Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202308659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308659

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a lift breakdown.
2. the resident’s request for emergency lift breakdown procedures if the lift were to break down again.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. She has a joint tenancy agreement dated December 2023. She has lived in the property since August 2016. She lives with her partner in a two-bed high rise flat. The block has one lift. The flat is on the fifth floor. The landlord is a local authority. She has chronic health issues, and the landlord is aware she is physically vulnerable.
The resident reported that the lift was not working on Friday 17 February 2023. She said she was concerned because she and her neighbours were elderly. She asked for a call back. The landlord’s contractor arrived at the property the same morning and inspected the lift. The contractor was unable to repair the lift until an essential part arrived.
The resident continued to report the lift breakdown over the weekend. She told the landlord she could not manage the stairs to her flat and would be staying inside until the lift was working. The resident saw that the lift was working again on the 21 February 2023. The landlord told the resident that the lift was working again on the 22 February 2023.
The resident is part of a tenants and residents association. The resident and the association complained to the landlord on the 8 May 2023. The complaint included statements from anonymised residents explaining the impact to health and distress the lift breakdown caused. The resident said:
1. the lift did not work between 8am on 17 February 2023 and 6.40pm on 21 February 2023.
2. the landlord told her that the lift was working again on the 22 February 2023.
3. the landlord did not proactively communicate with residents or provide information about the lift repair process.
4. there was a lack of care for elderly and vulnerable residents.
5. there was poor customer care during this time.
6. there was poor management of a major repair.
7. they would like an apology and assurance that the council would have procedures in place if the lift broke again.
8. they would like the landlord to keep spare lift parts in stock.
The landlord gave a stage 1 response on the 23 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in fixing the lift and the disruption caused. It apologised for a lack of proactive communication and support for residents. The landlord said it had failed to have robust processes in place for emergency lift breakdowns. It shared details about the lift maintenance/repairs contract. It said:
1. it had started developing a procedure and it would fortnightly update the resident on this.
2. that proactive communication with residents in case of lift breakdown would be part of the new procedure.
3. it would not offer compensation unless residents had experienced financial loss as a direct result of the issue.
4. it was not practical to have spare lift parts in stock.
5. it had met with residents on 20 June 2023 to discuss the issue and concerns.
The resident escalated a stage 2 complaint on 26 August 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response because:
1. it did not respond to the stage 1 complaint for 54 days.
2. the first letter sent was ‘wrong’ and not all residents received it.
3. the landlord did not individually address the letters it sent to residents. She said this implied the landlord did not know who lived in the properties and their specific needs.
4. no timescales were set against the actions proposed and that the landlord had not updated resident’s fortnightly, as proposed.
The landlord provided its final response on 1 September 2023. In this response the landlord said it:
1. apologised for delay in its stage 1 response. It said it had addressed the problem that caused the delay, so this would not happen again.
2. acknowledged the letters were ‘wrong’ and said it had reminded staff to confirm letters before sending. It asked residents who did not get a copy of letters to get in touch to ask for a copy.
3. acknowledged that it could have addressed letters more appropriately. The landlord said it was reviewing processes to ensure it showed it understood its residents.
4. It said it would update residents by 8 September 2018 about ongoing work to the lift breakdown/maintenance policy.
On 25 September 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate this complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response because:
1. There was no timescale on when the landlord would introduce the policy.
2. It was not clear how the policy would ensure that residents would not experience the same breakdown in service.
3. It was not clear how the landlord would ensure better customer care and effective communication in future.
4. She wanted the landlord to better plan to keep vital lift spare parts in stock.
On 2 November 2023, the Housing Ombudsman asked the landlord to send a stage 2 response. The landlord wrote to the resident on the 16 November 2023. The landlord said:
1. it repeated its earlier apologies.
2. it had started to develop and trial policy and would update resident with a deadline for implementation.
3. it would address residents by name in individual correspondence in future.
4. it was not cost effective to keep lift parts in stock. It would review its lift replacement strategy to identify which lifts are at a higher risk of failure and plan full replacement in advance of failure.
The resident then told us she was still unhappy, and she wanted this Service to continue to escalate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident first complained on behalf of a Tenants and Residents’ Association. The landlord recognised she represented other tenants and residents but responded directly to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s group complaints guidance explains that although the issue may be similar (for example, a broken lift), the impact of the issue may vary in severity for individuals. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the individual resident’s experience and subsequent complaint.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has expressed concern over the contents of the lift breakdown procedure produced. As this was not part of the internal complaints process, the landlord has not had fair opportunity to respond to these comments. It is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation to assess.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lift breakdown.

The tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s responsibility to keep lifts in ‘repair and proper working order.’ It says the landlord should conduct repairs in a reasonable time.
What is a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of a case. The landlord’s lift maintenance services contract required the contractor to attend within 1 hour when there is a breakdown in a single lift property. It states if the lift is out of service for more than 4 hours, the contractor should notify the landlord as soon as possible. It is not clear what actions the landlord will take if the lift is out of service for more than 4 hours.
The tenant handbook states that the landlord should respond to emergency repairs and complete or make safe within 24 hours. The handbook defines an emergency as when there is a risk to the health of someone.
The landlord recorded that the resident reported the lift breakdown on 17 February 2023. It did not record what time she made the call or the time it first became aware of the issue. The landlord’s contractor arrived at the property by 11.13am on 17 February 2023. It is not possible to assess if the contractor fulfilled its obligations and attended within 1 hour.
On the 17 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor found that the lift needed a new part and ordered it. The landlord was aware that there would be a delay in the part arriving.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, which is available on our website highlights the importance of landlords keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible repair records. The landlord has not provided a call log and it is not possible to fully assess the communication it had with the resident.
The resident reports that she made multiple phone calls on the 17 and 18 February. She said she told the landlord she did not think she could manage the stairs and sat in her car for the afternoon when she realised the lift was broken.
She said that the landlord lacked empathy in these phone calls, and that it could not do anything immediately to fix the problem as it was a weekend. She said there was no attempt to provide support. The resident has said she was very distressed and in tears more than once. The lack of clear, accessible records is a failure and not reasonable.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s physical vulnerabilities. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered the impact of the lift breakdown on the resident’s health or that it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord did not contact the resident to ask what her support needs were while the lift was broken.
On 19 February, the resident emailed the landlord and said that she found it extremely difficult to use the stairs. She said she would not leave her property while the landlord repaired the lift. The landlord did not offer support or an assessment of needs. This was a failure and was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs highlights the need for landlords to clearly explain to residents why more time is needed, if it cannot meet its target timescales.
The landlord recorded a call from the resident on the 17 February asking for more information and a call back. The landlord has not recorded contacting the resident until the 19 February when it responded to an email she had sent about the same issue. There is no evidence that the landlord called the resident back and this was not reasonable.
The lift did not work for 5 days, until the contractor fitted the new part on 21 February 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will seek guidance from the Ombudsman’s services when considering compensation. The Ombudsman’s compensation policy guidance says that a positive complaint handling culture means a landlord should “pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact.”
The landlord said it would not offer compensation unless the resident had experienced direct financial loss because of the issue. It did not offer compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. The lift breakdown was a failure that adversely affected the resident. While the landlord acknowledged failings, it would have been reasonable to offer compensation.

In summary:

The lift breakdown was a failure which adversely affected the resident. While the landlord repaired the lift 5 days later:
1. it failed to evidence it maintained clear, accessible communication records.
2. it failed to consider the impact of the lift being broken on the resident’s health. This is a failure.
3. it did not proactively communicate with the resident and explain why it needed additional time. This was not reasonable.
The Ombudsman considers this did amount to maladministration and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise its failures impacted her.
The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the lift breakdown and her limited access to and from her home. She has also explained the impact of the landlord’s lack of communication. She said it felt like there was no recognition of the anxiety the situation caused or of the physical access needs she had that made it difficult for her to use the stairs.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the lift breakdown and stress and anxiety caused. However, having considered the landlords complaints policy and its reference to the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. We order the landlord to pay £250 for distress and inconvenience caused.
We order the landlord to review its approach to compensation, using the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation policy guidance.

The resident’s request for assurances that the council would have procedures in place if the lift broke again.

