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

Peabody Trust (202327321)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327321

Peabody Trust

20 March 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 response to the resident’s concerns about lift breakdowns.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a flat on the 2nd floor of the building. The building has 1 lift. The landlord has listed that the resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
  2. The resident reported that the lift in the building was not working on 20 July 2023. Between 20 July and 16 August 2023:
    1. The landlord raised an emergency repair but re-raised this on 22 July 2023 due to no attendance. On 24 July 2023, operatives reported issues with the safety gear and left the lift out of service. Operatives also attended on 31 July 2023 and 1 August 2023 where they established that a specialised part was needed.
    2. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on at least 7 occasions. His neighbour also called on 2 August 2023. They shared concern that the resident, who used a wheelchair, had not been able to leave his property for 2 weeks due to the lift breakdown.
    3. From 2 August 2023, the landlord’s records show that its lift contractors attempted to source a different supplier due to a lack of response from the main European supplier. On 7 August 2023, they established that their European supplier had shut for the summer until 21 August 2023. They received a quote from this supplier on 9 August 2023 who said the lead time for the part was 4 to 5 working weeks. The contractor ordered the parts.
    4. On 15 August 2023, they found a supplier with a shorter lead time (4-5 working days) and were subsequently able to reinstate the lift between 16 and 17 August 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 August 2023 via a call. He was unhappy that the lift had been out of order since 20 July 2023. There were 2 entrances to the building but only 1 lift. He added concern that the contractor did not attend the initial emergency repair and did not want this to happen again. During a call, he added that he felt the main issue was the quality of work completed, which led to repeated breakdowns.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 24 August 2023 following a call that day. In summary:
    1. It set out a timeline of actions it took related to the lift repairs between 24 July 2023 and 17 August 2023 (when it reinstated the lift).
    2. It explained that anything with moving parts and components was fallible to breakdown on occasion. It did its best to resolve problems quickly and robustly. While it acknowledged the recurrent issues, it noted that it attended within a reasonable timeframe.
    3. It experienced challenges in relation to lift repairs. Repairs could take longer than it hoped due to its contractors experiencing significant delays in sourcing parts. This was due to the impact of the UK leaving Europe and difficulty tracking shipments. It had tried to source parts from within the UK, however, this was not always possible. Manufacturers (based in Spain and Germany) were the only source for replacement parts and there were no alternatives. It noted his perceptions about poor quality work, but believed that the delays in sourcing parts were the largest factor in its repair resolution times.
    4. It explained that the frequency of lift servicing was dependent on the age of the lift and manufacturers guidelines. It had engineering insurance on its lifts where applicable. It carried out regular inspections in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines and conditions of its insurance.
    5. It apologised for some of the communication challenges he experienced. It understood that the lift outage had a particularly significant impact on the resident as a wheelchair user. It did not usually pay compensation for communal repair issues but considered the individual aspects of his complaint. It offered £200 compensation to recognise poor communication, and the challenges caused directly as a result of the lift outage.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 August 2023. He did not feel its offer of £200 reflected the negative physical and mental impact of the extended lift outage. He said that the recurrent breakdowns had significantly impacted his daily life and caused distressing experiences. He did not feel it was taking steps to prevent similar situations in the future or creating a contingency plan. He suggested that it should hold spare parts in the country, rather than order them when a breakdown happened, to expedite repairs. He added that he paid a service charge, but the landlord did not deliver a timely and effective maintenance service.
  6. The resident reported a further lift breakdown on 26 September 2023.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 29 September 2023. In summary:
    1. It recognised that the resident’s correspondence regarding the matter began on 27 July 20203 when he reported that the lift had been out of service for a week. It agreed that the time taken to resolve the matter was longer than expected. This was due to the parts, as it had previously explained, and an initial misdiagnosis. It had provided feedback to its lift contractor that the delay was unacceptable.
    2. It was difficult to build a stock of parts to address repairs quicker in future. This was because the parts were ordered to fit and sometimes custom made. It continued to review the performance of its lift contractors. It noted that the level of service provided had fallen below standard. It would consider whether it would continue with the contractor when the contract was up for renewal.
    3. It did not believe that the lift breakdown or number of outages were particularly extraordinary. It did not agree that the outages were frequent or beyond the average expectations for repairs to a regularly used lift. It understood that due to his disabilities the outages had a large impact on him. It partially upheld the complaint on this basis.
    4. It did not find any obvious shortcomings in the handling of lift reports, and it had initially attended to each call-out in its timescales. The timescales for lift repair work was usually 60 days due to their specialist nature. The exception would be where there was an immediate threat. It believed it had met the relevant service levels. It said there were not any other contingency plans it could put in place other than to attend within its service level timescales.
    5. It understood he had reported another fault on 28 September 2023, and it said it had contacted its lift engineer for information. It had raised a new case to address his request that it temporarily rehoused him as a result of the recent outage. It maintained its offer of £200 compensation for his time trouble, and inconvenience.

