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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307943)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307943

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 February 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 issues with the lifts in the building.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder in a 2 bedroom property on floor 5 in a block. The landlord is the leaseholder of the building and has a Managing Agent (MA) in place who handle communal repairs. There are 2 lifts in the building which serve residents one on the left hand side (lift A) and the other on the right hand side (lift B). The resident is also a wheelchair user.
  2. On 9 November 2022, the resident raised concerns about lift A with the MA. He raised his concerns with reliance on the remaining lift (lift B) and said since moving in, lift A was unreliable. The lift remained out of order and on 14 December 2022, and he raised his concerns with the landlord directly. He told it that he could not leave the building for almost 48 hours one weekend when the second lift broke down in the evening.
  3. The landlord spoke with the managing agent between 9 November 2022 and 6 January 2023. The managing agent explained that lift A needed parts which its contractor ordered. They had also repaired lift B on 28 November 2022, after it broke down and sought assurance from their contractor that it remained in good working order due to the Christmas period and strain of using 1 lift.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2023 as lift A had broken for nearly 2 month. He raised his concerns about the MAs management of the matter, said they had breached their obligations, and that he was unable to leave the building between 26 November 2022 and 28 November 2022 as there were no lifts. He explained he was a wheelchair user and lived on floor 5. He said when he first moved in, the landlord had assured him that the MA would always maintain the lifts. He said that lift A had also been malfunctioning for the last 3 weeks.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 March 2023. It:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint and acknowledged that there were issues with the lifts at the end of the previous year, but its contractors resolved them.
    2. Acknowledged the delay in completing the necessary repairs to both lifts fell outside of its service level agreements and apologised.
    3. Told him that it serviced the lifts every other month and then it completed the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) checks every 6 months.
    4. Said it could not provide assurance that a lift would not break down at any time, but the MA would continue to respond when needed. It also confirmed that a cleaner attended the site 4 days a week. They checked the lifts and reported any issues, ensuring they dealt with any concerns promptly and there were no current issues with the lift.
    5. Said if he wanted to speak to its housing team about his housing options he could contact them.
    6. In recognition of the issues that were involved in his complaint, it awarded £150 compensation for the inconvenience, vulnerabilities, failure to follow process, repeat visits, and failure to respond to emails.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 May 2023. He explained he could not escalate within the timeframes provided due to his disability. He explained his reasons for dissatisfaction and said there were some important points which he needed to address. He said:
    1. It said there were no issues at the time of writing, but this was incorrect. He had an email from the MA from 28 March 2023 which said the lifts needed investigating, as they had broken down twice the previous Thursday. There were still ongoing issues which made it very challenging for him to access or leave his home, and this was unacceptable.
    2. He had raised concerns about lift A still not working daily leaving him stranded. This had gone on for months with no resolution. He asked it to provide evidence of the service history for the lifts. He asked the MA for this on several occasions but received no response.
    3. He did not believe the cleaner was on site 4 days a week and reporting any concerns with the lift as he had reported issues may times and they were surprised. He asked it to place a maintenance log on the wall that the cleaner or lift engineers could sign with the date and time when they serviced or checked the lifts.
    4. If it was saying that his current home was not suitable for him as a disabled person due to the issues with the lifts, he believed it had an obligation to remedy the situation.
    5. There was a clear fundamental fault with lift A, and he believed it should replace the lift entirely or resolve the issue finally. He sought assurances from the landlord when buying the property that it would resolve any issues with the lifts. He said it told him the service contract to maintain the lifts and provide emergency response belonged to the MA. Since living there, they had failed to do so and did not treat the matter as urgent when one of the lifts was out of order or chronically malfunctioning.
    6. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 said that it must maintain facilities necessary for use of the building. It had an obligation to repair any part of the property, including installations such as lifts that affect common parts of the building. He also raised concerns around discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and said:
    1. It found a service failure as its response did not accurately portray the situation and apologised. There was a delay between its investigation, drafting, and providing its response, as such this did not consider the later issue reported with the lift.
    2. It could not find any record of daily issues in the building, and the breakdown reports did not show this. The last report received as at 27 June 2023 was on 11 May 2023 and when its contractor attended it found the lift in working order.
    3. It confirmed it attended to all reported breakdowns since 20 March 2023 initially within 24 hours. Three of the reports were not genuine breakdowns, as the contractors found the lift was working when they attended. They told it that the lifts in the building were very sensitive. They could occasionally list themselves as out of order if someone kept the door open for a length of time. It provided examples of when moving items or shopping, or when a user held the door open, as the system believed a user may be stuck.
    4. It was outside of its process to share contractor copies of service history documents. It reiterated the comments in its stage 1 response around servicing and Regulation inspections every 6 months. It collected the service logs when due and as such it was proving the compliance and assurance for the block through the additional collection of evidence. It provided him with a list of months between August 2022 and June 2023 in relation to servicing, and said it last inspected in relation to the Regulation in March 2023. It was due to complete another inspection in September 2023.
