From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Barnet (202314823)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314823

London Borough of Barnet

14 April 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 resident has complained about the installation of a new fire safety alarm system in her property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette as a secure tenant. The records the landlord provided do not say when she moved into the property.
  2. On 21 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter informing her that it was due to carry out an inspection of the “fixed electrical wiring installation” in her home. It stated that, as her landlord, it was required to do this on a regular basis. On 10 July 2023 the landlord attended and fitted a new smoke and heat alarm system in the resident’s property. The resident raised a complaint on 20 July 2023. She stated that:
    1. the landlord had not sought her “informed consent” before installing the new equipment.
    2. the costs of running the system would be “astronomical”.
    3. she had developed health problems due to the radiation the equipment was emitting.
    4. she had asked the landlord on 7 July 2023 for more information about the letter it had sent about an “electrical test”. However, it did not get back to her.
    5. she was not told of “any potential health risks associated” with having the alarm system fitted.
    6. she wanted the equipment removed because it had been “illegally fitted” and it was causing her more health problems “each day”.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 July 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and stated that:
    1. the system it had installed was a “home link system for the smoke alarms to report on any activations to the alarm system”.
    2. the “primary purpose” of the alarms was to give residents the earliest possible warning of fire or carbon monoxide.
    3. this system’s low radio frequency posed no risk to residents, nor did they interfere with other devices. The levels and power transmitted from the alarms was “considerably lower than” other devices “regularly found within the home”.
    4. it strove to ensure residents were safe and, as part of the new building safety regulation. This required it to comply install a system of one or more mains powered detectors.
    5. it wanted to offer its sincere apologies for not discussing the new system with her prior to the installation.
    6. As it was following the “British standard BS 5839-6”, it was unable to have the alarms removed.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2023 to escalate her complaint. She attached an article relating to radio frequencies that emit harmful radiation and stated that:
    1. The landlord’s response had “conveniently ignored” the danger the smoke alarm system posed to health and the rise in her electricity costs.
    2. The new equipment was adversely affecting her health and the “quiet enjoyment” of her home.
    3. She found the “surveillance aspect” of the equipment it had fitted “alarming”.
    4. It had misinformed her about the British standard, which did not prevent properties from being fitted with battery powered smoke alarms. For this reason, she wanted it to reinstate her old alarms as there was “nothing wrong” with them.
    5. The landlord should have discussed the new system with her before installing it so she could have had her questions answered.
  5. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on the same day and issued its stage 2 response on 11 September 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and stated that:
    1. only relevant alarm data including alarm activations, maintenance and age of units are transmitted. The platform was “fully compliant” with data protection legislation.
    2. the primary purpose of the alarms was to increase audibility throughout the property when they detect smoke, heat or carbon monoxide and give residents “the earliest warning…possible”.
    3. no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radio or power frequency fields had been confirmed. The landlord included a link to the relevant pages on the World Health Organisation website,
    4. the power consumption of its smoke and heat alarms was 0.25 watts. It  provided a formula to determine the cost to the resident on a yearly basis and explained that it could not provide exact amounts as this depended on energy tariffs.
    5. the cost of running of battery-operated system “could be around £13 per year”, which would “possibly be a much higher cost in replacement batteries and an inconvenience” to the resident.
    6. as it had to follow the “new building safety regulation of 2023” it was unable to remove the alarms installed in her property and replace them with battery operated ones.
    7. The British Standard BS 5839-6 made “specific recommendations for fire alarm systems”, which had to comprise of one or more mains powered detectors.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 September 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. On 8 April 2025, she reiterated to us the concerns she had raised with the landlord about the impacts of the new alarm system on her health and the cost of running it. She said she wanted the landlord to remove the mains powered system and replace it with battery operated one.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the new smoke and heat alarm system the landlord had fitted has had a detrimental effect on her health. She said that this was because of the radiation the system was emitting. We note the resident’s concerns about this matter. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy about the new fire safety equipment it had installed. Her desired outcome is for the landlord to remove the new alarm system and replace it with a battery operated one. However, we cannot order the landlord to remove the fire safety installation, as we do not have the power to do so.
  3. Our role is to determine complaints by what is fair in all the circumstances. When investigating complaints, we seek to establish whether a landlord failed to comply with any relevant obligations, such as those set out in the resident’s occupancy agreement. We also seek to establish whether the landlord has followed its policies, procedures, and good practice. We will then determine if there have been any failings by the landlord and make orders to try to put the resident back in the position they would have been if those failings had not occurred.

