Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

London Borough of Newham (202205487)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205487

London Borough of Newham

26 September 2024

 

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns that it had not renewed her smoke alarms.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. She has resided in the property, a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat, since 2009. She has hearing and sight impairments, and mobility issues.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 6 April 2022. She said an electrician who had attended that day to repair her hallway light had discovered that the smoke alarms in her kitchen and hallway expired in 2020. He replaced them during the visit, but the resident felt that, in omitting to replace them on time, the landlord had demonstrated a lack of care about her safety.
  3. The landlord responded on 22 April 2022 and said that smoke alarms do not go out of date, but the batteries fail over time and the resident should replace them. It advised her to contact the repairs team if she felt there were issues with her alarms.
  4. The resident responded the same day and escalated her complaint. She expressed anger at what she considered to be incorrect information shared by the landlord in its response. She said she did not want the complaint handler to deal with her complaints going forward as she found him to be rude and dismissive.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 June 2022. It apologised for delays in its complaint handling and offered £50 compensation. It did not uphold her complaint about the smoke alarms and explained that the date on the alarm was a ‘shelf life’ date and not a renewal date.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She also wants it to implement a system to identify when it should replace them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has notified the Ombudsman of other issues and separate complaints she has raised with the landlord dating back several years. For clarity, this investigation is focussed on her concerns about her smoke alarms and the landlord’s associated complaint handling. The resident can bring additional complaints to this Service for investigation if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at the conclusion of its complaints process. We would then consider complaints in line with our jurisdiction, as set out in the Scheme.

Handling of concerns about smoke alarm renewal

  1. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (Regulations) imposed legal requirements on social landlords with regards to smoke alarms as of October 2022. Landlords should install a smoke alarm on each storey of a property which is ‘living accommodation’. They are also responsible for repairing and replacing alarms as soon as is reasonably practicable after a report that they are faulty.
  2. While this came into effect following the resident’s complaint, the landlord had already installed alarms within the property. The landlord’s policy from 2021 specifically identifies smoke alarms under its repair obligations. The landlord’s policy was therefore aligned with incoming legislation.
  3. In directing the resident to its repairs team for any concerns about the functionality of the alarms, the stage 1 complaint handler recognised the landlord’s repair responsibilities. He indicated, as per its policy, that the resident was responsible for replacing the batteries and routinely testing the alarms by pressing the button on them.
  4. However, the initial response did not sufficiently address the resident’s concern that the alarm contained an expiry date which had passed. In its final response the landlord confusingly branded this a ‘shelf-life’ date rather than a renewal date and said it was under no obligation to replace the alarms unless there was a fault.
  5. In fact, this was not accurate, and the landlord has since clarified to this Service that the date is indeed a renewal date, and has acknowledged that they require routine replacement. To be certified to British Standards smoke alarms typically need to include information on their life span or expiry date. This is because the internal components can degrade overtime reducing the alarm’s effectiveness.
  6. Neither the Regulations or the landlord’s repairs policy identify the landlord as responsible for monitoring the ‘expiry date’ of smoke alarms and their replacement. However, given it is responsible for installing and maintaining alarms, it is reasonable to assume the landlord should have oversight of this. The landlord explained that its alarms are guaranteed for 5 or 10 years according to the manufacturer’s guidance. It said it replaces them during routine electrical safety checks, which take place every 5 years. However, it is not clear why it missed doing so in the resident’s case.
  7. Within its final response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised a repair request about the alarms in November 2021 which it had attended as a priority. The repair notes state that the smoke alarms were not working properly and had low battery. According to the operative’s notes, the alarms were not the ‘usual alarms’ the council installed and ‘needed attention’. The landlord also acknowledged in its complaint response that its operative said it needed to replace them at this time. Despite this, it took no action, and it was not until April 2022, when the electrician attended for an unrelated repair, that it renewed them.
  8. It is of concern that the landlord not only failed to replace the alarms as routine, according to their expiry, but it also missed an opportunity to replace them on the request of its operatives. This understandably impacted the resident’s trust in the landlord to keep her safe. That it gave inaccurate information in its complaint responses caused the resident frustration and only served to further undermine the landlord-tenant relationship. For these reasons the Ombudsman finds maladministration.
  9. The resident also accused the complaint handler of being rude and dismissive. This Service has not seen any evidence that he was rude and understands this might relate to another incident outside the remit of this investigation. However, it is understandable that the resident considered the response dismissive given the inaccurate information relayed.
  10. The landlord should write a letter of apology to the resident acknowledging the inaccuracies in its complaint responses and the failings in this case. It should demonstrate to the resident and this Service that the systems it has in place allow for sufficient monitoring of smoke alarms, with an explanation of why hers were not replaced in time. It should also pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress caused by its failings, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.
  11. While the resident has indicated that she would like the landlord to check its smoke alarms throughout its housing stock, the Ombudsman does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this is a stock-wide issue. As a result, no specific order has been made to that effect. However, the order for the landlord to review its systems and practices with regard to the renewal of alarms should provide assurance that other properties will not be affected in the same way going forward.

Handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process, in which complaints are to be dealt with within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord responded to the initial complaint within 11 working days. While this was outside of the timeframe specified in its policy, this is not considered a significant delay.
  3. The response at stage 2 came after 36 working days and there is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about the delay. However, within its response it apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
  4. This was an appropriate offer, made in recognition of the frustration caused to the resident, and according to its compensation policy. The amount is also in in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is considered to provide reasonable redress. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident this compensation for the delays in its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that it had not renewed her smoke alarms.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress caused by failings in its handling of her concerns about the smoke alarms.
    2. Write a letter of apology to the resident acknowledging the inaccuracies in its complaint responses and the failings in this case.
    3. Review the system it has in place for monitoring and replacing smoke alarms during routine electrical safety checks. It should also consider and explain why this was not done in the resident’s case.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation previously offered for frustration caused by delays in its complaint handling. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this sum is paid, as it recognised service failings which require remedy.