Sheffield City Council (202341095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341095

Sheffield City Council

18 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The local council’s consideration of the resident’s housing application and the associated banding.
2. The conduct of the local council’s staff in respect of housing allocation.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a flat. The landlord is a local council. She has mental health issues including a diagnosis of an emotionally unstable personality disorder and autism spectrum disorder. She has a support worker.
The resident reported noise from her neighbours in July 2021. The landlord asked her to complete diary sheets. It subsequently spoke to the neighbours and installed noise monitoring equipment in June 2022. This recorded normal household noise. The landlord and environmental protection services visited the neighbour in August 2022. They discussed how noise transference could be reduced and booked repairs for the neighbour’s internal doors.
A multi-agency community trigger took place in May 2023. This determined that the noise was not a statutory noise nuisance.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 May 2023. She said the landlord had not done anything to stop the noise. The landlord responded at stage 1 in June 2023. It set out the steps it had taken to resolve the issue.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2023 and said the landlord had not taken the impact of the situation on her health seriously. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 25 January 2024. It reiterated the steps it had taken to investigate the noise reports. It explained that it could not take action for noise which was not statutory noise nuisance.
When the resident referred her case to us she said the noise had been ongoing for over 4 years and the landlord had ignored the effect it was having on her health. She said the landlord was “refusing” to assess her health and housing application for an urgent banding.
The resident moved to a new property in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. Applications for housing and the associated banding are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. As such, the resident’s complaint about the Local Council’s consideration of her housing application and the associated banding is outside our jurisdiction.
Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. As such, the conduct of council staff in respect of housing allocation is not a matter we can investigate as it falls outside our jurisdiction.
This report has therefore focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and its handling of her complaint.

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident alleged to the landlord that it had discriminated against her. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the reports about the noise and the reasonableness of its response. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour was responsible for noise nuisance. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord were in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

Response to the resident’s reports of noise

In July 2021 the resident told the landlord that she could hear noise from her neighbours including children running and jumping, heavy footsteps, furniture moving and doors banging. The landlord spoke to the neighbour who said she had had a Eid celebration. The landlord’s ASB policy makes it clear that household noise and one-off parties are not considered to be ASB.
The landlord has a noise policy which says that in cases where noise has been reported, the landlord can take action including speaking to the responsible party and asking residents to monitor noise. In line with this and given the resident’s ongoing reports, the landlord contacted the environmental protection services in October 2021. The landlord asked if noise monitoring equipment could be installed in the resident’s property. The environmental protection services told the landlord that due to COVID-19 restrictions, this was not available at the time. The landlord relayed this to the resident.
In mid-October 2021 the landlord sent a letter to tenants in the block asking if they were experiencing noise nuisance. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take to try to find out if noise was a wider issue impacting others. The landlord received no response from other tenants.
During November 2021 the resident told the landlord that the noise was ongoing. She explained it was affecting her mental health. She said she had sent a letter to the neighbours but there had been no improvement. She told the landlord she had completed diary sheets to document the noise.
The landlord spoke with the environmental protection services again on 10 December 2021. It confirmed that noise monitoring equipment was available. The landlord visited the resident and her support worker on 13 December 2021. It explained that it had received the completed diary sheets and as a next step it would make a referral for noise monitoring equipment. It subsequently did so on 17 December 2021. This was in line with its noise policy in respect of escalating its investigations.
The landlord told the resident on 7 January 2022 that there was a waiting list for the noise monitoring equipment due to the backlog caused by COVID-19. The resident chased this on 4 April 2022. On 7 April 2022 she provided more completed diary sheets and said the noise was making her unwell and affecting her mental health.
The landlord was responsive to the resident’s report of her health being effected. It told her the following day that noise monitoring equipment could be installed from 12 to 19 May 2022. The resident subsequently asked for this to be delayed due to having visitors during that time.
