Sheffield City Council (202226856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226856

Sheffield City Council

6 June 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to a faulty programmer/thermostat.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. The tenancy commenced in 2018, and the property is a 2-bedroom maisonette.
The landlord advised that it is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which include both mental and physical health issues.
On 23 February 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint to his landlord. He said a faulty thermostat caused the boiler to continually reignite, which had resulted in an increased gas bill.
On 4 April 2023, the resident contacted us because he said the landlord had not responded to his complaint. He said he had contacted the landlord at least 12 times and had also asked his rent officer to send a message internally.
On 16 May 2023, this service contacted the landlord and instructed them to provide a stage 1 complaint response no later than 7 June 2023 regarding a faulty programmer/thermostat, poor communication, and complaint handling.
On 5 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said the complaint was not upheld and:
1. Confirmed that the gas supply was capped off as a safety precaution by the gas supplier due to a leak.
2. Attended the property on 10 January 2023 to carry out a boiler repair; however, access was not provided.
3. Said that the resident contacted it again on 20 February 2023. It had attended the following day and carried out the necessary work.
4. Said that the resident was responded to in a timely manner, repair appointments were scheduled according to policy, and it was not responsible for the increase in energy bills because the resident did not provide access for repairs.
On 23 August 2023, the resident contacted us and said the landlord had not responded to his request to escalate his complaint. On 5 October 2023, this service contacted the landlord and instructed them to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it did not uphold the complaint. The landlord referred to its stage 1 response and said that it was satisfied that the correct process was followed and that the appropriate investigation had been undertaken.
The resident asked this service on 3 January 2024 to investigate because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said that it had not acknowledged that it told him in November 2022 to contact his energy provider regarding his boiler. However, in February 2023 the energy provider had visited the property to fit a smart meter and advised that the issue with the boiler was the landlord’s responsibility. He said the landlord had not taken in to account the excess use in gas due to the landlord giving him false information.
As part of the landlord’s information to us, it advised that it has reviewed the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2 and its subsequent response. It said it had identified failings and that it could have improved upon the service it offered the resident. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that a phone call with the resident that took place on the 17 January 2023, should have been handled better and that despite the unacceptable language from the resident, it was still a situation where he had attempted to report a problem.
2. Recognised that because the call ended with no resolution, the boiler issue remained unresolved from 17 January 2023 until 20 February 2023, when the resident contacted again.
3. Offered £200 compensation in total for the inconvenience and loss of an amenity.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman may only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is so both parties have had a reasonable opportunity to provide their positions and resolve the issues prior to an investigation by this service. It is evident that the resident has concerns including repairs to window locks, communal issues, water ingress and a recent gas service. However, it is not evident that these issues have been investigated at stage 1 and 2 by the landlord. Therefore, these issues are outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint about these issues which could then be brought to the Ombudsman if he is not satisfied at the end of its complaints process.