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will work with residents to resolve issues. It also says it will take responsibility for putting things right and avoid a reoccurrence. When the landlord recognises that the service did not meet the required standards, it will rectify the problem within an agreed timeframe.
In their stage 1 complaint, the resident asked for assurances that the landlord would have procedures in place if the lift were to breakdown for more than 24 hours again.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in fixing the lift and the disruption caused. It acknowledged its service had not met the required standards. The landlord sought to reassure the resident by sharing information about its lift maintenance and repair contract. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged it did not have robust processes in place for ‘an emergency such as this.’ It said it would develop a procedure to improve service in future. It said that this would take some time as it would need to consult across the Housing Directorate. This acknowledgement was positive and shows a commitment to working with the resident and take responsibility.
The Ombudsman recognises that developing and implementing new policies and processes can take considerable time. However, it would have been beneficial to explain the process of developing a new procedure and the timeframe this would take. The landlord did not give an agreed timeframe for its proposed remedy and this was not reasonable.
The landlord said it would look at what short term measures it could put in place to better support residents if lifts break down. The landlord said it would update the resident fortnightly. Although this investigation has seen evidence that the landlord consulted with the resident in a number of planned meetings and communications between June 2023 and November 2023. The landlord has not shown that it updated the resident fortnightly. This was not in line with its proposed complaints remedies.
The landlord updated the resident on changes to its lift breakdown policy on 5 September 2023, including informing her that it had evaluated the new procedure when a lift had broken down at another block. It apologised for the delay in developing the process and explained why there was a delay. This was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The evidence shows continued consultation and work to develop this procedure and a lift breakdown process chart until January 2025. This investigation has seen a draft lift breakdown process chart which indicates that the landlord has considered its failings in February 2023 and changed its processes as a result.
The landlord has stated it is their intention to finalise the new procedure in April 2025. This is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

In summary:

In summary, the landlord sought to reassure the resident that it had acknowledged the failings of the lift breakdown in February 2023. It apologised to the resident. It reviewed and changed practise and procedure as a result. This included:
1. sharing details of its lift maintenance contract.
2. committing to develop a new lift breakdown procedure.
3. sharing details of times that it had evaluated the new procedure and the feedback it had received.
4. inviting further feedback from the resident and the tenants and residents’ association on the proposals.
The Ombudsman considers this did amount to reasonable redress. If the procedure is not already operational, it is recommended that the landlord give the resident a clear, agreed timeframe by which it will be.

The associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will:
1. Acknowledge all complaints within 3 working days.
2. Respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. Respond to all stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
This investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement to their stage 1 complaint. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 June 2023. This was 32 working days after the resident sent their complaint. It did not acknowledge the delay in response. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. This was within its complaints policy timeframes. It acknowledged the delay to its stage 1 response and said it had changed procedures so this should not happen again. This was reasonable.
The Code states that landlords should include details of how to escalate to the Housing Ombudsman Service in its stage 2 response. The landlord did not include these details in its stage 2 response. This was not in line with the code.
The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code states that stage 2 complaint investigating officers should not have had any previous involvement with the case. The resident brought their case to the Ombudsman, and we asked that a Code compliant response was issued. The landlord issued a new stage 2 response. This did not include full details of the Ombudsman Scheme. The response was written by the same staff member who had investigated the stage 1 response.
The landlord did not demonstrate it understood why the initial stage 2 response was not compliant with the Code and its second stage 2 response showed a lack of knowledge of the complaint handling process. This unnecessarily delayed the resident’s ability to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman and was not reasonable.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and act where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
The Ombudsman considers this amounted to maladministration.
This service orders that the landlord:
1. demonstrate that it has provided staff involved with this case with complaint handling refresher training, within the last 6 months.
2. If it is unable to do so, it is ordered to provide training to ensure complaints are managed in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
For complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the lift breakdown.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the request for an emergency lift breakdown procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation made of the following:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lift breakdown.
2. £150 for complaint handling failures.
3. The landlord is to provide documentary evidence of compliance to this Service within 28 days.
Within 28 days of this report, we order the landlord to review its approach to compensation, using the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation policy guidance. The landlord is to provide a written summary of its findings of this review to this Service within 28 days.
The landlord is ordered to demonstrate that it has provided staff involved with this case with complaint handling refresher training in the last 6 months. If it is unable to do so, it is ordered to provide training to ensure complaints are managed in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website. Documentary evidence of this should be sent to this Service within 28 days.

Recommendations

If not already in operation, it is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with a clear, timeframe of when it will implement the lift breakdown procedure.