Sheffield City Council (202505592)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the property until she purchased the lease in February 2022. She reported communal door entry problems for several years. She also began to report a leak when she was a tenant and that there was antisocial behaviour by a neighbour from 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s reports of communal repairs.
   3. The resident’s reports of leaks from above and related charges.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of communal repairs.
   2. The resident’s reports of leaks from above and related charges.
   3. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s strong record keeping evidenced appropriate handling of multiple ASB cases raised by the resident. It acted within its policy and took appropriate action with risk assessments, action plans, visits and consideration of informal action and partnership working.
6. There were repeated and excessive delays in handling communal repairs. The landlord failed to adequately risk assess door repairs when allocating timescales, meaning there were prolonged periods where the building was insecure. It did not conduct adequate inspections or fully follow up on the actions from its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord failed to act within its repairs policy timeframes in addressing the leaks from above or show consideration for the affect this had on the resident’s vulnerabilities. It made some efforts to put right the situation by removing any related charges to the resident but failed to appropriately consider its compensation policy.
8. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to complaints appropriately. It provided a formal response 7 months after the complaint was made and only after contact from us.

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.

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.

9. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to determine whether the ASB occurred or who was responsible. Rather, we assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received, and whether it followed its policy and good practice.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will investigate all reports of ASB and consider both sides of an incident. It says it will take proportionate action and use informal interventions such as warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts. It will engage in partnership working and regularly review cases. It will close a case when it can take no further action and the ASB is resolved. It will always confirm the closure with the reporter. If it gets further reports, it may start a new case or escalate the previous one.
11. The landlord has provided evidence of ASB cases opened against the neighbour based on the resident’s reports in September 2023, February 2024, May 2024 and August 2025. Throughout these cases, the landlord followed its policies. It took multiple steps to address each issue with the neighbour on every occasion up until the final case. At that point, it noted the neighbour was overdue in moving out but chased a confirmed date for this and advised the resident it would close the case on this basis.
12. The landlord conducted risk assessments shortly after opening each case. In May 2024 the case was open for several months and the landlord clearly assessed evidence and created an action plan. Part of this action plan engaged in partnership working with the dog warden and social services. It showed consideration for appropriate informal action with visits to the neighbour and a tenancy warning issued for the May 2024 case.
13. The landlord carried out multiple visits following case closures to ensure the issue was resolved and agreed each closure with the resident. The landlord took clear and robust action for each report of ASB where there was evidence it could act on. It made reasonable efforts to gain evidence by promptly providing diary sheets to the resident and visiting the communal area during the 2023 and February 2024 cases to investigate reports of dog fouling with follow up checks carried out after addressing the issue with the neighbour in March 2024.
14. In November 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and said the ASB issue was resolved as the neighbour had moved. This was factual albeit it did not account for the resident’s frustration. It would have been resolution focussed for the landlord to take the opportunity to review its ASB handling and confirm why it was satisfied it had acted appropriately. Whilst we understand some information can be sensitive and inappropriate to share, it could have offered further reassurance to the resident on how it had responded to the ASB. This was a shortcoming.
15. Overall, the landlord showed strong record keeping and a robust approach to handle reported ASB. Its communication was reasonable and it worked to set expectations with the resident. There was no maladministration by the landlord in this regard

16. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs, including the property being insecure, within 4 hours. It will attend planned repairs, including external doors and plastering, within 55 working days. It says it will consider the risk to resident’s and its health and safety obligations when deciding a timeframe for the repair.

