Follow-up Audit Report on the Department of Buildings’ Elevator Inspections and Follow-up Activities

This follow-up audit determined whether the Department of Buildings (DOB) had implemented the recommendations made in the previous audit, Audit Report on the Department of Buildings Elevator Inspections and Follow-up Activities (#MJ10-063A), issued October 21, 2010.

DOB promotes the safe and lawful use of more than 975,000 buildings and properties throughout the five boroughs. The DOB Elevator Division’s mission is to ensure the operational safety, reliable service, and lawful use of elevators, escalators, amusement rides, and related devices (i.e., lifts, conveyors, personnel hoists, wheelchair lifts, and moving walks) throughout the City. To carry out its mission, the division performs approximately 90,000 inspections and tests each year.

With certain exceptions, elevators in New York City under DOB jurisdiction¹ must undergo an annual (periodic) inspection within one year (between six and 12 months) of the last periodic inspection, a “no-load” safety (Category 1) test once each calendar year, and a “full-load” (Category 5) safety test once every five years. Periodic inspections involve the visual inspection of all elevator components, and Category 1 tests involve the visual inspection of systems and tests of safeties (braking systems) while the elevator is running unloaded. Category 5 tests involve inspections of systems and tests of safeties while running the elevator at its full-load capacity. The Elevator Division’s efforts are primarily focused on more than 60,000 active passenger and freight elevators in approximately 28,000 buildings citywide under DOB’s jurisdiction and are subject to periodic inspections and safety tests.

The prior audit found that DOB’s enforcement and follow-up activities did not adequately ensure the performance of mandated elevator safety inspections and tests and the correction of cited deficiencies. It also found that DOB had a persistent backlog of elevators requiring a periodic inspection and did not adequately follow up on inspection attempts in which contract inspectors could not gain access to the property (no access inspections). Further, DOB needed to improve the timeliness of its re-inspection of elevators issued cease-use orders and improve its procedures to address DOB violations issued by private inspectors under contract with DOB (PVT violations), In this report, we discuss the recommendations from the prior audit as well as the current implementation status of each of those recommendations.

Audit Findings and Conclusions

The audit determined that of the nine recommendations made in the previous audit, DOB implemented three (#7, #8, and #9), partially implemented four (#2, #3, #4, and #6), and did not implement two (#1 and #5).
Overall, DOB has made some progress since the prior audit in addressing weaknesses in its elevator inspection and follow-up activities. However, certain weaknesses remain. Specifically, we found that during the audit scope period, DOB made no appreciable changes to its procedures to ensure that periodic inspections of elevators are carried out promptly each year. Also, DOB did not establish benchmarks to effectively manage the backlog of elevators overdue for a periodic inspection. Although DOB has taken action to address open PVT violations that were issued prior to January 2004, the agency took no similar action for open PVT violations that were issued after January 2004. Finally, DOB has still not established clear time requirements and procedures for property owners to submit to DOB proof of the correction of deficient conditions cited on PVT violations.

Audit Recommendations

To address these weaknesses, this current audit made six recommendations, including that DOB should:

• Strengthen existing procedures and consider increasing resources as needed to provide greater assurance that periodic inspections are carried out in a timely manner each year.
• Establish and implement procedures to improve its follow-up of open PVT violations, particularly those issued since January 2004, and ensure property owners’ compliance in remediating defective conditions.

DOB Response

DOB generally agreed with five of the recommendations made in this current audit report and disagreed with one recommendation that addresses the agency’s failure to establish a time period for property owners to submit documentation certifying the correction of conditions cited in a violation.