Sheffield City Council (202409910)

Background

1. When the landlord started to carry out major works to the resident’s home, he made a complaint to it about the length of time it was taking to complete the works and its general handling of the situation. In particular, because members of his household had vulnerabilities, such as autism and physical disabilities. He also requested compensation for damaged belongings and related costs incurred.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Major works to the resident’s home.
   2. Resident’s request for compensation.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the major works to the resident’s home.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord offered reasonable compensation in line with our remedies guidance for its poor handling of the major works to the resident’s home.
6. The landlord failed to reasonably progress the resident’s request for compensation in a timely manner, which caused an avoidable delay. It also failed to provide an appropriate explanation as to why it would not pay the full compensation for some of the items.
7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its policy timescale. It also failed to keep him reasonably updated during those delays.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. It is not disputed that over a 2-year period (from October 2023 to September 2025) there were significant delays in progressing and completing the works. During this period:
   1. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations several times about the extent of the works and when they would be completed. Also, while unclear, there is no evidence to suggest that given the family’s vulnerabilities, it reasonably considered whether they should have been moved into temporary accommodation before the works started in October 2023.
   2. Contractor A was slow to carry out the works and its workmanship was poor. This also meant that the landlord had to instruct another contract (‘Contractor B’) to take over the work, which caused further delays.
   3. The resident and his family moved into temporary accommodation which came with its own issues. These included repairs and issues with the driveway for wheelchair accessibility.
   4. While the landlord took some steps to keep in contact with the resident, there were times where it failed to reasonably keep him updated.
   5. While the evidence suggests that the resident was at times supported by external agencies, it is unclear whether the landlord took consistent steps to ensure that he and his family were fully supported throughout the situation, given their vulnerabilities.
9. It is noted that the landlord took some reasonable steps during the period to mitigate some of the distress and inconvenience caused. For example, it paid for hotel stays, food costs, and laundry services before the resident moved in temporary accommodation. It also sought the resident’s occupational therapist’s advice about the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
10. However, the failings and issues highlighted above caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over the 2-year period. In particular, because of his family’s vulnerabilities. The landlord offered him £4,264 for distress, inconvenience and disruption caused for the period. This was made up of £2,264, which was based on 25% of the resident’s rent for the 2-year period, and £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
11. Taking into consideration the landlord’s failings, the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities, and the length of time of the delays, the total award was reasonable. It was in line with our remedies guidance for compensation for severe maladministration.
12. The evidence suggests that there were further delays to complete the works after the landlord issued its September 2025 stage 2 response, which caused the resident further distress, inconvenience and disruption. On 27 February 2026, the landlord offered an approximate additional £500 compensation for the issues relating to the period from September 2025 to February 2026. That was reasonable.
13. It is outside of our remit to assess and comment on whether the situation has impacted the resident and his family’s mental health. However, it is noted that he has raised these concerns. As such, he may wish to contact the courts and/or the landlord’s insurers if he wishes to pursue the matter, as they are best placed to investigate them.
14. The resident has also told us that he has concerns about the permanent property that the landlord moved him into in March 2026. It is unclear whether the landlord offered the property to the resident in relation to this case. Nonetheless, as these are new issues which did not form part of the resident’s original complaints, we are unable to investigate them here. The resident may wish to raise any issues that have not been subject to the landlord’s complaint process with it. He can then refer the matter to us if he remains dissatisfied with its final response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation

15. When Contractor A reviewed the resident’s pictures of his damaged belongings following the January 2024 leak, it explained to him that it could not see any damage and asked to see the items in person. This was reasonable, as it demonstrated that it was taking appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s request for compensation.
16. The evidence shows that, in February 2024, the resident told the landlord several times that he had contacted Contractor A to view the items but had not had a response. He continued to chase the landlord over the months that followed.
17. Despite this, the landlord failed to take proactive and appropriate action to progress the matter. The evidence provided demonstrates that there was a breakdown of communication and relationship between Contractor A and the resident during this period. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have monitored and progressed the matter. For example, it may have been appropriate for it to have referred the matter to its own insurers. This would have ensured that it was progressed in a timely manner. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
18. As such, the belongings were not assessed in person by Contractor A until May 2024. This 4-month delay could have been avoidable if the landlord had taken proactive action to progress the matter. That it did not was a failing.
19. In his July 2024 escalated complaint, the resident explained that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response that Contractor A would clean the belongings. He reiterated this concerns again in September 2024 and the beginning of November 2024. However, the landlord failed to respond and missed a further opportunity to progress the matter.
20. It is acknowledged that the landlord said that it would instruct a third party to assess the belongings in its November 2024 stage 2 response. While delayed, this was reasonable. Though unclear, the evidence suggests that the resident did not provide a response.
21. Nonetheless, when the resident told the landlord that the matter was still outstanding at the end of January 2025, it sought advice from its insurers around that time. This was reasonable. However, it was not until April 2025 that it provided an offer of compensation to the resident. That was a further delay.