Events following the complaint

  1. The landlord’s records indicate that the lift was working again as of 3 or 4 October 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 and outlined his ongoing dissatisfaction. He felt the landlord had made a list of excuses rather than try to address the issues. He maintained that the compensation did not reflect his experience. He added that the landlord had violated his rights under the Equality Act (2010). He did not feel that residents should endure prolonged inconvenience when there was a significant impact on their daily lives. The resident referred his complaint to us for investigation in November 2023 as he was dissatisfied with its response.
  2. The resident raised a separate complaint with the landlord that it addressed under its complaints process on 20 January 2024 and 8 March 2024. This related to continued breakdowns following the initial complaint and the impact on the resident’s daily life.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the delay in repairing the lift had a direct impact on his physical and mental wellbeing due to being a wheelchair user. We do not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim.
  2. In addition, we cannot determine whether there was discrimination or whether the landlord breached the Equality act (2010). Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and whether the landlord gave due regard to his disability in its handling of the lift outage.

Policies and procedures

  1. The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the communal areas of the building, and machinery, including the lift. It states that the landlord is required to use all reasonable endeavors to minimize a period of failure, interruption, or delay in the provision of services where this is within its control.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it would attend emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours and make safe. Specialist works are more complex and require either a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead in diagnosing and managing the works through to completion. It aims to complete these within 60 days, with an average target of 33 days.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy states that it would keep a record of a resident’s vulnerabilities to provide tailored services that meet their needs where appropriate. It would help them to access appropriate support where needed. This may include delivering support itself, or signposting to relevant external agencies.
  4. The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within an overall timescale of 15 working. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, the landlord is expected to contact a resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response timeframe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about lift breakdowns

  1. It is evident that the only lift within the building was initially out of use between 20 July 2023 and 17 August 2023, a period of 28 days. Due to being a wheelchair user, the resident was unable to use the service he relied on to leave and enter the building during this time. He has said he needed to balance the emotional and mental impact of remaining in the property, with the physical impact, risk and possible injury associated with lowering himself down the stairs and then returning. He also needed to ask neighbours for assistance. It is reasonable to conclude that the lack of lift caused significant distress and inconvenience to him.
  2. The landlord has recognised that the lift outage caused specific inconvenience to the resident due to his circumstances. It also acknowledged “challenges” with communication, and poor customer service and communication. It offered £200 compensation for his time, trouble, and inconvenience. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation and the landlord’s lack of contingency plan for lift repairs. He has said that the situation caused a large level of distrust, and he did not feel that the landlord was transparent in its handling of the matter. We have considered different aspects of the resident’s complaint below.

