Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sheffield City Council (202313567)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313567

Sheffield City Council

27 February 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.

Background

  1. The resident was previously a secure tenant but became a shared ownership leaseholder in 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor in a block of 4 properties. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the block. The landlord is aware the resident suffers with his mental health.
  2. The resident reported ASB on around 3 occasions between August and December 2022. The landlord opened an ASB case in December 2022. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 June 2023 after he was unhappy with the handling of the case. He said:
    1. There had been ASB from youths in the communal area and around his block which included intimidating behaviour, drug dealing, spitting, verbal abuse, vandalism, smoking, and bins being stolen/moved.
    2. He wanted the alleged perpetrators warned, or some deterrence installed such as CCTV and/or a door fob entry system.
    3. His mental health had been massively affected. 
  3. The landlord initially closed the complaint at its “problem solving stage” on 6 July 2023. It said it would take a range of further actions (outlined in section e. below). After the resident remained unhappy with the response, the landlord sent its stage 1 response the next day. It did not uphold the complaint but said it had:
    1. Made a referral to the community safety team. But despite repeated attempts to witness youths in the area, it had not witnessed any ASB.
    2. Contacted the local Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who had also patrolled the area. However, the PCSO said “there did not appear to be sustained ongoing youth nuisance.”
    3. Checked the communal door and found the door to be secure. On the one occasion it was not secure, the door was repaired.
    4. Offered the resident a Single Point of Access referral for mental health support.
    5. Agreed an action plan with the resident in a call 4 days earlier. In relation to the alleged ASB it said it would:
      1. Collect diary sheets in 2 weeks.
      2. Continue community safety officer patrols.
      3. Send evidence gathering letters to residents of the block.
      4. Apply for police disclosure for his reported incidents.
      5. Tighten the communal door closing mechanism.
      6. Check the dry store was secure (as the resident had requested it be demolished).
      7. Send a CCTV permission request for personal CCTV.
  4. The resident contacted us on 14 July 2023 and escalated the complaint with the landlord 5 days later. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. It said:
    1. No ASB had been witnessed by community safety officers, PCSO’s, or neighbourhood officers.
    2. It had reviewed diary sheets, but the ASB reports were sporadic and over a 2-year period.
    3. It had not received any ASB reports from other residents in the local area it had written to.
    4. It had asked residents of the block not to prop open the communal door or allow anyone they do not know entry to the block via the intercom.
    5. It would not install a fob system but was obtaining quotes to install a fence.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident submitted diary sheets reporting 6 incidents of youth nuisance between 31 August 2023 and 12 September 2023. He continued to report youths smoking cannabis in the communal area and leaving rubbish in the block in November and December 2023.
  2. The landlord installed a dummy CCTV camera as a deterrent in January 2024. It also put up a metal fence to stop youths using the area as a throughfare/escape route. And said the PCSO had contacted parents of some of the youths and warned them to stay away.
  3. It wrote to the resident on 12 March 2024 and said it would close the ASB case. It said it had installed the fence, which it hoped would resolve the problem.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident raised his complaint with the landlord, he said the situation was “exactly the same” as when it was first reported in 2020. In a phone call with us on 19 February 2025 he said the ASB had been ongoing for the past 13 years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from the 28 June 2022 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). This is taken as the starting point for this investigation. The end date is 7 August 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. During the complaint journey, the resident has told the landlord and this service about the impact the ASB had on his mental health. He described feeling suicidal on a number of occasions. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with the situation, but it is beyond the remit of this service to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/lack of action and his mental health.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports

  1. The landlord defines ASB as “a variety of problems which are capable of causing nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress which could range from minor issues to serious criminal activity.”
  2. The landlord’s policy in use at the time set out its approach to ASB. It said it would:
    1. Provide a victim focused service by assessing the impact on people and tailored support based on individual needs.
    2. Keep in regular contact with victims and witnesses.
    3. Generally use ‘informal’ interventions and give ASB perpetrators time to change their behaviour before escalating a case.
    4. Work in partnership (and coordinate any enforcement) with other organisations and local authority teams to ensure the most appropriate action is taken.
    5. Apply informal non-legal action such as warning letters, meetings, mediation, and acceptable behaviour contracts where appropriate. It may also take certain action which may include family intervention tenancies or restorative justice.
    6. Undertake legal action (which may include possession proceedings) where ‘a serious incident or breach of tenancy has occurred or… continuous and/or escalating incidents which have been not resolved by informal means.
    7. Regularly review ASB cases and close them if the matter is resolved or no further action is possible. It will tell the person who reported the problem it intends to close the case and why.
  3. The landlord’s website says if a resident reports ASB and is concerned that not enough is being done, they can raise an ASB case review, previously known as a ‘community trigger’.
  4. It is not disputed that the type of behaviour reported by the resident will have been a source of distress for him and his partner, particularly as his partner was pregnant for some of the time we have considered in this investigation. However, it is not our role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
  5. In late July/early August 2022 the resident reported youths causing nuisance in the communal bin store and again outside the block the following day. The landlord:
    1. Managed expectations in that it could not take any action without knowing who the alleged perpetrators were.
    2. Referred his reports to its leaseholder team. 

