In brief
Record each separate outage, the reported symptom, the job reference and what the provider did. Use the log to request a written review.
Similar symptoms do not prove the same cause. Let a competent provider investigate; keep reporting each new incident through the normal route.
Deal with the current incident first
If the lift is unavailable now, follow the building’s reporting and emergency arrangements. Use the breakdown guide for the immediate reporting steps. Do not wait for a review meeting to raise an urgent fault.
Follow any instruction to stop use. Leave investigation, resets, repairs and return-to-service decisions to competent, authorised people. HSE stresses the need for competent maintenance and a way to report faulty equipment.
Source: HSE guidance on safe maintenance .
Build one history for each lift
Use the lift reference on every row. Start with the records you already have and note gaps, rather than delaying the review until the history is perfect.
- When the fault was reported and whether the lift was unavailable.
- The symptom as reported, without guessing the cause.
- The job reference and contractor attendance time.
- The provider’s findings, work done and any parts changed.
- When return to service was confirmed, by whom, and any restrictions.
- What remains open, who owns it and the next update date.
Keep the original attendance records alongside the log. Use “unknown” where a time or finding was not recorded. Separate multiple calls about one outage from genuinely separate outages.
Describe the building impact, such as loss of step-free access, without putting residents’ names or medical details into a general fault log. Any personal support arrangements belong in the building’s appropriate records.
Recurring fault log
Keep one row per separate outage and refer to the original job records. Add confirmed findings and open actions as the provider supplies them.
Recurring lift fault logChoose Excel to edit, PDF to fill in or print, or CSV for a plain spreadsheet. Add your building details and save a copy on your device.
Ask for findings, not just another attendance
What is connected?
Ask the contractor to identify which events may be related and which appear different. A repeated symptom may have more than one cause.
What is known?
Ask what evidence supports the explanation, what has already been checked and what remains uncertain. “No fault found” is a result to record, not a reason to erase the incident.
What is the plan?
Ask for the next investigation or repair, who will do it, any restrictions on use, likely downtime and costs. Clarify whether previous work was temporary or intended to fix the cause.
How will you judge the outcome?
Agree what the provider will review after the work and when you will meet again. Keep logging incidents. A short quiet period alone does not establish that the cause has been resolved.
Share any known changes in use, recent building work or power interruptions as context. Record them as observations, not a diagnosis, and do not carry out your own tests to reproduce the fault.
Provider example: Forge Lifts’ technical investigation example shows how findings, evidence and uncertainty can be recorded together. Open “Technical investigations” on the page. The records are fictional; use the format to ask what supports the proposed cause and what still needs checking.
Worked example: turn repeated calls into a useful history
Fictional management example, not a diagnosis or a test procedure.
A manager hears that there have been “six breakdowns this month”. Before commissioning more work, they gather the job numbers and attendance records.
- Separate calls from outages. Three calls concern the same outage on Monday. The remaining three concern separate dates. The log therefore records four outages and links all six calls to them.
- Keep the descriptions accurate. Three outages involved reported door-closing problems; one followed a building power interruption. The manager records these as observations, without deciding that they share a cause.
- Ask for the missing evidence. One attendance sheet says “no fault found”; another does not explain whether the action was temporary. The contractor is asked to clarify both records and provide a written investigation plan, costs and any use restrictions.
- Escalate a defined question. When the door-related reports continue, the manager requests a review of the fault history and maintenance records, with a site survey if needed. The adviser is asked what evidence is missing and whether the proposed next work is justified.
- Follow through. The manager records the agreed actions, responsible people and review date, continues logging new incidents, and keeps residents updated. The example ends with a review plan; it does not claim that the fault is fixed.
What this shows: a useful history makes the questions clearer. It does not let building staff diagnose a fault or judge safety from the number of calls. Do not operate the lift to reproduce a reported problem.
Use the surveys and second-opinions guide to agree the review’s scope.
Send a focused review request
Request a review of recurring faults
Copy this wording and replace the square brackets with your details.
Subject: Recurring fault review — [building / lift reference]
We have recorded [number] separate outages between [start date] and [end date]. The reported symptoms are [brief description]. The building impact is [access / disruption summary without personal medical details].
Attached are the fault log, job references, available attendance records and relevant report findings.
Please review the history and explain:
- Which events appear connected, and which may be separate faults?
- What evidence supports the suspected cause, and what is still uncertain?
- Which actions so far were temporary and which were intended to resolve the cause?
- What work or investigation do you recommend, with expected downtime, costs and any restrictions on use?
- Who will own the follow-up, when will we receive the next update, and how will we review whether the work helped?
Please distinguish confirmed findings from possible causes. Please provide a written plan by [agreed follow-up date], and flag any urgent safety concern immediately to [responsible contact].
We will continue reporting each new incident through the normal fault or emergency route.
Download message template (TXT) ↓Agree the next update and escalate gaps
Leave the discussion with a named contact, a written plan and an agreed update date. Separate actions that need approval from actions already instructed. Record who is arranging access and who will keep building users informed.
If promised updates or actions are repeatedly missed, use the contractor’s escalation route and involve the building owner or managing organisation. Send the timeline, unanswered questions and the decision you need.
Consider independent competent advice if the explanation remains unclear, outages continue or major work is proposed. There is no single number of breakdowns that proves a lift needs replacement. Review the evidence, the building’s needs and the options.
Report each new fault through the agreed route, even while a review is underway. Escalate any urgent safety concern immediately. A review date is not permission to continue using unsafe equipment.
If the review produces a proposal, use the repair quote guide to check its scope. For a wider project, read planning repairs and modernisation.
Sources & scope
HSE · Maintenance of work equipmentSource links checked on 16 October 2026. The templates and steps are practical management aids. HSE guidance supports the safety and records points; it does not endorse these worksheets. Confirm the arrangements for your building with the relevant competent provider. This is a fault-reporting and follow-up guide, not a diagnostic or repair procedure. Provider examples checked on 16 October 2026; they illustrate services or reporting formats, not regulatory requirements or recommendations to appoint those companies. Worked example added 19 October 2026: fictional editorial material, not a real case, market-price evidence or a technical diagnosis.