Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing improvement scheme. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome for the complainant. There is therefore no worthwhile outcome achievable from further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y about a contractor installing smoke detectors in an unsuitable location in Ms Y’s home. The smoke alarm was installed as part of the Council’s greener housing scheme. He says the alarm was falsely triggering during the night. He wants the Council to review if the contractor installed smoke detectors correctly for other residents and acknowledge and apologise for the distress it caused. Mr Y further complains about how the Council handled his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A contractor on behalf of the Council installed a smoke alarm in Ms Y’s home as part of a greener housing scheme. Mr X said the smoke alarm in Ms Y’s home was falsely triggering and continued to sound for around 14 hours during the night. He said the fire service told him the location of the alarm was not safe. It disconnected it and replaced the alarm.
7. The Council offered to meet with Mr X and Ms Y to discuss their concerns. Mr X said the Council did not offer appropriate dates or times and did not consider his availability as a carer and a full time worker.
8. The Council told Mr X to suggest alternative dates and times and said it could be flexible and offered to hold the meeting on Microsoft Teams.
9. The Council contacted the contractor and it agreed to replace the alarm system with an upgraded heat detector. It told Mr X this offer was still open to him.
10. I am satisfied with the actions the Council took in this case. It offered alternative meeting dates, agreed to facilitate a face to face or remote meeting and offered to replace the system free of charge.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X and Ms Y.
12. I understand Mr X is concerned that the contractor wrongly installed smoke alarms in other residents’ homes and asked the Council to review whether other residents were affected by fault installations.
13. The Council explained it would discuss his concerns with the contractor to ensure compliance with relevant guidance. It explained it would not review past installations because it could limit the number of properties that could benefit from the scheme. The Council was entitled to make that decision based on having limited resources.
14. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome for the complainant. There is therefore no worthwhile outcome achievable from further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman