Sheffield City Council (202438617)

Decision
Case ID	202438617
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sheffield City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	6 March 2026

Background

1. The resident reported that the landlord had not responded to an antisocial behaviour (ASB) report. He also raised concerns about noise, potential criminal activity, difficulties contacting the call centre, and delays with repairs and maintenance. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord described the ASB actions it had taken, clarified the nature of a police‑related contact, confirmed the repairs it would carry out and offered an inspection, and explained its repair records and the issues affecting its call centre.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints about:
   1. Involving police following ASB reports.
   2. Reports of repair and maintenance delays.
   3. Difficulty accessing the repairs call centre and poor customer service.
   4. This investigation also considers the landlord’s general complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints about:
   1. Involving police following ASB reports.
   2. Reports of repair and maintenance delays.
   3. Difficulty accessing the repairs call centre and poor customer service.
   4. General complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Involving police following ASB reports

4. The evidence shows the landlord acted in line with its policy and gave a clear explanation, so there was no indication that its account was inaccurate or that its actions were improper.

Repair and maintenance delays

5. The landlord’s response was reasonable based on the evidence available, but because there is no record of the inspection it offered, it is not possible to confirm whether all repair issues were identified and resolved.

Difficulty accessing the repairs call centre and poor customer service

6. The landlord gave a reasonable and clear response about the call‑centre issues, acknowledged the resident’s frustration, and proposed exploring communication adjustments.

General complaint handling

7. The landlord handled the complaint within the required timescales and in line with its policy, but the outcomes of its promised repair inspection and follow‑up contact about service adjustments are unclear.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
For the reasons explained below, the landlord should consider contacting the resident to confirm that all current repair issues have been reported and logged.
Given the difficulties he experienced with its repairs call centre, the landlord should also consider contacting the resident to discuss any reasonable adjustments the resident may require.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 November 2024	The resident complained that he had made an ASB report around 2 months earlier but had not received any response. He raised concerns about noise and possible criminal activity. He also said it was difficult to contact the call centre and reported that the property did not have any smoke alarms.
29 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had taken appropriate action in response to ASB reports, including his reports and counter‑allegations made by others. It said it had no record of reports relating to criminal activity and advised the resident to contact the police in such cases.
4 December 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. His complaint was wide-ranging and broad.
23 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained it had contacted the resident to clarify his complaint, which it had subsequently understood to centre on: Inaccuracies about him being interviewed at the request of the police. Lack of maintenance and repairs to his home over several years. Problems getting through to staff at the repairs call centre and poor customer service when he did get to speak to someone.   The landlord addressed each of the points. It explained: How and why its officers had contacted the resident following a police incident. It had only one current repair request but offered to inspect any other issues of concern. How its call centre system worked, why he might have experienced problems. It also said it would contact the resident to try to identify other ways he could make contact.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He complained about historic and ongoing repair and maintenance issues and smoking and drug use by neighbours. He said he had stopped reporting repair issues several years previously because of problems with the call centre and poor customer service.

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	Involving police following ASB reports
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. In his complaint to us the resident referred to issues of concern about smoking and drug use by other residents. In 2025 he subsequently copied us into new reports he made to the landlord about ASB. These issues were either not part of the complaint the resident escalated to the landlord or arose after the landlord sent its final complaint response in December 2024. As we will only consider issues which have been previously raised as complaints with the landlord, we have not investigated these specific aspects of the resident’s complaint.
9. Additionally, while the resident raised multiple issues of concern about ASB in his original complaint, the evidence indicates the primary ASB issue he raised in his escalation was about the landlord’s actions in relation to the police. Because of that, this report centres on that specific element, and the landlord’s response to it.

What we have investigated

10. The resident complained that the landlord’s officers had incorrectly told him they had been asked by the police to interview him.
11. In its response, the landlord said the contact took place following a police request for information in relation to an incident. It explained that it shares information with partner agencies when investigating ASB. However, it acknowledged it could have been clearer about the reasons for the contact and apologised for the any distress caused to the resident. It acknowledged the resident had made further ASB reports and said it had opened a new ASB case and provided diary sheets to help the resident document times and dates of further incidents.
12. Records show the landlord spoke to the resident on 13 September 2024 after the police shared information with it following a police incident. This aligned with the evidence and with its multi‑agency working policy. The landlord provided a clear and detailed response to the resident’s concern. Nothing in the evidence available to this investigation indicates that its explanation was inaccurate or incomplete, or that its actions fell outside its policy.