Communal doors

17. In November 2022 the landlord raised a repair for the back communal door. It said it was jammed and mushrooms were growing out of it. Its records indicate it completed this repair 8 months late but did not show what action it took. Its records have a note of “no access” against the job without stating when or why. This was unreasonable and the landlord had options to gain access through another entrance and attended several other repairs to the same door. The landlord delayed responding to this repair and kept poor records of its actions which likely contributed to that delay.
18. In March 2023 the landlord received a report that vandalism had broken the door entry system and left the area insecure. Although it attended within weeks, it set a 5‑month target. It failed to demonstrate that it assessed risk as per its repairs policy. In May 2023 it received 2 more reports that the back door was jammed again with fire safety concerns also raised. The landlord did not attend until September and October 2023 and still treated the visits as within target, again failing to risk assess albeit it did attend to separate August 2023 communal door repair requests. At that point, repaired the front door closer and the rear door entry system.
19. In January 2024 the landlord raised a repair for a missing door closer and noted the block was insecure. Although its records say it completed this within target, it took 71 working days – this was outside of its repairs policy timeline. This was unreasonable and shows it again failed to assess risk reasonably in allocating this deadline as required by its repairs policy. In June 2024 the resident reported the door closer again, saying it was hanging off and could hit someone. The landlord attended the door closer the same day. Although its records do not confirm what work it completed, the response time was reasonable and indicated it appropriately prioritised the repair on this occasion.
20. Nevertheless, in July 2024 the landlord received further reports that the door was not closing securely. It treated its October 2024 attendance as being within timescale. This was unreasonable and showed a further failure to assess security risk. That same month it also attended a report of mushrooms growing from the back door, apparently treated as an emergency. The regularity of these reports since late 2022 indicates there were unresolved defects. Although the landlord appears to have inspected, it did not raise any repairs. Without an inspection report, it is unclear whether an adequate survey took place.
21. In May 2025 the landlord repaired the door’s security device within a week, showing improved risk assessment of the security issues. Also, it raised a repair that month due to “constant vandalism,” noting the doors were twisted and needed a joiner. It attended within a few weeks which was appropriate. It then inspected in June 2025. However, again, without an inspection report, the outcome to this is unclear.
22. In August 2025 the landlord carried out a temporary fix to the doors and raised an order for a replacement back door. It was appropriate to provide a temporary solution whilst it took steps to resolve the underlying fault. It also informed the resident that any works caused by ASB would not be included in her service charge. This was a reasonable step and in line with its leasehold management policy.
23. In its November 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord said it would replace the door on 13 November 2025. It did so in December 2025 but did not evidence that it carried out promised inspections or that it maintained adequate oversight of ongoing safety concerns. The resident reports that the front door remains insecure and the back door still jams.
24. The landlord has not provided evidence that it kept the resident updated about follow‑on works. It repeatedly failed to prioritise these works despite the stated security and safety concerns and the recurrence of the need for repairs. It failed to conduct adequate inspections and communicate outcomes with the resident. There were excessive delays over at least 3 years and continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident who had to chase updates.

Communal ceiling and paths

25. In October 2024 the resident reported a hole in the communal ceiling, which she believed was caused by vandalism. The landlord did not respond to this despite the resident raising it again in her April 2025 complaint. The landlord carried out the plastering in February 2026. This repair took 16 months to complete. This was an unreasonable and excessive delay and well outside its policy target of 55 working days.
26. In October 2023 the resident raised concerns about moss on a communal path as she said an elderly resident had nearly slipped. The landlord does not appear to have taken any appropriate action in response.
27. In its November 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord said it would inspect the communal area and raise any necessary repairs and feedback timescales to the resident. It said it was aware of a reported incident due to the moss, and would keep the resident updated. The landlord appropriately attended to this repair within 8 working days and removed the moss from nearby flat roofs which it assessed to be the source of the moss on the patio and also cleared downpipes to prevent future build up.

Conclusion

28. The resident raised repeated concerns over several years about serious and persistent defects to the communal doors and shared areas. Despite receiving multiple reports of jammed, insecure or vandalised doors, fire safety concerns, and hazards, the landlord frequently failed to act within its repairs timescales. It did not take a strategic view of recurring issues. It completed several repairs months outside of target timeframes, including an 8‑month delay to a communal door repair and a 16‑month delay for ceiling plastering. The landlord also failed to provide inspection reports or keep the resident updated, leading to prolonged insecurity and inconvenience.
29. The landlord received repeated and consistent reports about the same communal door defects but failed to take an overview of the underlying causes or ensure the building was safe and well‑maintained. Given the cumulative delays, inadequate risk assessments and poor communication, we find maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise, carry out a full inspection of the communal areas, and pay £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse impact on a resident.

What we did not investigate

30. The resident referred to how her living conditions impacted her health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered her vulnerabilities.
31. The resident first reported these repairs while she was a tenant. She purchased the property as a leaseholder in 2022 whilst the matters were outstanding. We acknowledge this history and will refer to it for context. However, the landlord’s obligations changed at the point of purchase, and we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable timeframe. Given the time that has passed, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its impact from the point the resident became a leaseholder in 2022.

