London Borough of Lambeth (202329146)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329146

Lambeth Council

10 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about lift issues.

Background

2. The resident’s joint lease began in 2016. The property is a fourth floor flat, and the building has a lift.
3. During June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the lift was faulty. The landlord attended several times. It left the lift in service on some occasions but on others it could not.
4. On 4 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that the lift repairs had been ongoing for 3 months. She said that the lift was a “health and safety issue” and that she and members of her family had been injured by it. She referred to her service charge, which she said was partly for the lift. She asked to be compensated. The landlord attended further lift repairs during the remainder of the month.
5. The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 1 August 2023 and apologised for the disruption. It detailed its lift repairs over the previous 2 months. It said that it would not award compensation, as the lift had not been out of service for a “lengthy time” and the issue was now resolved.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 the same day. She disputed the landlord’s account of when the lift had been left serviceable. She provided video evidence that she said confirmed this. She referred again to being injured and to the calls that she had made chasing repairs.
7. The landlord attended several lift repairs during August and September 2023. It left the lift in service on some occasions and on others it did not. Its final attendances at the end of September 2023 confirmed that the lift had been returned to service.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. It accepted that its stage 1 response had been inaccurate concerning when the lift had been left serviceable. It acknowledged that there had since been further periods of unserviceability until the start of the month. It apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and distress.
9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matters above. She said that she wanted to be compensated for being unable to use the lift for prolonged periods and for the injury and stress that this had caused. She said that the lift had continued to be unreliable since her complaint and that this remained the case. She described how this impacted her elderly parent’s ability to visit her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, injuries. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim. The resident could consider taking independent legal advice in that regard. Nonetheless, while we cannot consider whether the landlord’s actions caused the resident injury, consideration has been given to the reasonableness of landlord’s response to her reports of personal injuries.

Handling of lift issues

11. The response timeframes stated in the landlord’s complaint policy were relevant to complaints about its function as a council, rather than as a landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 workings days. The landlord updated its policy, in line with the Code, in April 2024.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it prioritises a lift breakdown as an emergency repair, which it will attend within 1 working day.
13. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor regularly undertook lift repairs, from 1 June until the end of September 2023. However, the landlord provided no evidence of the resident’s reports of lift issues, beyond what she stated in her complaint and escalation. It is therefore unclear whether its repairs in response to her reports were attended within the timeframe of its policy.
14. The contractor’s reports show the range of repairs issues that occurred. While it was able to return the lift to service at some of its attendances, it was left unusable on several others. The resident explained the frustration and inconvenience of this. Nonetheless, the evidence shows the contractor’s multiple attendances, often on consecutive days, and the landlord’s efforts to resolve the issues.
15. The resident’s complaint, on 4 July 2023, reported injuries sustained from the faulty lift door by her, her elderly parent, and child. She also raised her lift safety concerns, and referred to times when her, or members of her family, had been trapped inside of it. She explained the worry that this now caused when using it.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it “should not consider compensation where the complaint is a personal injury claim”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this to the resident and to refer her to an insurer or legal advisor. It would have been further appropriate for it to offer her assurance regarding the lift’s safety.
17. It was therefore a failing that the landlord’s stage 1 response only stated that it was ‘sorry that she had reported the injuries’, with no further comment or advice. Its stage 2 response failed to make any reference at all to the resident’s injury reports, despite her highlighting them again in her escalation. It also failed to show that it had at any point addressed her safety concerns.
18. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, on 1 August 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord 14 working days to acknowledge this. It offered no explanation or apology when it did so. It was a further failing that the landlord took 57 working days, from the resident’s escalation, to send its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. This was 37 working days longer than the timescales recommended in the Code.
19. Overall, the landlord has shown its efforts to repair the lift throughout the period considered. However, it is unclear whether its attendances were within the timeframe of its policy. The resident has stated that the lift has remained unreliable ever since. She has described the ongoing inconvenience of this. The landlord failed to show that it appropriately responded to her injury reports or safety concerns, and there were unexplained delays in its complaint handling. The landlord offered no remedy for these failures, meaning they remain unresolved.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

21. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within 6 weeks to address the ongoing lift reliability issues, explaining what level of reliability the resident can reasonably expect, and the processes it has or will put in place to achieve that.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 within 4 weeks of this report for the failures and delays identified in its lift repair complaint handling.
22. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service by their respective deadlines.