The environmental protection services installed the equipment on 9 June 2022. This was in place until 16 June 2022. The subsequent recordings of over 100 noises were reviewed by the environmental protection services. It concluded that the noises recorded were everyday living noises, aside from a few “loud bangs”.
The environmental protection services and landlord subsequently carried out a joint visit to the neighbour on 18 July 2022. The neighbour said they had made several lifestyle changes to try to reduce noise. During the visit, the landlord noted that repairs were needed to the neighbour’s internal doors to prevent banging. This joint visit to the neighbour was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and was in line with what is outlined in its ASB and noise policies. It demonstrated that it had considered that the neighbour’s property could be contributing to the noise transference and took steps to address this.
The resident continued to regularly report similar noises to the landlord. On 21 November 2022, a meeting was held between the resident, her support worker, the landlord and environmental protection services. The resident explained she could still hear banging, slamming doors, screaming, and running. The landlord offered to make referrals for mediation and conduct a sound levelling exercise. It also reoffered the noise monitoring equipment. The resident’s support worker asked for further interventions to be put on hold as the resident was struggling with her mental health. The resident’s support worker subsequently told the landlord on 25 November 2022, that the resident was unsure if she wanted the sound levelling exercise to go ahead. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord had explained to the resident what sound levelling would involve. This was a missed opportunity to fully explain the options open to the resident.
In response to the continuing reports, the landlord re-visited the neighbour on 29 November 2022. It is not clear what the outcome of this visit was. However it was appropriate for the landlord to re-visit the neighbour in light of the resident’s reluctance to pursue further noise monitoring and noise levelling options.
After a change in the landlord’s staff, the new neighbourhood officer allocated as a point of contact for the resident contacted her on 14 February 2023. The resident asked the landlord to start possession proceedings against the neighbour. The landlord signposted the resident to seek legal advice in respect of such matters. This was appropriate given the legal nature of such a request from the resident. Although such matters were legal in nature, this was a missed opportunity by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about how it would pursue informal interventions in the first instance.
The landlord re-visited the neighbour on 29 March 2023. The landlord noted internally that the neighbours were fasting and were getting up early to eat. They had told the landlord they had tried to be quiet and felt the resident’s reports were impacting their ability to live normally. The landlord re-visited the neighbour again on 4 April 2023 and asked them to be mindful of noise transference.
Following a request from the resident, a community trigger took place. This is an option available to residents as part of the landlord’s ASB policy. It is a process whereby reports of ASB are considered by a multi-agency panel. The outcome of this was communicated to the resident on 5 May 2023. This said as follows:
1. The landlord apologised that there had been gaps in contact from its staff member who had been managing the case.
2. Between 9 to 16 June 2022 over 100 instances of noise had been recorded. However, the noise was not a statutory noise nuisance, nor a breach of tenancy. Therefore, it was not reasonable or proportionate to take enforcement action against the neighbours.
3. The landlord had completed repairs to the neighbour’s internal doors in October 2022.
4. Its contact with the police showed no reports relevant to the matter.
5. The panel concluded that the issues reported had been appropriately managed. It recommended an action plan as follows:
  1. That the ASB case be closed.
  2. That the resident reconsider mediation.
  3. That the resident report any further instances of noise.
Following this, the resident told the landlord on 7 May 2023 that the effect of the noise on her health was “catastrophic”. She explained that she had not experienced noise with other neighbours before and it was making her feel suicidal. She said she had asked for mediation but the neighbour had refused this. We have not been provided with any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of feeling suicidal via a safeguarding referral or making contact with her support worker. The landlord has safeguarding information available on its website. This sets out that the landlord should explain the steps it can take to help safeguard the resident in such circumstances. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s disclosure. This was a missed opportunity to signpost her to further support services.
The resident subsequently submitted a complaint on 9 May 2023 and said as follows:
1. The landlord had treated her mental health as a “joke” and had “ignored, stonewalled and excused” her reports. It had dismissed the seriousness of her complaint. It had failed in its duty of care and it had ignored her protected characteristics. The landlord had discriminated against her and used her mental health as a reason to blame her for being sensitive to noise.
