Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Sheffield City Council (202334289)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334289

Sheffield City Council

31 March 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:
    1. Leaks entering the resident’s property.
    2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident lived in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy between December 2020 and December 2023.The property was a 2-bedroom flat within a block where the resident lived with her partner.
  2. The resident has appointed an MP as her representative.
  3. On 30 August 2023 the resident’s MP raised a complaint to the landlord on her behalf. They told the landlord that the resident’s neighbour had been causing problems for a significant length of time and the landlord had failed to deal with it promptly.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 September 2023, in which it said:
    1. the resident had reported 2 leaks into her home – 1 at the front due to a faulty washing machine upstairs and 1 at the back due to water ingress from the upstairs balcony
    2. while the balcony repair did not require access to the upstairs flat, it had ongoing difficulties in gaining access to the upstairs flat in relation to the washing machine leak
    3. the balcony was repaired on 8 September and the faulty washing machine was removed on 15 September
    4. it is aware the upstairs neighbour lives a ‘chaotic life’ but there had been no recent reports of ASB from other residents, despite it requesting reports
  5. The resident’s MP asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 11 October 2023. We have not seen a copy of this escalation request. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 October, in which it said:
    1. it was unable to enter the upstairs flat without permission, and when it first gained entry the flat was not safe for its contractors to work, causing further delay
    2. it acknowledged there was not a quick resolution, but it tried to resolve matters as quickly as possible – it apologised for the delay and inconvenience
    3. no other residents were willing to formally report ASB related tenancy breaches by the neighbour – this meant it had struggled to gain evidence to build a successful case to take enforcement action
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and in January 2024 her MP asked us to investigate the complaint.
  7. On 21 October 2024 the landlord told us it had reviewed the case and would like to offer the resident £250 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. During the complaint process the resident said the ASB was ongoing for some time. The historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Leaks

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following priorities and response times:
    1. emergency (such as uncontrollable leaks) – attended to within 4 hours
    2. urgent plumbing and drainage faults – repaired within 24 hours
    3. routine repairs – up to 25 working days
    4. planned repairs – up to 55 working days
  2. On 9 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking into her living room, possibly from the balcony above. The landlord attempted to visit the flat upstairs on 30 December but was not able to gain access and left a card for the neighbour.
  3. No further action was taken by the landlord until a new job was raised on 13 February 2023. The landlord tried twice to gain access to the upstairs flat, on 7 March and 21 April, but was unsuccessful. The jobs were raised as routine. The repairs log does not provide context for this decision. Given that there was water ingress into the resident’s property, it could have considered categorising the repair as urgent. Regardless of this decision, the landlord did not carry out repairs within 25 working days. It did not show urgency in trying to obtain access to the upstairs flat, making only 3 attempts to access the flat in more than 4 months.
  4. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 23 June 2023. They said that the resident had reported a leak from upstairs on 3 occasions and no one had attended to look. The landlord responded on 5 July, saying it had booked for a contractor to visit to inspect the water damage.
  5. The MP contacted the landlord again on 31 July 2023. They said that the resident had water coming through a light fitting, which she said she had reported 2 weeks earlier. We have not seen any evidence of this being reported to the landlord prior to 31 July, and the landlord raised a job the same day, which was a reasonable step.
  6. The landlord was unable to make contact with the neighbour to gain access so on 2 August 2023 it hand delivered a letter giving them 72 hours’ notice that it would force entry. The landlord forced entry on 4 August, but was unable to carry out work at that time due to matters outside its control. It identified that there were 2 separate leaks, 1 from the balcony and the other it believed to be from the washing machine.
  7. On 15 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident’s MP to say that it could repair the balcony without access to the resident’s flat. The repair was completed on 8 September. This repair was first logged 9 months earlier and it had failed to carry out repairs on the basis it could not access the upstairs flat. It was not appropriate that it did not consider at an earlier stage the option to repair the balcony without accessing the flat. This led to an unreasonable delay in resolving that leak.
  8. On 30 August 2023 the resident’s MP asked the landlord to raise a complaint as it had not dealt with the repairs promptly. On 4 September they emailed the landlord again, saying the resident was unable to use the hallway light due to the leak.
  9. The landlord issued a further 72-hour notice letter to the neighbour on 12 September 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord around 5 weeks from the previous forced entry to issue this notice to re-access the flat. This was another unreasonable delay. It subsequently forced entry on 15 September where it identified that it was the washing machine causing the leak. It requested permission from the neighbour to remove and dispose of the machine, which it did on 18 September.
  10. In its stage 1 response of 26 September 2023 the landlord said repairs had been difficult due to problems gaining access to the upstairs flat. In its stage 2 response of 23 October it said that it had initially tried to engage with the neighbour before having to force entry. It explained that following the first forced entry it had worked with the neighbour so it could carry out work.  It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused but said that it felt it did all it could to rectify leaks as quickly as possible.
  11. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks entering the resident’s property. When the first leak was report it was immediately identified as likely being from the balcony. It subsequently fixed this without needing to access the upstairs flat, but it took 10 months to do so. During that 10-month period it only made sporadic attempts to access the upstairs flat.
  12. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it regularly followed up on its attempts to gain access. While we appreciate that the landlord has obligations to the neighbour, it could have served a 72-hour notice letter in December 2022. It did not take this step until the resident involved her MP. It is not appropriate that she had to do this to move the repair forward.
  13. The landlord has now reviewed the case again and offered the resident compensation of £250. However, this offer should have been made during its internal complaints process, and it is not appropriate that it took this long to try to put matters right.
  14. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had difficulties in accessing the upstairs flat. However, ultimately it had measures available that it could have put in place much earlier on. Its failure to due this prolonged the impact on the resident unreasonably. Therefore the offer made by the landlord does not go far enough to recognise that its failure impaired the resident’s day to day enjoyment of the property over a prolonged period.
  15. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500, including the £250 the landlord has already offered. This amount has been awarded with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to resident by the failings identified above.

ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
    1. work with residents and communities to empower and support them in tackling and resolving ASB
    2. take proportionate action to resolve ASB, with an aim to intervene early and prevent escalation by using informal remedies and restorative approaches
    3. resolve/address/tackle ASB in partnership with key partners and stakeholders
  2. The resident reported ASB by the neighbour on 17 June 2021. The landlord liaised with police and provided the resident with diary sheets. A warning letter was sent and the resident told the landlord that there was little to record on the diary sheets as things had improved. With her agreement the ASB case was closed on 28 July.
  3. On 4 July 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had damaged their property and they and their partner had both been arrested. They were released without charge and the landlord’s records said it would issue a warning letter, however it is not clear whether it did this.
  4. In the resident’s MP’s email to the landlord on 31 July 2023 they said that there had been numerous police call outs due to ASB related issues and asked if any enforcement action had been taken. On 15 August the landlord explained the neighbour’s circumstances to the MP. It said it was attempting to work with the neighbour to support them but would follow tenancy action if this did not work. The landlord has obligations to all its residents and it was not unreasonable for it to try to support the neighbour before considering enforcement action.
  5. In its stage 1 response of 26 September 2023 the landlord said that it had not received any recent reports of ASB from any of the other neighbours. It had sent evidence gathering letters to all residents in the immediate vicinity but had received no responses. It said that in the past week the neighbour had started to engage with it and partner agencies.
  6. In its stage 2 response of 21 October 2023, it reiterated what it said at stage 1. It said that it not yet been able to gain evidence to build a successful case. It also said that since the neighbour had begun to engage with it there had been a marked improvement. Its records show that since then it has continued to monitor the neighbour’s behaviour and has carried out regular visits to their property.
  7. The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It contacted other residents to attempt to gain evidence, and it was reasonable for it not to progress tenancy enforcement action without sufficient evidence.
  8. By working with the neighbour in the first instance it has demonstrated a willingness to intervene early and prevent escalation, in line with its ASB policy. It continued to monitor the situation and its records show that its intervention and support led to an improvement in behaviour. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may not have had to opportunity to witness the improvement as she moved out shortly after the stage 2 response was sent.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks entering the resident’s property
    2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in it repairing the leaks.
    2. apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report