Homes Plus Limited (202321278)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321278

Homes Plus Limited

11 March 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 complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement. The property is a 3- bedroomed house. The housing records confirm the resident has epilepsy.
3. A carbon monoxide detector was installed in the resident’s property in October 2015. The monitor included an inbuilt safety feature which was designed to notify the landlord if there was a fault with the equipment or if carbon monoxide was detected in the property. A weekly charge was made by the landlord for the service.
4. The resident asked the landlord to remove the carbon monoxide detector on 1 March 2023. This was done on 6 March 2023. She told the landlord on 15 March 2023 that the gas engineer who serviced the boiler had told her the monitor was fitted in the wrong place. She said she had been ‘‘paying money for nothing’’ and noted the monitor should have been fitted near her boiler which was in the loft.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 6 July 2023. She said she had been paying a charge for a carbon dioxide detector that did not work. This was because it had been positioned in the wrong place.
6. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023 and said:
   1. The carbon monoxide detector was designed to notify the landlord if there was a problem.
   2. The carbon monoxide detector was tested on 13 February 2023 and found to be working correctly.
   3. The advice given by the gas engineer was incorrect as he was not aware of the differences between carbon monoxide detectors, specifically for class 2 monitors.
7. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 8 August 2023. She told the landlord on 15 August 2023 she wanted refunding the weekly charge given the carbon monoxide detector did not function correctly.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 September 2023 and said:
   1. The carbon dioxide detector fitted in the resident’s home was correctly positioned and found to be working correctly when serviced.
   2. No faults were identified with the monitor during testing, normal use or when the detector was returned to the landlord.
   3. The advice given to the resident by the gas engineer about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector was incorrect. This was because class 2 carbon monoxide detectors are more sensitive than class 1 monitors and include an inbuilt safety feature, which alerts the landlord if carbon monoxide is detected.
   4. There was no evidence the carbon monoxide detector was defective at any point whilst fitted in the resident’s home. As such, it would not refund the charge paid by the resident.

Post complaint events.

9. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 19 April 2024. She said a gas engineer told her the carbon monoxide device was positioned in the wrong location and fitted a new one in the loft space, next to the boiler. She also said she wanted to be refunded the weekly charge that had been made by the landlord given the monitor was ineffective.
10. The landlord told this Service that there is a working carbon monoxide detector in the resident’s home. The monitor that was removed was positioned 30 cm from the loft hatch.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector.

11. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations, 2022 says landlords must fit a carbon monoxide detector in every room where there is a ‘‘fixed combustion appliance.’’ This includes gas boilers. The regulations do not stipulate where the monitor should be placed, but landlords are required to follow the manufacturer’s instructions.
12. The manufacturer’s guidelines says detectors should be fitted within 3 metres of the potential carbon monoxide source. The resident paid a weekly charge for the provision of a carbon monoxide detector.
13. The landlord’s website says it will check carbon monoxide detectors every year.
14. The resident’s carbon monoxide detector was serviced on 13 February 2023. This was consistent with information on the landlord’s website. No faults were identified with the monitor during the test and no concerns raised about its position.
15. The resident asked for the carbon monoxide detector to be removed on 1 March 2023. The landlord arranged for this to be done on 6 March 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances given there was another monitor in the resident’s home. The landlord also agreed to remove the weekly charge from the resident’s account from this date.
16. The resident told the landlord on 15 March 2023 that she had been ‘‘paying money for nothing’’ given the carbon monoxide detector was ineffective and not placed in the correct position. She said it should have been fitted in the loft where the boiler was.
17. The landlord responded on 3 April 2023 and said that the carbon monoxide detector installed in the resident’s property was a class 2 alarm and fitted in the correct location. The landlord also noted the detector included a safety feature and would set off an alarm if carbon monoxide levels reached 43 parts per million, whereas a typical detector would not do this until these levels were maintained for 72 minutes. This provided clarity and offered reassurance given the concerns raised by the resident.
18. The resident asked the landlord on 12 April 2023 to return the carbon monoxide detector as she wanted to compare it with the manufacturer’s guidelines. The landlord responded on the same day and said this would not be possible given the equipment had been recalibrated and returned to its stock ready for use by other residents. It noted this process was completed within 2 working days and it would not be able to confirm with any certainty which carbon monoxide detector was the residents.
19. The resident raised a complaint on 6 July 2023 and said she wanted refunding the weekly charge she had been paying for the carbon monoxide detector given it was not correctly fitted.
20. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It said the advice provided by the gas engineer was incorrect given a class 2 carbon monoxide detector had been fitted in the resident’s home. It also said the carbon monoxide detector was working as intended when it was tested in February 2023. The landlord did not address the resident’s request to be refunded the weekly charge she had paid. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear if she would receive a refund.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 August 2023. She said she wanted to be refunded for the weekly charges she had paid.
22. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 September 2023. It said the monitor installed in the resident’s home was positioned in the correct location, was designed to identify lower levels of carbon monoxide than class 1 monitors and was linked to its contact centre. This meant it would be alerted immediately if there was a fault or carbon monoxide levels were detected. This provided clarity.
23. The landlord also said no faults were identified with the equipment during testing, normal use or when it was refurbished after being returned. As a result, it would not refund the resident the charges she had paid for using the device. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
24. In summary, the landlord offered the resident a clear explanation about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector and gave additional information about its safety features. It also agreed to remove the monitor at the resident’s request, stopped the weekly charge at the appropriate time and explained why a refund would not be issued. In this case there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the positioning of the carbon monoxide detector.