2. The neighbour had refused mediation and had not admitted their part.
3. The noise had not stopped and was getting worse. She could hear shouting, banging, jumping and slamming doors, including in the early hours.
4. She felt she had to move property. She had been “pushed into using tranquillisers” and an increased dose of her medication.
5. She had experienced problems with staff at the council’s ‘property shop’.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was not dated but the evidence shows it was sent in June 2023. It said as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had first reported noise from children in March 2020. There had been a lack of corroborative evidence at the time and such noises were normal household noise. No other tenants in the block had reported noise issues.
2. It had been unable to install noise monitoring equipment earlier due to COVID-19 restrictions. The noise recordings were of doors banging and footfall. This was not classed as statutory noise nuisance.
3. It had visited the neighbour and had repaired their internal doors. It had recommended the neighbours use mats to reduce the sound of footfall.
4. It had offered further noise monitoring equipment and testing sound levels but the resident had declined these. The neighbour had declined mediation, however it would re-offer this.
5. The resident’s concerns had been investigated and addressed in the community trigger response. It acknowledged the resident had requested a review of that outcome.
6. It was sorry that the resident felt the noise complaint had been dismissed. It had spoken to the member of staff involved and read associated notes. Although there had been some gaps in contact, it was satisfied with the actions the staff member had taken in trying to resolve the matter. It could find no evidence that the staff member had conducted themselves inappropriately. The member of staff had since left the team.
7. It would support the resident to look at rehousing options.
This response was an accurate reflection of the steps the landlord had taken in response to the reports of noise. These steps were in line with its ASB and noise policies. Although some options had been declined by the neighbour and resident, it had been appropriate for the landlord to offer and re-offer these. It is clear that the landlord had taken steps not only to try to encourage the neighbours to adapt their behaviour but also to consider that the neighbour’s doors could be contributing to the noise. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns about its staff member seriously and had also supported her in rehousing options as a longer term solution to the issue.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2023. She said as follows:
1. The landlord had ignored the effect of the noise on her health and had closed an ASB case against her neighbour despite the noise continuing. It had not said how it would stop the noise.
2. The landlord’s staff member had failed to keep in regular contact with her and failed to acknowledge her “protected characteristic status”.
3. It was unacceptable that she had to record noise of her neighbours. The recordings obtained were of noise above the legal levels. She said that the neighbour’s needed to change their lifestyle and that some noise was malicious.
4. The landlord had not fully checked the neighbour’s floor insulation and questioned if the landlord had given permission for the neighbour to have laminate flooring.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 25 January 2024. It said as follows:
1. It apologised for the delayed stage 2 complaint response. It said that the resident’s escalation requested had been lost in its system. This was due to a team and area boundary restructure.
2. Its initial complaint response had been delayed. This was due to it asking for various actions to be completed first. It apologised if the resident felt this was not the right approach. It had been concerned about the effect of going through the full complaints process on the resident as she had said she had found it stressful.
3. It had offered mediation but the resident had declined to engage with this.
4. It acknowledged that the situation was effecting the resident. However, it had followed its processes. As there was no evidence of statutory noise nuisance, it could not take any action against the neighbour.
5. It apologised that the resident did not feel it had taken her mental health into consideration. It had provided her with a new neighbourhood officer who was working with her in respect of possible rehousing options. It had started the process for her to downsize and attached a list of possible properties with its complaint response.
6. It had asked for the outcome of the community trigger to be reviewed.
7. It had addressed the resident’s concerns about its staff member at stage 1. It reiterated the action it had taken. In addition, it said it had provided refresher training for staff.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was again reflective of the action it had taken. It explained, in line with its ASB and noise policies that without evidence of statutory noise nuisance, it was unable to take action against the neighbour. However, the landlord said that the resident had refused mediation. This was not supported by the evidence we have been provided with. In addition, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the neighbour’s laminate flooring and her concern that this could be contributing to noise transference.
The landlord has information on its public facing website which says that tenants must apply to the landlord for permission to install laminate flooring. The resident had raised the neighbour’s flooring as a specific concern. Although the landlord spoke to the neighbour about putting mats on the floor, we have not seen any consideration from the landlord about whether it had given permission for the neighbour to have laminate flooring or whether this was potentially contributing to the noise transference. The landlord was aware that over 100 noises had been recording by the monitoring equipment. This supported the resident’s reports. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord sought the input of a surveyor when inspecting the neighbour’s property. This was a missed opportunity for the neighbour’s property to be assessed for any physical or structural issues which may be contributing to noise transference. This would have been a reasonable step for it to have taken given the evidenced noise, the effect on the resident and the ongoing nature of the issue effecting both parties.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been gaps in its communication with the resident and apologised for this.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Despite identifying failures in its communications with the resident, the landlord failed to offer any redress for this. We have not been provided with any evidence of its decision making in respect of this. As the landlord was aware of the significant effect described by the resident, its lack of consideration of redress for its communication failures was not reasonable. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to fully acknowledge the effect of this on her and take steps to put things right.
In summary, our investigation has identified that some of the steps taken by the landlord were reasonable. These were as follows:
1. The landlord followed its ASB and noise policies in how it responded to the reports of noise. It undertook and offered a number of appropriate actions to investigate this.
2. It managed the resident’s expectations in respect of the type of noise evidenced and the limitations of its ability to act.
3. It worked with the environmental protection services and took part in the community trigger process.
4. It allocated a specific member of staff to be the resident’s point of contact throughout.
5. It signposted the resident to seek legal advice when she asked for the neighbour to be evicted.
6. It supported the resident in respect of other housing options.
7. It acknowledged there had been gaps in its communication with the resident.
However, our investigation has identified the following failures of the landlord:
1. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations in response to her request for possession proceedings.
2. It did not respond to the resident’s disclosure that she felt suicidal.
3. It failed to consider redress for the effect of gaps in its communication.
4. It failed to sufficiently consider whether the flooring of the neighbour’s property was contributing to the noise transference despite evidence of noise.
Knowing the significant effect the situation was having on the resident, the landlord’s failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered £300 compensation. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. This sum also reflects the fact that, due to her vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, it will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, it will respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If additional time is needed at either stage it will let the resident know.
The resident submitted her complaint on 9 May 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response was undated but from the evidence this was sent at some point in June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge any delay in its complaint response at this stage.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2023. The landlord did not send its stage 2 response until 25 January 2024, 6 months later. This was significantly outside of its 20 working day response timeframe.
The landlord apologised for this delay and said the escalation requested had been lost in its system. It explained this had been due to the team being restructured and area boundaries changing. It also acknowledged that its stage 1 response had also been delayed. It explained this was due to it asking for various actions to be completed first, including visiting the resident. It apologised if the resident felt this was not the right approach. It had been concerned about the effect of going through the full complaints process on the resident as she had said she had found it stressful.
Although the reason for the landlord’s delay at stage 1 was due to the landlord being well-meaning, we have not been provided with evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident at the time. Nor did the landlord explain why it did not address this within its stage 1 response.
Despite the landlord’s complaint handling being significantly delayed at stage 2 it did not offer any redress for the inconvenience or distress caused to the resident. The landlord’s failure led to delays in the resident being able to being her case to us for investigation. In light of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the effect she had described the case was having on her, the lack of consideration of this and lack of redress was not approved. This amounts to maladministration.
To acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures, we have ordered compensation of £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the Local Council’s consideration of her housing application and the associated banding is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the conduct of council staff in respect of housing allocation is outside our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay a total of £450 compensation to the resident. This is made up as follows:
  1. £300 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s reports of noise.
  2. £150 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.