What we did investigate

32. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours, routine repairs within 28 working days and planned repairs, including plastering, within 55 working days. It says it will consider the risk to resident’s and its health and safety obligations when deciding a timeframe for the repair. The landlord’s damp and mould policy makes a commitment to tenants and leaseholders to identify damp and mould and risk assess customer vulnerabilities.
33. The landlord does not dispute that it received reports of damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom whilst she was a tenant. The resident told us she first reported this in 2018. This was still outstanding when the resident purchased the property in 2022.
34. The landlord carried out 3 roof repairs between 2022 and May 2024 when it resolved the issue. In 2022 it took 61 working days to attend to 2 slipped slates. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of its planned repairs timeframe.
35. The landlord attended to a leak down the sides of the bedroom windows on the same day in October 2023 and completed minor repairs. This does not appear to have been effective as the resident reported the leak again in December 2023. The landlord failed to resolve this until May 2024. It closed the repair at this point albeit it did not note exactly what works it had completed. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay well outside of its repairs policy timescales.
36. The landlord recorded a ‘no access’ visit in December 2023 on its works order following the reported leak. However, it is unclear if it confirmed an appointment with the resident in advance and she was chasing a resolution during this time. We therefore conclude that the delays during this period were due to failings on the part of the landlord.
37. We understand that tracing leaks can be a diagnostic challenge but, as this had been ongoing for several years, and the landlord only conducted minor repairs up to mid-2024, we have concluded that there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord.
38. In July 2024 the landlord raised a repair for insulated plasterboard around a dormer window but the operative who attended in August 2024 noted he didn’t know where this was required. The landlord failed to raise a further job until November 2024, which it completed 6 months out of time in August 2025. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased the repair, referred to mould growth insider her property and referenced the effect this was having on her asthma. The landlord failed to show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience in chasing a resolution.
39. The resident raised her complaint in April 2025 and, in response, the landlord asked to visit her to diagnose the fault. This was inappropriate as it had already raised works to resolve the leaks. This likely caused the resident further uncertainty and indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. It missed an opportunity to confirm its actions and seemed unaware of its own open works orders. The resident has confirmed this work resolved the issue, though she had to complete internal decorations herself which she was told us caused her time, trouble and inconvenience.
40. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response in November 2025 that, had it completed the necessary repairs within appropriate timescales, it would not have charged her for the works as she would still have been a tenant at the time. The landlord was reasonable in removing the related costs from her service charge. This showed an attempt to put the resident back in the financial position she would have been in had it acted within a reasonable timescale.
41. The landlord’s decision to waive charges was reasonable but insufficient remedy given the wider service failures and impact. It failed to fully resolve the leaks for several years. It did not act within its repairs timeframes. It did not consider its compensation policy as it failed to assess the adverse impact of its failures on the resident and offer compensation in line with its policy, which reflects our remedies guidance. It failed to consider compensation to cover the redecoration of the room that was necessary after the plaster boarding, which its compensation policy allows for. We have therefore found there was maladministration by the landlord. We have made orders for it to apologise and pay compensation of £300. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s policy for failings that had an adverse impact on the resident.

42. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
43. The resident’s partner raised a complaint in October 2024 regarding ASB, but the landlord failed to respond appropriately. The resident raised her complaint in April 2025. Despite circulating this internally, and some communication with the resident, the landlord failed to appropriately respond through its complaints procedure. This led to the resident’s partner raising a further complaint in July 2025 regarding the ASB and communal repairs. Though the landlord responded, it failed to do so appropriately within its complaints procedure.
44. The resident contacted us for support in getting a response from her landlord. We repeatedly chased it and the landlord eventually sent a final response in November 2025. Overall, the landlord failed to send any complaint response for 7 months which caused the resident time and trouble.
45. Although the landlord appropriately apologised for the level of service and the distress and inconvenience this caused, it did not fully put right these failings. Its failure to acknowledge or respond to complaints appropriately is of concern. On this basis, we find there was maladministration and have ordered £150 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for failures that had an adverse impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord held robust ASB records, but it failed to keep adequate repair records. It showed extended delays and did not combine information to give a proper overview of the repairs. Its limited inspection records meant it could not evidence or support many of its decisions. It also failed to log, track, and respond to several complaints, which reduced accountability and left concerns unresolved. These weaknesses reduced transparency and made it harder to manage the resident’s case effectively. The landlord should strengthen its repair record‑keeping and complaint handling to ensure timely action, reliable oversight, and clear evidence of its approach.

Communication

47. The landlord showed generally good communication during its ASB case handling, although it engaged more with the alleged perpetrator than the resident. In most other areas, its communication was poor and the resident had to chase for updates many times. It also ignored several complaints, which reduced confidence in its processes.
48. The landlord needs to strengthen its communications by giving regular updates and offering clear contact points for each case. It should acknowledge all enquiries promptly and explain delays early using plain language. Staff must keep accurate records and ensure consistent, fair engagement with all parties. The landlord should follow the Ombudsman’s Repairing Trust spotlight report and improve its reliability, clarity, and empathy to rebuild trust.