landlord would still need to effectively manage the situation in the interim, while a permanent solution is sought. Thus, while it is encouraging that the overall performance of the lift has improved, and that the landlord is monitoring the breakdowns daily and undertaking repairs to the lift urgently should it fail, the landlord has intimated that the lift has failed in “recent months”, suggesting that the issue remains.
  13. The Ombudsman would not usually consider events after the date that the case was duly made (the date the Ombudsman agreed to investigate the complaint), which in this case was 23 November 2022. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord consider further compensation if issues with the lift have continued after 23 November 2022, and if the lift breakdowns have negatively affected the resident. Likewise, the resident can make another complaint regarding this and can approach the Ombudsman if suitable redress is not offered prior to a permanent solution being implemented. It is also recommended that the landlord write to all residents of the building and provide regular updates regarding the performance of the lift and the timeframe in which a replacement should be competed.
  14. In regard to the compensation offered during the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £130 compensation did provide proportionate redress for the time and trouble taken and was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The £130 compensation for the time and trouble faced over a period of 6 months was the maximum amount for major impact (£5 x 26 weeks = £130).
  15. However, if we consider the resident’s specific circumstances, the landlord should have also considered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Though the landlord’s repair records show that for the most part the lift was put back into full service within the stipulated timescales, there was one repair that did take longer than expected, which left the lift out of service for 8 working days. As the resident was vulnerable and relied heavily on the lift to enter and exit the building to attend medical appointments, some of which she had to cancel as a result of the lift breaking down, this should have warranted further compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  16. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards of compensation for distress including stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry or outrage, severity, length of time suffered, number of people affected (one person or whole family) and vulnerability of the complainant. As such, the landlord should offer a further £260 compensation; this is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact of distress (£10 x 26 weeks = £260). The total amount of compensation of £390 is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (available on our website), which suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.
  17. In addition, despite being informed on a number of occasions that the resident has mobility issues and relies heavily on the one communal lift to attend medical appointments relating to a heart condition, the landlord does not hold information recorded on its system regarding the resident’s vulnerability status. Though it is noted that the landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 September 2022, said that it would look to contact residents in the event that the lift be unavailable for longer than a period of 7 days, so that it can ascertain any vulnerabilities within a household and look to accommodate and provide support during this period, this information should be readily available to all staff so that they can make informed decisions and in turn be able to use up-to date information to devise specific contingency plans. This is especially true in the event of an emergency or if the lift was out of service for a long period again. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident and update its records regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  18. In summary, whilst it is evident the landlord, having realised the extent of the issue with the communal lift, was looking to implement a permanent solution, this only took place following the resident’s formal complaint. Based on the number of reports of the lift breaking down over a protracted period, this should have warranted a more in-depth investigation at an earlier point. Furthermore, although the landlord did acknowledge the time and trouble aspect of the resident’s circumstance, it did not fully acknowledge the distress element, specific to the resident’s circumstances, and therefore further redress is warranted to satisfactorily resolve the complaint. It is for that reason an overall determination of maladministration has been found.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal lift.

Orders

  1. In view of the failings identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £390 compensation. This is inclusive of the initial £130 offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, if it has not already been given. The compensation should be paid within 4 weeks from the date of this decision.
    2. Carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and any changes which may been needed to the landlord’s processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this service to confirm the findings of this case review within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and update its records accordingly regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord write to all residents of the building and provide regular updates regarding the performance of the lift and the timeframe in which a replacement should be completed.