The leaseholder team emailed a few days later and said the resident can either contact the police or send reports directly. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 13 September 2022. It reiterated it could act once provided with information about the youths. It said the police were aware and had added the block to its patrol list. Given the resident had reported 2 incidents of ASB in 2 days, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to open an ASB case in August 2022. While the advice given by the leaseholder team was not incorrect, failing to open an ASB case meant the landlord did not show a victim focused approach. This delayed the start of the investigation with its specialist ASB team, which represents a failing. Apart from a phone call on 13 September 2022, there was little evidence the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident regarding the ASB reports. There was no evidence of further action until 9 December 2022 when the resident reported further youth nuisance in the block. Given the previous reports a few months earlier, it was reasonable the landlord opened an ASB case. Its initial approach was to monitor the case. This was also reasonable as the alleged perpetrators were still unknown. It referred the case to its community safety officers to patrol the area. It also logged a repair for the communal door to check it worked correctly. These were reasonable first steps to take.

  1. Between December 2022 and August 2023, the evidence showed the landlord took the following steps to investigate the ASB allegations:
    1. Regarding diary sheets it:
      1. Sent diary sheets to the resident in January 2023.
      2. Said it needed diary sheets in July 2023 to review incidents recorded to add to evidence file and determine a pattern of behaviour.
      3. Sent more diary sheets on 28 July 2023 as the resident had not provided enough detail for the landlord to act.
      4. Told the resident face to face when he attended the office on 4 August 2023 that it uses diary sheets as part of ASB evidence. It noted the resident said he could not complete diary sheets as it gave him anxiety, could not send in voice notes when ASB was occurring as it gave him anxiety, and the resident refused the suggestion of his partner completing diary sheets on his behalf.
    2. Arranged for community safety officers to patrol at various times (4 times in January 2023, 5 times in May 2023, 3 times in July 2023, and 3 times in August 2023).
    3. Liaised with the Police in May 2023 and July 2023. PCSO’s attended twice in July 2023 and a third time with the landlord in August 2023.
    4. Sent an evidence-gathering letter to residents of the block in July 2023. 
    5. Spoke to neighbours in July 2023 and August 2023 (who did not provide any evidence to support the resident’s reports).
    6. Discussed the case at a neighbourhood action group meeting attended by professionals involved in the case. However, all parties agreed there was no evidence to support ASB claims, and nothing has been witnessed by anyone other than the resident. 
    7. It visited the block on at least 4 occasions in July 2023 and visited again in August 2023 after the stage 2 response.
    8. It visited some addresses of alleged perpetrators with a PCSO on 17 August 2023.

These were all reasonable steps on the part of the landlord to engage with other agencies and use its own resources to try to evidence the ASB that the resident had reported. Despite the investigations undertaken, there was little to no evidence to verify the resident’s reports and link these to the alleged perpetrators.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to adopt a victim focused service assessing risk to residents and offering support accordingly. The landlord evidenced that it reviewed the ASB case and completed risk assessments for the resident on 5 occasions between February 2023 and July 2023. It continued to review the case a further 4 times after the stage 2 complaint response. It also signposted the resident for mental health support in its stage 1 response. And reiterated it could discuss support available to him in its stage 2 response. These were appropriate actions and demonstrated that it attempted to take a victim focused approach as its ASB policy required.
  2. The landlord’s level of contact with the resident after the ASB case was opened demonstrates their adherence to their responsibilities outlined in the ASB policy. The consistent communication shows the landlord acted in line with policy. For instance, the landlord called/attempted to call the resident on a least a monthly basis. It also managed expectations and said it could not take enforcement action on parent’s tenancies with just the first names of youths in May 2023. It updated the resident in person when he visited the landlord’s office in January 2023, August 2023 (twice), September 2023, November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024. And it told him when it closed the ASB case in March 2024. Overall, the landlord maintained open communication with the resident to keep him updated on its investigations. However, the communication could have been better between August and December 2022. And it could have used one of the calls between January and June 2023 to reiterate the importance of completing, and returning the diary sheets.
  3. The resident has suggested the landlord should have done more to deter ASB in and around his block. However, the landlord undertook case reviews on 5 occasions between February and July 2023. Given the lack of evidence of serious and ongoing ASB, there was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the reports or by not taking any deterrent action. In summary, the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy in its response to the resident’s ASB reports. The evidence showed it assessed the risk, conducted appropriate investigations, communicated regularly, worked in partnership with the police, and took informal action against some of the alleged perpetrators. It also communicated its position in relation to legal proceedings to the resident.
  4. After the stage 2 response, the landlord continued to review the case. It then installed a dummy CCTV camera in the communal area and installed a metal fence to prevent youths from loitering round the block in a hidden area. Given the lack of evidence to build an ASB case, the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and used a range of non-legal methods to try and resolve the ASB. Overall the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was good, particularly from December 2022 onwards. However, the delays opening a case in August 2022 and not keeping in contact with the resident between August and December 2022 were minor failings. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure. In line with our internal guidance, £100 compensation is ordered to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the failures identified in this investigation.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should write to the resident to explain how he can apply to access the ASB case review/community trigger route.