Complaint	Reports of repair and maintenance delays
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

13. The resident reported he had been having repair and maintenance issues since the first COVID-19 lockdown. However, he did not raise a complaint with the landlord until 14 November 2024. Complaints should be raised promptly so that landlords can take action to resolve the issues, and as time passes records become available and memories fade. This investigation is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues at the property leading up to his complaint and the landlord’s final response to it on 23 December 2024.

What we have investigated

14. In response to the resident’s complaint about a lack of repairs or maintenance the landlord explained it had only one recent repair report outstanding, in regard to a smoke alarm. The repair records do not show any other recent reports, which is supported by the resident’s explanation to us that he had stopped making reports out of frustration with the landlord’s service and call centre.
15. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repairs service is very regrettable. However, landlords can only act on home repair issues once they’ve been reported by the tenant. In this case, there may well have been repair issues, but if they had not been reported the landlord could not act on them.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and offered to inspect and identify whatever repair issues were present. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange a visit. In the circumstances, that was an appropriate course of action which met its repair obligations following the resident informing it of such problems.
17. It is not apparent if the resident made contact to arrange the inspection, or if he did, what it found. Nonetheless, the landlord completed the smoke alarm repair on 7 January 2025. Other repairs, such as for an intercom and the gas supply were arranged a completed over the following months.
18. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint is supported by the evidence and reasonable in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence of the inspection means it is not possible to confidently conclude all the relevant repair issues have been found and resolved. A recommendation has been made above about this.

Complaint	Difficulty accessing the repairs call centre and poor customer service
Finding	No maladministration

19. The resident complained to the landlord that he had experienced regular and long running problems using its repairs call centre, and that when he was able to speak to someone, he often received poor customer service.
20. In response the landlord explained in detail how its service worked, and why the resident may have experienced difficulties. It explained that it had looked at its records of his contacts and listened to some of his calls. It noted that some of the calls had been challenging, and that the resident had been frustrated by some of the questions he’d been asked while staff were completing ID checks and trying to identify how to assist him. It recognised that, as a person with Asperger’s, the resident might benefit from alternative ways of accessing its services. It said it would contact him to discuss any possible adjustments if possible.
21. The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable. It gave clear information about how its call system worked, and why the resident had encountered some of the issues he’d referred to, such as being pushed back in the queue, or being asked for identification information. It acknowledged the frustration he’d experienced and, while explaining how his behaviour with staff had on occasion been unreasonable, it recognised that the resident’s circumstances might mean alternative ways to access its services could be useful, and it sought to explore that.
22. As with the repair’s inspection, it is not apparent if the promised contact was made, or what the outcome was (and another recommendation has been made regarding this), but the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and its intended action was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint	General complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

23. The landlord has a 2‑stage complaints procedure. Its policy says it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If more time is needed at stage 2, it must explain the reason for the extension to the resident. This approach is consistent with the Complaint Handling Code.
24. The resident complained on 14 November 2024. In this complaint, he said he had made a complaint 2 months earlier and had not received a response. The landlord apologised that it had not understood a discussion in September 2024 to be a formal complaint, and there is no evidence of an earlier logged complaint.
25. It issued its stage 1 response on 29 November 2024, which was 12 working days after the complaint. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 4 December 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 December 2024, which was within the required 20 working days.
26. Overall, the landlord handled the complaint in line with its policy and met the required timescales.
27. The outcomes of 2 elements of the landlord’s complaint response are not apparent from the information provided by either the resident or the landlord: the repair inspection offer, and the promised contact to discuss service adjustments. While this uncertainty is not in itself indicative of service failures, the landlord way wants to examine how it documents the outcomes of any offers or promises it makes in its complaint responses, as such information is important in demonstrating it follows through on its commitments.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord should consider reviewing how it records the outcomes of any actions it offers in its complaint responses. Clear records will show that it has completed the actions it committed to and will support any later reviews of its service. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Spotlight Report may assist the landlord in doing this.