The landlord’s compensation offers

22. In its 2025 complaint responses, the landlord explained that it had taken into consideration the resident’s list of damaged belongings from the January 2024 leak and his valuation of them. It said that it had calculated 50% of the original value of the items that were valued under £25 and £5 for cleaning costs for items that were valued over £25. It explained what factors it took into consideration to reach the basis for the calculation. This included the general wear and tear of the items, the absence of receipts, and dates of purchase, as well as the extent of the damage.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will take into consideration the age, quality and condition of a damaged item and the original cost of it. Therefore, given the circumstances, the landlord’s explanation of its basis of its calculation and compensation offer was reasonable and in line with its policy.
24. In its September 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it would offer 50% of the value for garden items that were damaged by Contractor A because it had “doubts” that Contractor A appropriately explained to the resident that he needed to remove and store items safely before the works started. The landlord’s explanation is noted. However, some of the items, such as the fencing, gate and astro turf, may not have been removable, regardless of whether Contractor A adequately advised the resident to store his belongings safely. This is because it may not have been practical nor reasonable for the resident to do so for these items.
25. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to have reviewed and assessed the resident’s claim of damage to these items in line with its compensation policy. As there no evidence that it did, its explanation for offering 50% value of the items was unreasonable. As such, an order has been made for it to review the resident’s request in line with its policy.
26. The landlord offered the resident 50% of the value of the washing machine that had stopped working. It explained that this was because, while there was no evidence that it had caused the issue, it should have properly investigated at the time. The evidence provided corroborates the landlord’s response. Therefore, its explanation of its offer was reasonable.
27. The landlord offered the resident 50% of the value of the following:
    1. Items purchased by the resident while in the temporary accommodation.
    2. Travel expenses he incurred travelling between the temporary accommodation and his home.
    3. Damage to the wardrobe.
28. While the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way towards putting matters right, it failed to explain the reason it offered the 50% of the value of the items. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that it was reasonable. As such, it must also review the compensation for these items.
29. Following the landlord’s September 2025 stage 2 response, the resident raised concerns that not all damaged items were included. It is noted that it appears the landlord’s February 2026 compensation update stated that it would pay 100% of additional items that were not included in its September 2025 stage 2 response. However, it is unclear whether all of the resident’s items have been included. Therefore, it must contact the resident to obtain a final list of any outstanding items as part of its review.

30. The landlord took approximately 3 months to respond to the resident’s February 2024 stage 1 complaint. This was a significant deviation from its 10-working-day response timescale and that of our Complaint Handling Code, and so was a failing. During this time, the resident incurred distress and inconvenience chasing for updates. Given the length of the delay, that the landlord did not offer the resident compensation was a missed opportunity to put matters right.
31. The landlord issued 2 stage 1 complaint responses in 2024. While unclear, the evidence suggests that it may have interpreted the resident’s request for an update as a new complaint. The confusion may have been mitigated if the landlord had responded within its timescale or discussed the complaint with the resident at the time.
32. The landlord took approximately 4 months to respond to the resident’s July 2024 escalated complaint. This was a significant deviation from its 20-working-day stage 2 response timescale. Given the length of the delay, its offer of £100 compensation was reasonable and proportionate.
33. The landlord then took approximately 3 months to respond to the resident’s January 2025 complaint and approximately 4 months to respond to his May 2025 escalated complaint. Both complaints were provided significantly outside of the landlord’s response timescale.
34. In Complaint B, the resident explained that the landlord had not provided answers to his complaints in his previous emails, although it said it would. The landlord did not respond to this part of the resident’s complaint. Its lack of response has meant that it has not demonstrated that it fully resolved the resident’s complaint. Therefore, an order has been made for it to contact the resident to ascertain whether he has any outstanding concerns in relation to this complaint. If he does, it should respond to them in line with its relevant policies.
35. Given the repeated response failings and lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord learned lessons, it should consider arranging complaint handling refresher training for its relevant staff. It may wish to use the Centre for Learning section of our website to do so.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s records were clear, consistent and detailed, allowing the sequence of events and actions taken to be easily understood. This level of record keeping supported our assessment of the case.

Communication

37. This investigation highlighted that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it kept the resident updated during the period its complaint responses were delayed. This suggests that it may need to strengthen its communication with residents during its complaints process. Long periods without updates caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress. Regular, proactive communication, especially when delays occur, helps manage expectations and creates a more transparent and responsive experience. Therefore, the landlord may wish to complete our eLearning on complaint handling and communication, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.