    5. It asked the managing agent to install a maintenance log for contractors to sign, to show their attendance to the lifts in the building. It said there were 2 lifts in the building, and it would hopefully be rare for both to be out of service at the same time again.
    6. It had a repair contractor in place which also included emergency repairs. It could never guarantee that it could complete a repair on the same day as it may need to order parts. Some lift parts could occasionally take longer to receive by the contractor as they needed to order them. Whilst it could not offer any guarantees on the functionality of the lifts, it could offer assurances that it would continue to ensure that they were compliant with statutory requirements and serviced as appropriate.
    7. It had a new lift contractor, and this included remote lift monitoring which would allow them to access the equipment remotely and prevent the need for contractors to physically attend to reset the lift in the event of an automatic shutdown. It hoped this would improve the service received.
    8. In recognition of the service failure it identified with its complaint handling it awarded £50 for inadequate or incorrect information provided at stage 1. It awarded another £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
  8. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 August 2023 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response. He said there was no change to the lifts functioning and it had broken down again recently. It had continuously malfunctioned since he moved into to the property. He understood that the lifts were out of warranty, but the lift was not reliable and should not be malfunctioning as often in a building that was 3 years old. He believed it needed to do something. Either replace the lift with one that worked properly or find a solution that fixes whatever the issue was for good. He said it was an extremely stressful situation that did not make him feel safe in his home.
  9. The resident contacted us again on 19 September 2023 and said he remained dissatisfied. It offered him £100 compensation, but he did not feel it addressed any of the issues he raised. He said the outcomes he sought were:
    1. For the landlord to respond quickly and urgently where there are issues with the lifts as this was an urgent issue for residents like him who require the lifts to access or leave the building.
    2. Affix a monitoring list in the lift in which contractors can sign and date to say when the lift was last serviced/fixed. It said it would do this but has not.
    3. It should not accuse residents of obstructing the doors and say this was the cause of the issues. The lift doors often struggled to shut but this was not because of the obstructions. It said that the lift was very sensitive, but he felt that it was far too sensitive for the necessary purpose. When lift A was out of order for months at a time, if the other lift broke, he and other residents had no way to leave or get into their homes. There needed to be 2 reliable, consistently working lifts.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the remedies sought by the resident, he identified that it should replace the lift or permanently fix it. As a lift replacement is an improvement, this is not a remedy which is within the Ombudsman’s remit to grant. As such We will not consider this within this report.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the MAs handling of the repairs to the lifts. He said that he believes that the MA breached its responsibility around the maintenance of the lifts. As the MA is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, we cannot consider whether it did breach its responsibilities. However, as the MA is acting on behalf of the landlord, we shall consider its actions as those of the landlord.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord breaching legislation and discriminating against him. He specifically mentions that Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to repair the lifts. In relation to discrimination, he raised his concerns in relation to Sections 25 and 35 of the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether a landlord has breached legislation, nor can we determine whether there has discrimination.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the lifts in the building

  1. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for ensuring that it keeps lifts within and exclusively serving the property in good working order. As such, despite the fact it said that its MA handled the repairs, the responsibility belonged to the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s lift servicing and maintenance policy states that it will communicate with residents, colleagues, and other stakeholders about issues with the lifts which may affect them directly. It will keep them informed of progress and aid those residents who the loss of the lift service adversely affects. The policy also says it will keep detailed records of the last two years of services and LOLER inspection reports in an accessible place where it could easily retrieve them upon request.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says it, or its contractors will complete communal repairs in line with its 2 repair priorities, emergency, and non-emergency repairs. It says emergency repairs are those where there is an immediate danger to the resident. It also considers emergency repairs as those where there would be risk of jeopardising the health, safety, or security of the resident. It aims to complete these within 24 hours and work to make safe or temporarily repair them at the initial visit. Non-emergency-repairs are those it aims to complete as soon as possible within 28 days.
  4. Following the resident’s concerns with the lifts between November 2022 and January 2023, the landlord appropriately sought regular updates from its MA. It explained its repair timescales to the resident. It also frequently discussed progress, and looked to ensure there was adequate provision for repairs during the Christmas period. Its actions around the handling of the matter were appropriate in ensuring that it monitored the situation through to completion.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its response that the repairs to the lift were sometimes outside of its published timescales. This is because for example, it took 2 months to complete the repairs between November 2022 and January 2023. This was because it needed to order parts to complete the repair. It appropriately apologised for this and awarded £150 compensation, however there were other failings in its approach that it did not recognise. As such we do not consider this to be sufficient redress to the situation.
  6. The landlord also acknowledged that there was a failing around its communication as it did not sometimes respond to the resident’s emails. It however did not realise that there was a further failing with its communication. This is because it did not ensure that the MA communicated appropriately with residents. They should have advised of the actions they were taking or provided a timescale for the repairs. The failure to do so was unreasonable.
  7. Both the MA and landlord were aware that the lift needed parts on 2 separate occasions, but there is no evidence the MA told the residents of the building. This means that between the initial breakdown on 7 November 2022 and 14 December 2022, when the landlord asked for the MA to update residents, there was a delay of at least 2 weeks in providing them with any update around the matter, and this was inappropriate.