Repairs to a faulty programmer/thermostat

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This includes water pipes, boilers, and water tanks. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its ‘you and your home’ tenancy conditions guide.
In the landlord’s housing repairs policy, it explains that priority repairs are considered those that seriously affect a resident’s comfort, such as a total loss of heating and hot water. It says priority repairs are responded to within 24 hours. Appointments are not made but the resident is informed of an approximate time of arrival. The policy states that the resident must be home for the appointment and if access is not provided then the repair will be cancelled and is required to be reported again.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident called the landlord 6 times regarding his boiler between 21 March 2022 and 20 February 2023. The landlord’s records show that it took the following action:
1. On 21 March 2022, it recorded a report from the resident of no heating or hot water but said it was cancelled on the same day.
2. On 15 July 2022, following a gas safety inspection, the resident reported no heating or hot water. It attended the same day and cleared the fault.
3. On 15 November 2022, the resident reported no heating or hot water. It attended the next day, but upon arrival, the resident informed the engineer that he was unaware of the call out and that the engineer was not required.
4. On 9 January 2023, the resident reported no heating and hot water because the gas supplier capped the supply due to boiler fumes. It attended the following day; however, access was not provided.
5. On 17 January 2023, the resident phoned; however, its call operator was unclear of the reason for the resident’s call. It is noted that this call became difficult, and the call was terminated.
6. On 20 February 2023, the resident phoned and said that the gas supplier had now attended and had fitted a smart meter. Further, he said that the boiler thermostat was losing connection and as a result the boiler kept reigniting. It attended the next day and replaced a faulty programmer unit and completed pipework repairs.
The landlord’s evidence suggests that it responded to the repair requests in line with its policy. It attended appointments within its stipulated timescales, left a calling card, which detailed how to re-arrange the appointment when access was not provided. It also kept detailed records regarding the repair appointments.
Within the resident’s complaint, he said that the landlord provided inaccurate information in November 2022, which was to contact the gas supplier with regards to the problem with the boiler. He said as a result of this information his gas bill was higher. In conducting our investigations, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. In that regard, we are unable to find evidence of excessive utility bills as the reports to the landlord have been recorded as a lack of heating or hot water. The first report of an issue with the boiler reigniting and resulting in the boiler remaining on was evidenced on 20 February 2023 and the work required completed on 21 February 2023.
Further, the landlord’s attempted access for boiler repairs in November 2022 and January 2023, must be considered as this may have resulted in any repairs required identified and remedied. However, the landlord has not commented upon this within the complaint responses or sought to obtain further information from the resident regarding this. This is a missed opportunity for the landlord to respond and understand the residents’ concerns and resolve this element of the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord said that the residents call on 17 January 2023, was terminated without a resolution because of unreasonable behaviour from the resident. While it is the landlord’s decision on how to manage unreasonable behaviour in line with its policies, the failed appointment on 10 January 2023 would have given a good insight into the reason for the resident’s call. With the resident’s vulnerabilities in mind, it would have been appropriate to have escalated the matter or a call back attempted. On this occasion, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s contact appropriately.
The landlord contacted this service following the internal complaints process and said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged a failure with regards to the resident’s contact on 17 January 2023 and said if the call had been handled better the repair could have been remedied sooner. As such, it felt that it had not offered an apology or proportionate compensation. The landlord calculated that the service failure spanned a period from 10 January 2023 to 20 February 2023 and calculated an average utility usage of £25 per week for 6-weeks, which equates to £150. It has also offered a further £50 for the period of time that the resident was unable to get his boiler on.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess if the resident’s complaints were remedied fairly in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has subsequently acknowledged that redress is required for the failings it has since acknowledged and has offered £200 compensation. This level of compensation is in keeping with our remedies guidance and we would have found reasonable redress, but we have considered that the landlord made the revised compensation offer after its stage 2 final response. It should not take a resident to escalate their complaint to this service for a landlord to act. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
Given the failings identified, a finding of service failure has been made. While the landlord’s offer has not been accepted as reasonable redress, we have made a matching order for £200 compensation on the same basis as the issues identified by the landlord.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a problem solving, investigation, and review stage complaints process. It would attempt to resolve a complaint at the problem-solving stage within 3 working days. When unable to achieve this, it would provide a response at the investigation stage within 28 calendar days. Its policy had no listed response time for the review stage.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords. The Code, 1 April 2022, required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord has updated its complaints policy and procedures and now complies with the 1 April 2024 statutory Code.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 February 2023, the landlord said it called and wrote to the resident to follow this up but ultimately the case was closed at the problem-solving stage. The resident asked us to escalate his complaint on 4 April 2023 because he said despite calling the landlord and asking his rents officer to intervene, he had no response. On 15 May 2023, we wrote to the landlord and instructed it to provide its stage 1 response no later than 7 June 2023. This should not have been necessary and is unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2023, which was 37 days after the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy of 28 days.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the late response within its stage 1 complaint response and therefore did not identify learning or actions it would take to prevent a similar situation happening again, this was not appropriate.
Further, the resident experienced similar again in attempting to escalate his complaint to a stage 2. On 5 October 2023, we wrote to the landlord and instructed it to provide its stage 2 response. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord’s review of the complaint following the end of the internal complaints process, identified failures and offered redress for the resident for complaint handling failures. The landlord stated it wanted to apologise to the resident and proposed compensation for the failures of £100. While this acknowledgement was late in the process, this demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to learn from its outcomes, be fair and put things right.
As explained earlier in this report, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for a failing which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a faulty thermostat/programmer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total compensation amount of £300 as offered post internal complaints process.
Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.