The landlord’s handling of the lift repair

  1. The landlord has a response timeframe of 60 days for specialised repairs. This policy timescale is not usually considered unreasonable for more complex works. Major works involving specialist contractors and custom-made parts are likely to take longer than its “routine” timescale of 28 days. However, in view of the resident’s reliance on the lift and disability, we would expect to see evidence to show that the landlord took reasonable steps to consider the potential risk and minimise the disruption where this was within its control, in line with the lease agreement.
  2. The landlord noted that the resident raised concern that it did not attend his initial report on 20 July 2023 within its emergency timescales. It did not address this or offer any explanation for this within its complaint responses. In its responses, it said it attended all callouts within its initial emergency timescales. Its records show that it rebooked the emergency call out (initially raised on 20 July 2023) on 22 July 2023 due to no attendance. It would have been appropriate for it to have fully addressed this.
  3. The resident has raised concern that it was not until he raised a formal complaint on 16 August 2023 that the landlord fixed the lift (on 17 August 2023). We appreciate the perception that it was not until he raised the matter formally that the landlord acted. In our investigations, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to determine the landlord’s actions and the accuracy of its responses.
  4. The landlord acted reasonably within its stage 1 complaint response by setting out the steps it had taken to address the lift outage between 24 July 2023 and 17 August 2023. The dated documentary evidence shows that its contractors tried to fix the lift between 24 July 2023 and 1 August 2023 but identified that they needed a specialist part. The landlord acknowledged the initial failure to diagnose the problem, and that this contributed to the time it took to repair the lift. It showed it was resolution focused by setting out that its lift contractor had tried to find another supplier when they did not have a response from the main supplier on 2 August 2023. This is in line with the records provided.
  5. There were circumstances beyond the landlord’s control that contributed to the overall timeframe of the repair. It acted reasonably by explaining the lack of UK based suppliers and the need to source parts from Europe. Its records show that on 7 and 9 August 2023, its main supplier said that they were closed until 21 August 2023 and there would be a 4-5 working week lead time. This meant a possible delay in resolving the problem until late September 2023. Its records show that it and its lift contractor continued to try to find a different supplier, which they did on 15 August 2023. It and its contractors demonstrated attempts to resolve the lift outage within a quicker timescale once aware that the lift needed a specialist part. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident suggested that the landlord keep a stock of parts within the UK as a contingency plan to avoid delayed repairs. The landlord acted appropriately by addressing his concern within its response. It explained that as parts needed to be ordered to fit, or be custom made, it was difficult to build up a comprehensive stock of parts. Considering the number of properties it owns and the possible number of lifts of different sizes, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to store custom made replacement parts for each lift in case of a repair need. Its response to this request was not unreasonable.
  7. The resident raised concern about recurring lift breakdowns and asked that the landlord took steps to implement measures, including better management of health and safety issues and ensuring a reliable service. The landlord’s responses also suggest that he had raised concern about contractor performance. Whilst a reactive approach to repairs is generally considered appropriate for landlords, it would be appropriate for it to consider maintenance history, such as repeated lift outages, to identify how it can improve its service provision and identify trends.
  8. Prior to the breakdown in July 2023, the landlord’s repair records show that there were 2 earlier outages between 6 and 10, and 12 and 15 March 2023 respectively. There is no evidence to suggest that there was an ongoing pattern of problems with the lift in the time leading up to the breakdown in July as the lift had been functional for 4 months with no fault. There is no evidence to suggest that the reasons for the breakdowns were linked. The landlord acted reasonably by considering the history of the lift outages in the building within its complaint response on 29 September 2023 and concluded that there was no obvious trend at the time.
  9. The resident has raised specific concern about the landlord’s comments that, on average, a lift broke down 4 times a year. He said that this would be for a regularly utilised lift but not for a single lift servicing 10 properties. While we appreciate the resident’s concern, we cannot comment on how often a lift can be expected to breakdown. Nonetheless, we have not seen evidence to show that there were repeated issues before the breakdown in July 2023 which should have prompted it to have taken additional action at an earlier stage.
  10. The landlord also acted reasonably by considering the resident’s reports about its contractor’s performance. It was aware that performance fell below the initial standards they had set. It confirmed that it had provided feedback within regular meetings and would consider their performance when the contract was up for renewal. This went some way to offer reassurance and demonstrate learning.
  11. However, the landlord did not seek to provide reassurance to the resident as to how it would prevent similar situations in future or consider why it was important for it to do so. Now knowing that the main lift part supplier was closed during periods of the year and the extended lead time for manufacturing parts, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered what it would do in future to progress repairs. This may have included asking its lift contractor to use the alternative supplier with shorter delivery timescales where appropriate.

