Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about faults with a lift installed in his home because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or its contractor, to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a lift installed using a Council grant is not working, despite 24 engineer visits, and no-one from the Council has helped him, despite the contract being with the Council and not him. He says this has caused him stress and avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied for a grant to have a lift installed in March 2024. The form stated: “Once the equipment is installed its owned by and becomes the responsibility of the applicant”. The Council confirmed in its complaint response that Mr X owns the lift, not the Council.
6. The lift was installed in June 2024. Installation and test certificates were issued. Mr X was provided with information about the 12 month warranty and who to contact in the event of a fault by the contractor that installed the lift on behalf of the Council.
7. The contractor made two further visits in June and a visit in July to make adjustments. In July, the manufacturer visited, but problems continued to occur. Council records show that on several occasions the contractor was unable to replicate the reported fault, which made it even more difficult to find the underlying cause. Records also show the lift would work without a problem for weeks at a time and then a fault would reoccur. In March 2025 the contractor asked the manufacturer to visit again. Also in March, Mr X made a complaint.
8. In May 2025 the Council offered to carry out further work to address cosmetic damage caused during the installation and technician callouts. It said the manufacturer was not able to carry out the work for capacity reasons, but the contractor who installed the lift was willing to do so.
9. In June 2025, the lift was serviced with only minor adjustments needed.

My assessment

10. The documents show that Mr X became the owner of the lift when it was installed and he was reminded of this in March 2025 after he complained. Whilst it was frustrating for Mr X that the lift developed recurring faults, the Council’s contractor made frequent visits to inspect and make adjustments. It was also in contact with the manufacturer about the faults. Records also show the Council was in regular contact with its contractor about the matter.
11. In the circumstances, the Council and its contractor have taken appropriate steps to resolve the issues that arose and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman