Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing (202316840)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316840

Southern Housing

11 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a carbon monoxide detector at her property had expired.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord.
  2. On 19 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that a carbon monoxide detector installed at her property had expired in September 2020. She said the landlord’s heating contractor had manipulated the gas safety records. She wanted the landlord to investigate the heating contractor’s conduct. She asked that the landlord award her £1000 compensation for putting her family’s safety at risk. She asked that the landlord replace the carbon monoxide detector within a week.
  3. The landlord’s heating contractor provided the resident with a replacement carbon monoxide detector on 7 July 2023. On 28 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that the heating contractor she had complained about had attended her property with no prior notice, to check the ventilation systems. She told the landlord she had not provided access as it had not notified her about this appointment. She asked that it not send that contractor to her property again.
  4. On 4 August 2023, the resident told the landlord she had not had a response to her complaint and asked that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. On 8 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to ask that it send a response to her complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2023. It said its contractor had carried out a gas safety check in February 2023 therefore the next annual check was not yet due. It confirmed it had provided a replacement carbon monoxide alarm in July 2023. It said it would request that its heating contractors not send the contractor the resident had complained about to her property in future.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 20 September 2023. She said that the landlord should have noticed that the carbon monoxide detector had expired and should have replaced it straightaway. She reiterated her allegation that the heating contractor had manipulated the gas safety record.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It said:
    1. Its heating contractor had confirmed that it had checked the carbon monoxide detector on an annual basis. The contractor had found the device to be fully functional at its last gas safety inspection in February 2023. It confirmed that the engineer who had checked the carbon monoxide detector was qualified to do so and had completed all the relevant documentation at each inspection.
    2. The carbon monoxide detector was hardwired to the electricity supply at the resident’s property which meant that it would have beeped intermittently, had it been faulty. It said the device had a life span of 10 years and was installed at the resident’s property less than 10 years previously.
    3. It apologised if the labelling on the device had led the resident to believe it was not fully functional. It agreed this could be misleading; however, it said it had immediately reassured the resident that its contractors had checked the carbon monoxide detector annually. It said it had asked its contractors to ensure that all carbon monoxide detectors were clearly and accurately labelled in future.
    4. It apologised for the delay in it responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It offered her £50 compensation for this.
  8. On 3 November 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She sent a copy of the manufacturer’s guidance for the carbon monoxide detector installed in her property. The guidance stated that the detector should be replaced every 6 years. She also sent a photo of the label attached to the detector which confirmed it needed to be replaced in September 2020.

Assessment

Policies and procedures

  1. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022, state that social landlords must ensure a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers) A fixed combustion appliance would be a gas appliance such as a gas boiler or gas fire. These regulations came into force on 1 October 2022.
  2. The manufacturer’s guidance for the carbon monoxide detector states that after up to 6 years of operation the amber light will flash every 40 seconds, and the device must then be replaced. The guidance states that the device must also be replaced when the date on the ‘replace unit by’ label on the side wall is exceeded.
  3. The landlord’s gas safety policy states that carbon monoxide detectors in its properties will be checked during its annual gas service and safety check visits. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to routine repairs within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The policy states that if the landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint at either stage it will write to the resident to agree an extension.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a carbon monoxide detector at her property had expired

  1. It is understandable that the resident was concerned that the carbon monoxide detector in her property had expired, and we acknowledge her testimony that this caused her anxiety in relation to her family’s safety. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint and to decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking into account its legal and policy obligations and industry best practice.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 June 2023 that the carbon monoxide detector in her property had expired. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with a new carbon monoxide detector on 7 July 2023 which was within its timescales for completing routine repairs of 20 working days. This was a reasonable timeframe as there were no concerns that there was a gas leak at the resident’s property, so this would not be treated as an emergency repair.
  3. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s gas safety records for the property. We have seen no evidence that the contractor manipulated any documentation. This is a serious allegation, and it would be unfair for us to conclude that the contractor falsified records without evidence to confirm this. However, we acknowledge that prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s gas safety records did not include the date the carbon monoxide detector was due to expire. It is positive that since the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s gas safety contractor now includes this information on the gas safety records it issues to the landlord. This demonstrates learning by the landlord and shows that it took the resident’s concerns about the expired carbon monoxide detector seriously. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised that the label on the device had caused the resident concern and said it would ensure that all equipment was clearly and accurately labelled in future.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the resident’s concerns about the heating contractor who had carried out the annual gas safety checks at her property. It was right for it to confirm to the resident that the contractor was fully qualified and had completed all the relevant documentation. However, it took on board that the resident had expressed a lack of trust in that person, and it acted reasonably in asking its contractors not to send them to her property in the future.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the carbon monoxide detector in the resident’s property had a lifespan of 10 years. This was incorrect. The resident has provided the manufacturer’s guidance which confirms that the lifespan of the detector was 6 years. However, we have not seen any reports that the device was beeping or flashing an amber light, therefore there is no evidence that it had stopped functioning as it should or was unsafe.
  6. The resident submitted her complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint until 20 September 2023. This was over 2 months outside of its timescales for responding to stage 1 complaints. The landlord appropriately offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience this delay will have likely caused her.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 20 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023. This was over a week outside of its timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints. However, this was a minor delay and would not have had a significant impact on the overall outcome of the complaint. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was fair and is appropriate redress for the delays in it issuing both its complaint responses. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, which states that where we identify service failure, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. Therefore, the landlord has made an appropriate offer and does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports that a carbon monoxide detector at her property had expired, satisfactorily.