Communication and transparency

  1. While we understand that complex repairs may require additional time for a landlord to complete, it would be expected to keep residents regularly updated. In its responses, the landlord briefly recognised its poor communication and customer service, but did not engage with its failings or comment on how it would prevent similar failings in the future.
  2. There is no evidence to show that the landlord sought to proactively update the resident at any stage. Its records indicate that he needed to call to seek an update on when the lift would be repaired on at least 7 occasions between July and August 2023. There is a record on 8 August 2023 showing that it told him to call back the next day to see if there was an update. This was unreasonable and put the onus on the resident to chase the repairs despite his known disability.
  3. The landlord’s lack of communication meant that the resident spent unnecessary time and trouble chasing information. In view of the direct impact of the lift repair on the resident’s ability to leave his property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have appointed a staff member as a point of contact responsible for providing transparent updates to him.
  4. It is understandable that the lack of clear communication about what the landlord was doing to resolve the issues was likely to cause a greater level of distress to the resident in view of his circumstances. While it is noted that the landlord was not aware of the potential timescale for the work until 9 August 2023, the uncertainty about when the matter would be resolved was likely to add to the overall distress he experienced and impacted the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord has not fully recognised the impact of its failures to provide clear and transparent information.

Consideration of the resident’s disability

  1. The landlord did not demonstrate that it gave due regard to the resident’s individual circumstances during the lift outage. It was evidently aware that the resident was a wheelchair user. We would have expected to see clear evidence to confirm that the landlord had discussed how the lift outage impacted him individually and considered the potential risk to him as a result. This would be both from a wellbeing and safeguarding perspective, and in view of the potential safety and evacuation implications. While it took some steps to prioritise the repair, there is no evidence to suggest that this was directly related to its understanding of how the lift outage impacted the resident.
  2. The landlord did not demonstrate that it sought to understand what kind of support the resident may have needed due to the lift outage. There is no evidence to suggest it completed any kind of risk assessment or signposted him to relevant support agencies. It did not demonstrate that it considered whether it needed to tailor its service in view of the individual impact on him in line with its vulnerable persons policy. It is of concern that despite not knowing how long the lift would be out of use, and a neighbour raising concern on 2 August 2023 that the resident had been unable to leave the property for 2 weeks, this did not prompt it to consider what support it could offer.
  3. The landlord may have been limited in the steps it could take to support the resident as a shared ownership leaseholder. However, its Alternative Accommodation (decants) policy indicates that it may consider offering temporary housing to shared owners “in emergency cases” agreed in “discretionary circumstances”. Emergency moves could be considered in “situations where the health and safety of the household would be at risk or there would be safeguarding concerns should they remain in their home”. It is of concern that the landlord has not shown it considered the possible risks, or whether it would have been appropriate for it to have considered offering temporary accommodation, given the extended timeframe of the breakdown.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

  1. We acknowledge that the landlord offered the resident £200 for his time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, we do not consider this proportionate to address the impact of its failings on the resident at the time. Considering the circumstances, and with reference to our remedies guidance (available on our website), we have ordered an increased award of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is aimed at recognising the adverse impact of this situation on the resident and the additional failings that the landlord did not acknowledge.

