Sheffield City Council (202420198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420198

Sheffield City Council

29 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the cost of a lock change, to clean and clear his property, and the required method of payment.

Background

2. The resident has been a sole secure tenant of the landlord since 2017. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The resident shared with the landlord that he lives with borderline personality disorder, attention deficit, and hyperactivity disorder with autistic tendencies. He explained that he struggled to look after himself and the condition of his flat as his mental health worsened when his care leavers package ended and COVID-19 started.
3. The landlord arranged a gas service on 13 October 2023. The gas engineer was unable to complete the service due to the state of the flat and therefore capped the gas until it could be serviced. The landlord and resident discussed the local authority’s Environmental Health team (EH) coming to ‘clean and clear’ the flat. This was completed in November 2023. The landlord also visited the resident to complete a lock change on 30 November 2023. It agreed with the resident at the time that it would recharge him for these works.
4. The landlord wrote to the resident on several occasions to pursue payment for the works. As it had not received any payments, it referred the debt to a collection agency. They passed this back to the landlord after no payment. The landlord wrote to the resident threatening legal action. The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 July 2024. He said he:
   1. Was in crisis and raised questions about his mental capacity at the time to give consent for an immediate payment.
   2. Believed the landlord should classify the recharges as service charges and add this to his rent account.
   3. Would contact media outlets if the landlord remained inflexible and asked for the landlord’s legal and press team’s contact details.
   4. Wanted the landlord to halt legal action.
5. The landlord said in its complaint acknowledgement it would halt legal action until the complaint was resolved. It sent its stage 1 response on 17 July 2024. It stated the resident had 2 outstanding invoices. In line with his tenancy agreement the landlord recharged the resident. It informed residents about recharges on its repairs line and its online booking service. However, as it recognised the resident’s position, it would be willing to allow payments over 24-months rather than the standard 12-months.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 July 2024. He said the landlord did not address:
   1. His concerns he was impaired in consenting to any financial decisions.
   2. Whether it could classify the recharges as a service charge.
   3. That he wanted to have the legal and press team’s contact details.
7. The landlord sent its final response letter on 2 August 2024. It said it appreciated the resident’s mental health issues at the time may have meant he felt he was incapable of giving consent. However, the tenancy agreement gave it the right to recharge. It said it had no record that the resident needed consideration under the Equality Act. As rechargeable repairs are not services provided by the council, they cannot define them as service charges.
8. The resident brought his complaint to us, as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling. As a resolution he would like it to write the debt off.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation 

9. In the complaint, the resident asserted the landlord recharged him while he was in a severely impaired mental state. The resident said this raised concerns about his ability to consent to the recharges. We are not qualified to assess the resident’s mental health or how this affected his ability to make decisions about recharges. However, we can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
10. It is our position any dissatisfaction with a landlord’s service (or lack of) should be raised within 12-months. In our view, this is a reasonable time in which, the landlord may be able to fairly consider the complaint and draw on accurate and readily available records. We recognise the resident reported trying to get help for around 3 years prior to this assessment period.
11. This was over 12-months before the resident raised this complaint in July 2024, and it was not formally raised as part of it, so the landlord was not given the opportunity to formally respond. As such, this is out of the scope of this investigation. This investigation has focussed on the events in the 12-months leading to the resident’s complaint, and the subsequent events up until the time of the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the cost of a lock change, to clean and clear his property, and the required method of payment.