  8. As the landlord became aware of the issue in November 2022, it should have ensured its MA communicated with more urgency than it did. Although it asked internally for the MA to do update residents on 14 December 2022 around the required repairs, there is no evidence that this took place. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
  9. The landlord appropriately told the resident in its complaint response that he could speak with its housing team around his housing options. However, it has not shown that it provided any help to the resident who the loss of lift service affected for a period of at least 48 hours. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
  10. The resident also raised further concerns about the MAs failure to respond to further emails from him in his stage 2 response. The landlord has not shown that it raised these concerns with them. This was another opportunity for it to reenforce the standards it expected the MA to provide to its resident’s. The failure to show that it acted around this was unreasonable.
  11. Following this, the resident continued to raise concerns with the lifts in the property. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it provided him with a list of months it had serviced them previously in line with its policy and LOLER Regulations. It also provided the month for next LOLER Regulations check. This was a reasonable action to take to try to reassure the resident.
  12. The landlord also said in its response that it would provide a signing sheet for its contractors to sign to reassure the resident that it was servicing the lifts. The resident however explained to the Ombudsman that it had not provided the sheet as it had said it would as at 19 September 2023. This is a delay of over 2 months between 5 July 2023 and 19 September 2023 and is unreasonable.
  13. When the resident asked for copies of the servicing records for the lift, the landlord appropriately explained that it was outside of its process to provide contractor records of service history. However, this raises a small conflict with its policy as it says it will keep records of servicing in an easily accessible place in case of requests. The landlord may want to clarify whether this is in relation to its own service records for lifts, or all service records including those of its contractors. It may also want to provide an explanation in its policy around why it cannot provide contractor copies of servicing records.
  14. The resident has raised concerns in relation to ongoing issues with the lifts. However, we have seen no evidence that both lifts have been out of service at the same time for a substantial amount of time asides from November 2022.
  15. In summary, the landlord acknowledged the delays in repairs. It apologised and explained it could not guarantee that the lifts would always be in service. It looked to reassure him around its actions, including the introduction of a new contractor and strategies to allow for quick resolutions. It also referred him to its housing team for information on his housing options. It however did not consider the failings with communication about the prolonged and outstanding issue.
  16. The landlord also did not show that it provided the resident with any assistance or support during the 48 hours he was unable to leave his property. Although the resident reports ongoing issues with the lifts, we have seen no evidence that both lifts were out of service for a substantial amount of time after November 2022. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
  17. The landlord awarded compensation totalling £150 for its failings. Its compensation policy breaks its awards down into 3 categories, awards of £50 to £250 where there has been a service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, £250 to £700 where there is considerable failure, but no permanent impact on the resident, and over £700 where there has been a severe long term impact on the resident.
  18. Based on the landlord’s compensation policy and the failings identified by both us and it in its handling of the matter, we believe the matter falls within the first category. This is because despite the fact we have identified additional failings, there is no evidence of a permanent or long term impact on the resident as a result. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated an interim complaints policy. It said it would respond to at stage 1 within 20 working day. If it were unable to do so it would try to manage residents’ expectations and provide an action plan. This would highlight its intension and provide a timeline of when it would respond. It aimed to respond at stage 2 within 40 working days. If it could not do so it would contact the resident, explain why it could not do so, and provide a timescale of when it would respond.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 8 February 2023 and the landlord responded on 28 March 2023. Its response was due on 8 March 2023, which means it delayed by 14 working days in providing its response. It has not demonstrated that it kept the resident updated around the delay. It has also not shown that it provided a timeframe, or action plan for its response in line with its policy and this was unreasonable.
  3. Although its notes show that there was communication between the date of the complaint and its response, it is unclear whether it provided an explanation of the delay. It has also not demonstrated that it requested an extension to provide its response late and this was unreasonable.
  4. The resident then escalated his complaint on 22 May 2023, outside of the 20 day timeframe provided by the landlord for a response. The resident explained this was due to ill health, and the landlord, appropriately considered the escalation. Its response was due on 18 July 2023, but it provided its response on 5 July 2023, earlier than the required deadline.
  5. The landlord apologised in both its responses for the delays in its complaint handling. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had provided incorrect information in its stage 1 response around outstanding repairs to the lift. It also awarded the resident compensation of £100 for the delay at stage 2 (£50) and the provision of inadequate and incorrect information (£50). Despite this however, it has not acknowledged that it did not communicate with the resident in line with its policy around the delay. Based on this there was a service failure, and we order the landlord pay the resident more compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of issues in the lift in the building.
    2. Service with the landlord’s complaint handing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. With 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the delays in completing repairs, lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities, failure to offer help during the period both lifts were out of service and its communication failings. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £150 offered across its responses if this remains outstanding.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for its complaint handling failing. This is inclusive of the £100 offered across its complaint responses if this remains outstanding.
    3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider making it clear in its policy whether the provision of service records relates to only its own records, or that of contractors. If it cannot provide contractors records, explain why.