The resident’s further complaint about ongoing lift breakdowns

  1. The resident provided a copy a further stage 2 complaint response to us in March 2024. He indicated that he felt its response showed that the landlord was not taking his concerns about continued lift breakdowns seriously. We have considered the landlord’s response to the further complaint (in January and March 2024 with reference to the failures identified in its initial handling of the lift breakdown between 20 July and 17 August 2023.
  2. We note that there were a further 4 reported lift breakdowns between 26 September 2023 and January 2024. The landlord’s repair records indicate these were during the following periods:
    1. 26 September to 4 October 2023;
    2. 30 October to 31 October 2023;
    3. 2 January to 5 January 2024;
    4. 8 January to 9 January 2024.
  3. Following the repair in January 2024, we have not seen evidence of any further breakdowns until July 2024, indicating that the repair in January 2024 was successful. However, given the more frequent lift breakdowns in this period, we would have expected to see evidence to show that the landlord considered whether there was a pattern that indicated a wider issue at the time. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to have explained what the contractor believed the problem to be, why the lift breakdowns had been more frequent, and what it would do to implement a lasting repair. It failed to offer transparency which was likely to cause frustration to the resident.
  4. While it referenced the work orders in its January 2024 stage 1 complaint response, it did not provide transparency on the cause of the more recent outages or offer any explanation as to why the lift failed again shortly after a repair on 5 January 2024. It also failed to account for a repair raised by the caretaker on 5 January 2024 as the lift had broken down again after the repair that day, indicating that the lift may also have been out of use between 5 and 8 January 2024.
  5. We have again seen evidence that the resident needed to chase repairs. The lack of transparency and reassurance was likely to cause uncertainty for the resident. It is understandable that he would have been concerned about how long the repair would last before another breakdown and how long each repair would take, especially given its poor communication during the breakdown in July and August 2023.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 19 January 2024 repeated several paragraphs from its previous complaint response in August 2023. These paragraphs related to how it had “reviewed” his concerns about the standard of maintenance work to the lift, and lift servicing, during its investigation of his complaint. It failed to demonstrate that it adequately reviewed the ongoing outages as part of its response to the complaint as it largely gave a word for word response. This was likely to make the resident feel that it had not considered his concerns as an individual, despite it saying it took all complaints seriously.
  7. The response also repeated paragraphs related to the “challenges with communication” he experienced, and general “poor communication and customer service”. This raises a larger concern that the landlord may not take steps to engage with individual failures in its responses to residents and instead includes generic wording. Its response to the resident’s second complaint puts into question whether it had adequately investigated his first complaint.
  8. While the landlord recognised that the resident said he was confined to his home during lift outages within its stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2024, it made no reference to his individual circumstances. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it was aware of the impact of the lift being out of use on him in view of his disability. This indicates that it failed to take adequate points of learning from the initial complaint, causing ongoing failures in its consideration of the resident’s disability. There were also ongoing communication failures, and we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord proactively communicated or managed the resident’s expectations.
  9. A landlord is not able to guarantee that items, such as lifts, will not break down. Also, not all breakdowns can be resolved on the same day when parts are required. However, throughout his complaints, the resident sought transparency about what steps the landlord, and its contractors were taking. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took his concerns, or the impact on him as a wheelchair user, seriously. 
  10. In its response on 19 January 2024, the landlord offered £100 compensation for poor communication, customer service, and the time taken to respond to the complaint. At this stage, the landlord responded to the complaint within a reasonable timescale (9 working days) – indicating that this compensation was for poor communication and customer service.
  11. However, the landlord repeated the same offer at stage 2 and said that this was for the delay in escalating and responding to the complaint at stage 2. We note that the resident asked it to escalate the complaint on 20 January 2024 but it did not respond until 8 March 2024 (a period of 34 working days). This amount is considered proportionate to put right the delay in its response. However, it is not considered proportionate in view of the overall failings identified in how it responded to the complaint at stage 1. We have made a further order below.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about lift breakdowns.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident £650 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £400 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the failings in its responses to the lift outages. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £200.
      2. £250 in recognition of poor complaint handling. This includes its previous offer of £100.
    3. Contact the resident to complete an assessment of how a lift breakdown impacts him to inform how it can support him should there be breakdowns in future.
  2. Within 8 weeks, we order the landlord to:
    1. Complete a management review of the resident’s complaints. Specifically, this should consider:
      1. its handling of lift breakdowns affecting disabled residents;
      2. its communication with residents during block outages;
      3. the accuracy and quality of its complaint responses.
    2. It should establish points of learning in order to improve its service moving forward, including any staff training needs in relation to supporting vulnerable residents and complaint handling.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to us within the specified timescales.