Legal and Policy framework

  1. The landlord’s compensation and financial loss policy makes discretionary payments to residents where failings are identified. This depends on the “degree of service failure and “extent of hardship”. It pays:
    1. up to £50 where the service has not achieved the expected standards and where the “impact is no greater than is reasonably tolerable”.
    2. between £50 and £100 where the service has “markedly” failed to meet a required standard.
    3. over £100 for serious failings.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement has a section entitled, “what we must do as your landlord”. This lists “providing information and consulting resident” as one of its obligations. It states that residents have the right to share their views about how the landlord manages their home. It stated that it will “encourage and support” residents to get involved in managing their properties.

The resident’s concerns about the installation of new smoke and heat alarm system in her property

  1. The resident raised 3 main concerns about the new fire safety alarm system the landlord installed in her property on 10 July 2023. These were about:
    1. risks to her health from the radiation the equipment emitted.
    2. additional costs of running the mains powered system.
    3. lack of advance notice that the landlord was installing the new system.
  2. The records show that the landlord made reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s concerns about the risks to her health and the additional energy costs.
  3. In its responses it appropriately provided a detailed explanation of why it had installed the new alarms and how they operated. It discussed the safety benefits of the new system and referred to the appropriate standards that required landlords to fit mains powered systems in their properties.
  4. The landlord also made reasonable attempts to reassure the resident about the safety of the new system. It gave examples of common household devices that emitted more power than the new alarm system, such as mobile phones and microwave ovens. Furthermore, it cited evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO) to demonstrate that there were minimal risks to residents from the equipment. It also signposted her in its stage 2 response to the relevant information on the WHO website.
  5. With regard to the costs of running the system, the landlord acted appropriately by providing information on how much electricity the equipment would likely consume. It provided a calculation to show the estimated costs compared to running battery powered alarms. It also emphasised that it was unable to provide precise figures as the final costs were dependent on which energy tariff the resident would be on. This demonstrated that the landlord was ensuring it gave the resident as clear information as possible, that it was making reasonable efforts not to mislead her, and that it was trying to manage her expectations. The evidence shows the landlord was acting appropriately.
  6. However, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate it gave the resident sufficient advance notice it was installing the new alarm system. If the landlord had provided the resident with notice of the change, it would have provided her with reasonable opportunity to make enquiries before the installation went ahead. While the decision to install the alarm remained one for the landlord to make, some prior discussion may have helped to allay the resident’s concerns.
  7. The landlord has not provided any records of communication it had with the resident prior to the installation. It has not provided a copy of the letter the resident said it had sent her regarding an “electrical test”. Furthermore, we have not seen evidence of the contact the resident made on 7 July 2023 asking for more information about the new system.
  8. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did acknowledge that it should have discussed the new system with her before installing it. It is therefore not disputed that it had failed to do so. The landlord omitted in its stage 2 response to properly address why it had not given advance notice of the new alarms. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. Its response failed explain why it did not give the resident sufficient details about the new system prior to installing it. We are therefore not satisfied it fully met this requirement of the Code.
  9. The landlord ought to have properly consulted with the resident prior to installing the new alarms. It should have given her clear information about it and the reason why it was installing the mains powered system. Furthermore, it should have given sufficient notice for her to raise any queries. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have been able to provide reassurances about any health concerns or costs before the alarms were fitted into her property. If the resident remained unhappy, the landlord could have considered if there were any measures it could have put in place to help alleviate her anxieties about having the new equipment in her home.
  10. We acknowledge that the landlord is obliged to adhere to safety regulations and it was acting appropriately by ensuring it was taking necessary fire safety measures. However, had it properly discussed the new system with the resident beforehand, the landlord would have demonstrated it was taking all reasonable steps to be as transparent as possible. That is did not do so was a shortcoming and a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate it was being customer-focused in its approach.
  11. The lack of prior discussion was contrary to the landlord’s aim in the tenancy agreement to “encourage and support” residents to get involved in managing their homes. This also caused the resident avoidable confusion around the need for a new mains-powered system. Although it acknowledged that it should have told the resident it was installing the new alarm system before it did so, it did not make any attempt to put things right. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure. We will order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for its lack of communication and the distress and inconvenience this caused. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for where its service has not achieved the expected standard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the installation of a new fire safety alarm system in her property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide information about the new equipment before installing it.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should learn from this complaint and ensure that, going forward, it provides residents with information about any new installations beforehand. This will provide them with an opportunity to raise any questions they may have about the new equipment prior to it being fitted into their homes.