Slough Borough Council — case 202409298

Decision Case ID 202409298 Decision type Investigation Landlord Slough Borough Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 13 April 2026 Background The resident lives with his children. He was worried about carbon monoxide leaking from his boiler and the landlord’s boiler replacement plan. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about the boiler. We have also investigated the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination) We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the boiler. We have found service failure in the handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons When the landlord found a carbon monoxide leak inside the sealed boiler unit, it made the boiler safe in line with its policy. It also reasonably considered its policy to conclude the boiler’s location was safe and did not require relocation.

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints and delayed responding at stage 1. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 11 May 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 26 – 27 March 2024 The landlord’s contractor found a carbon monoxide leak in the air intake side of the boiler flue.

It isolated the gas supply. The resident refused the fitting of a new boiler because he wanted it moved from a bedroom to the kitchen. 3 April 2024 The landlord and contractor recorded the carbon monoxide alarm had not previously detected carbon monoxide in the bedroom. The landlord told the resident it was not possible to move the boiler to the kitchen. 4 April 2024 The resident made a stage 1 complaint. He was concerned about the boiler being in his son’s bedroom, in case another leak occurred.

He said his son was hospitalised in January 2024 and he thought this was related to carbon monoxide poisoning. He was unhappy with the landlord’s professionalism and lack of empathy on 3 April 2024. 1 May 2024 In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the location of the boiler was safe and complied with regulations. It said the carbon monoxide leak was in the flue only and not in the bedroom. It said it could not move the boiler because of the external ventilation installed in the kitchen.

It said it wanted to replace the boiler at the earliest opportunity. 30 May 2024 The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was distressed that the landlord had not acknowledged the serious risk posed by the boiler leaking carbon monoxide. 4 June 2024 The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It said it understood the resident was worried but there were no risks to him with the current location of the boiler. It repeated why it was not possible to move the boiler to the kitchen.

It said the health documents provided by the resident did not evidence carbon monoxide poisoning. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate because he felt the landlord’s option to replace the boiler was not suitable. He continued to decline the works and wanted the boiler relocated to the kitchen. We understand the boiler was fitted in the bedroom in December 2025. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The resident’s concerns about the boiler Finding No maladministration What we didn’t investigate The resident told the landlord carbon monoxide leaking from the boiler caused his son and other family members to fall ill. We understand the resident was very worried during this time. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last.

We have not investigated this further. We have investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the boiler. Concerns about the boiler Between 2021 and 2023 the landlord completed annual safety checks in the autumn period and provided a carbon monoxide detector in line with its gas and carbon monoxide safety policy. The landlord attended on 26 March 2024 and noted reports of the resident’s son suffering headaches. Record keeping failures mean it is not possible to assess when these reports were made or if the landlord responded within a reasonable time.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence of any failings on the landlord’s part. The landlord found there was a carbon monoxide leak in the flue and air intake. It isolated and made safe the boiler. The landlord carried out appropriate actions to check there had not been a carbon monoxide leak into the bedroom. These were reasonable actions in line with its policy. The landlord attempted to replace the boiler the next day within its emergency repairs timeframe. The resident refused because he was worried about potential future leaks in the bedroom and wanted the boiler moved to the kitchen to mitigate this.

The resident explained his concerns in person and via email. Although this was over the Easter bank holiday period, the issue was urgent and it took the landlord a week to respond to the resident. This was a shortcoming that may have contributed to the breakdown in trust between the resident and landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord then promptly investigated if it could move the boiler to the kitchen. It said it would not because the bedroom location was safe, met requirements and moving it would require further kitchen ventilation works.

This was a reasonable approach in line with its gas and carbon monoxide safety policy and its repairs policy. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the steps it had taken to assess if the carbon monoxide from the flue and air intake had leaked outside of the sealed boiler unit. It said the resident had not provided evidence of carbon monoxide related health issues. This was reasonable when assessed against its gas and carbon monoxide safety policy. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.

The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are that the landlord: Had a published complaints policy that included a 3-stage process. This was not compliant with the Code but the landlord did not apply 3 stages in this case. Published a policy in August 2025 that is compliant with the Code. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. Failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescale. This delayed the resident being able to escalate the complaint by 10 working days.

Responded to the stage 2 complaint within its policy timescale. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay at stage 1 albeit this was only minor and likely did not affect the overall outcome. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord should keep clear and timely records of reports about potential health and safety risks so it can show it responded appropriately and within a reasonable time. Communication The landlord communicated with the resident and continued to keep the offer of a boiler fitting open.

The landlord should consider how it can best empathetically communicate with residents in cases where there are potential health and safety risks.