12. The landlord recharged the resident a total of £1,655.73 for costs incurred from:
    1. The EH clean and clear visit on 27 November 2023 – £1,445.02.
    2. A lock change it carried out on 30 November 2023 – £210.71.
13. It is not disputed that the work was carried out.
14. The signed tenancy agreement confirmed the resident received a copy of the You and Your Home leaflet. This explains the tenancy conditions and that the resident is responsible for:
    1. Looking after the flat.
    2. Disposing of household rubbish in a safe, appropriate way. The landlord will charge the resident the cost of removing any rubbish incorrectly disposed of.
    3. The safe keeping of keys. If the resident loses keys the landlord will charge them for a lock change.
15. The landlord’s recharge policy confirms it recharges residents for work it completes which are not due to normal wear and tear, or as part of any renewal or additional investment work.
16. As such the landlord acted in line with its procedure and the tenancy agreement when it recharged the resident.
17. As previously mentioned, we cannot determine whether the resident had capacity at the time of the recharged work, and we note we have not seen evidence to confirm he was not capable of making decisions. However, we will assess whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
18. The landlord attended the resident’s flat on Friday 13 October 2023. The following Monday the resident and landlord emailed each other regarding getting EH to quote for the clean and clear.
19. There were a lot of emails sent during this period. The landlord responded, often the same day, updating the resident as fully as it could.
20. The resident said he was concerned about whether it was realistic to be able to pay for the work as he was on benefits. Later saying he was hyper fixated on the cost of the work. We are satisfied this means the resident recognised this was his cost to bear, whether this was to be paid directly by him to EH or recharged via the landlord. The landlord knew this was an area of concern for him.
21. The local officer recognised the resident’s situation and the difficulties he was experiencing. The local officer made referrals to different agencies on behalf of the resident to provide him with additional support. This was positive and progressive.
22. Also, in agreement with the resident, the local officer approached the landlord for a contribution toward the clean and clear costs. The landlord gave 50% of the total (£1,415). This was a generous offer from the landlord and demonstrated its support for the resident in covering half of the cost.
23. When the landlord advised the resident of the cost of the clean and clear recharge, he said he did not have an option. He was willing to contribute but was worried as, due to his mental health, he could not budget. The landlord advised the resident twice that it would collect the recharges empathetically. It might have been reasonable for it to have explained how it would seek to do this at the time.
24. The landlord arranged for the resident’s flat to be cleaned and cleared, serviced the gas, paid for 50% of the clean and clear charge, referred to support agencies, and provided the resident with responses to emails in a progressive and timely manner. We have seen the local officer managed the situation with sincere concern for the resident. There appeared to be a mutually respectful relationship between them. The local officer even provided him with an item of their own clothing as EH had disposed of this in error.
25. The resident advised us that EH also disposed of his front door key which is why he needed the lock change on 30 November 2023. The resident sent the landlord an email that day asserting the key was missing. In this email, he did not explicitly say it was EH who threw it away. We are aware, however, that the resident signed a disclaimer accepting that EH would dispose of most of his personal belongings. We cannot determine if EH disposed of the key but if it did, the disclaimer meant it could not be held responsible for this.
26. The lock change circumnavigated the landlord’s usual repair process. The local officer visited the resident and identified necessary repairs. The resident emailed the local officer confirming the repairs, including the lock change. The local officer then emailed the repairs team, who seemingly called the resident to arrange an appointment for that evening.
27. The landlord in its stage 1 response said it had messages regarding recharges on its repairs line and its online booking service. Neither of which the resident used. Therefore, we have not seen evidence the resident was explicitly told this would be a recharge, aside from when he signed the tenancy agreement in 2017. This theoretically said this would be a recharge. However, we recognise this was in line with the tenancy agreement.
28. Both invoices state the payment was due. While we recognise this is standard practice, it was in contradiction to the local officer’s assurances that the clean and clear payment collection would be empathetically done. This was unreasonable from the landlord and the resident reported it exacerbated his distress.
29. The resident had advised the landlord he was concerned about his ability to pay and could not budget. He also had previously described experiencing task paralysis. It is likely receiving invoices saying payment is due now would be overwhelming for the resident.
30. We have reviewed the invoices and have noted that they included a statement which encouraged the resident to make contact if he had difficulty paying. We have not seen any evidence the resident did this, and we recognise due to his task paralysis, he was not likely to. We note the local officer attempted to contact the resident concerning different matters on 8 December 2023 and 16 January 2024. We have not seen the resident responded.
31. In July 2024, prior to raising his complaint, the resident showed a willingness to pay via direct deductions from his benefits. The landlord could not agree to this but offered to collect the debt via a direct debit. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered for the resident to pay via direct debit over 24 months, not the usual 12. It also provided the resident with a number to call to discuss alternatives. This was positive and resolution focused. It gave the resident a method which could be more manageable.
32. The resident was very clear about his life circumstances and the impact of these on his ability to cope. He expressed the alarm and emotional distress he experienced due to the landlord’s actions. While we recognise this, we must assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
33. We have seen the landlord positively managed the clean and clear. Once completed, despite being aware of the resident’s circumstances, it did not initially manage the collection of this recharge empathetically, as promised. It was a shame it took the complaints process for the landlord to do this, and we recognise this caused the resident further distress. Nevertheless, the landlord did make appropriate repayment suggestions and gave the resident the opportunity to discuss further alternatives to suit his circumstance.
34. In accordance with the Scheme we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the cost of the lock change, to clean and clear his property, or the required method of payment.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident for the cost of a lock change, to clean and clear his property, or the required method of payment.

Recommendation

36. We recommend the landlord visit the resident to discuss repayment options and assess whether it can offer any additional support.