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

London Borough of Wandsworth (202329149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329149

Wandsworth Council

24 June 2025


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lift outages in his block.
    2. The level of service charges relating to the lifts and the resident’s liability to pay them.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a tenth floor flat owned by the landlord.
  2. On 9 October 2023, the resident made a complaint. He said there had been several issues with the lifts over the years resulting in unacceptable downtime. He felt the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace them was unreasonable and resulted in high repair bills for leaseholders.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 October 2023. It said a lift outage occurred between 19 August 2023 and 26 September 2023 while a specialist built a replacement part. A call out for the other lift occurred on 10 October 2023 in which contractors attended and left it in working order. It explained it was consulting on a major lift refurbishment project to replace the main components. It advised it would follow the statutory consultation process. In the meantime, it would continue to monitor the performance of the lifts and would take all possible measures to minimise the period a lift is out of service.
  4. On 23 October 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, setting out that the landlord did not acknowledge the age of the lifts within its complaint response. He was also dissatisfied with how long it took the landlord to repair the lift and gave several examples.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2023. It stated it was aware of the age of the lifts. It was unable to specify how long each lift repair would take as this was subject to the type of repair needed. It stated lifts have several complex mechanical parts and therefore some repairs may take longer to complete. It summarised the call outs for the lifts between 1 January 2021 and 3 November 2023. It reiterated its position concerning the lift refurbishment project and consultation.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident. He said he had experienced major disruptions and safety concerns over the past 3 years due to frequent lift outages. To resolve the complaint, he wants the landlord to bring forward the date of the lift refurbishment project and ensure leaseholders are not out of pocket.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When a resident refers a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate.
  2. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Accordingly, we will not consider the complaint about the amount of service charges and the resident’s liability to pay them.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is open for the resident to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service for more information.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is our role to decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme and the evidence presented. We acknowledge that in this case, the resident referenced lift issues occurring in August 2020, December 2021, and September 2022. We may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, this report focuses on events from October 2022 up to the stage 2 complaint response. Reference to other events is to provide context only.
  2. We may only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. In 2025, the resident expressed other concerns to us such as more recent lift issues. It is open for him to contact the landlord directly and make a separate complaint if he is unhappy about matters occurring post-stage 2.

Lift outages

  1. The lease sets out the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the communal lifts.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease agreement and housing law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s repairs procedure sets out that it is responsible for maintaining communal areas, the block and, where appropriate, the estate. It has a response target of 2 hours from notification for lift breakdowns where there are 10 or more storeys in a block.
  4. Within the resident’s complaint, he referenced a lift outage that lasted for around 6 weeks while the landlord arranged for a specialist to manufacture a replacement tacho. Given the specialist nature of the work, we find the landlord completed the repair as soon as was reasonably possible.
  5. The landlord evidenced that it wrote to the residents of the block on 30 August 2023 and 20 September 2023 concerning this outage. In our view, the updates were apologetic and provided an explanation as to the cause of the issue, what action it was taking, and the approximate timescale for repair. It also confirmed it had arranged for its lift contractor to regularly check the other lift in the block to ensure it remained operational. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. Within its submission to this Service, the landlord has provided a copy of the lift repair history and evidence of its servicing. This does not contain the same level of information as referenced within its complaint responses, nor does it contain the specific times that residents reported issues with the lift. To capture this information would allow it to provide a clearer picture of the length of interruptions to the lift service. It would also enable it to assess whether it met its emergency response timeframes.
  7. Part of the resident’s complaint outlined his concern for vulnerable residents during lift breakdowns. The landlord acknowledged this and advised in its stage 1 response that it had purchased evacuation chairs to assist those who may have mobility problems and provided a 24-hour telephone number for those who may need support. It also said that while the lift serving odd numbered floors was shutdown, it ensured the lift serving the even numbered floors remained operational. We are minded it acted appropriately by acknowledging his concern for vulnerable people in its complaint response and setting out its position.
  8. We do not expect a landlord to share specific information about other occupants with the resident or this Service. Therefore, we cannot assess whether it should have done more to assist those with vulnerabilities during the lift outage. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs and the effect this had on the resident as an individual. We have seen no evidence that he disclosed any vulnerabilities to it or requested additional support.
  9. We appreciate the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal for a program of component replacements as he wanted it to replace the lifts. In terms of the suitability of the landlord’s proposal, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether it is suitable or not. It has made suggestions it believes are appropriate, based on the opinion of qualified staff. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault.
  10. We understand the landlord has proceeded with its consultation and issued a Notice of Intention to leaseholders in January 2024, following by a Section 20 notice in September 2024. It explained the refurbishment work was necessary to address the extensive wear, deterioration, and obsolescence which affected all major lift components, impacting performance and reliability. It aimed to complete the works within the 2024/2025 fiscal year. This demonstrates the landlord was aware of the performance issues with the lift and took reasonable action in view of a long-term solution.
  11. While the breakdown of the lifts was understandably frustrating, the purpose of this report is to investigate the landlord’s response to the issues. It showed that it acted reasonably in its efforts to determine the root cause and once identified, it repaired the lift as soon as it could considering the complexity of the repair. Additionally, it showed concern for its residents by keeping them updated and encouraging them to reach out for help if needed. It is evident the landlord offered detailed explanations and kept the resident informed. Additionally, it acknowledged the inconvenience caused and offered a sincere apology. Taken altogether, there was no maladministration identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lift outages in his block.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charges relating to the lifts and the resident’s liability to pay them is outside of our jurisdiction.