Sheffield City Council (202334268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334268

Sheffield City Council

31 March 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 the resident’s request for rehousing.
2. Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property was a 2-bedroom upper flat within a block where the resident lived with her 2 young children. The landlord is a local authority and has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident moved from the property around 2 October 2023.
The resident has appointed an MP as her representative.

Summary of events

On 1 September 2023 the resident’s MP raised a complaint on her behalf. They told the landlord how antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour had “ruined” the quality of the resident’s life and that of her children. They said:
1. the resident had experienced ASB since she moved into her property – police had been involved with the neighbour but the landlord did not trigger a serious response
2. the resident’s baby was born prematurely due to the impact of the ASB
3. it refused her initial request for rehousing but later accepted it with the same information
4. it did not acknowledge the scale of its failings and impact on the resident – it should offer compensation for the way she was treated over the years.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 September 2023, it said:
1. its response to ASB would depend on the type of report and evidence and it could take action in line with its ASB policies and procedures
2. some ASB cases had not progressed due to a lack of evidence and said previous reports would be referred to if a case reached court
3. the resident had been awarded medical priority
4. its team would carry out case reviews on open cases about the neighbour- for it to see if there were areas of improvement. It listed actions from its case reviews
5. it had made a request for night time monitoring equipment to be installed, to help build evidence to escalate the matter.
The resident’s MP escalated the complaint on her behalf on 18 September 2023. They said the resident eventually gave up reporting ASB due to the landlord’s lack of serious action. They said it was “appalling” that the number of people complaining about the neighbour did not trigger anything further and the landlord should have triggered an ASB case review. They asked what the landlord did after it previously issued a notice seeking possession (NSP) to the neighbour and said it was “astonishing” that a priority rehousing request could be granted due to the impact of ASB but nothing was done about the neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 October 2023. It said it had visited the resident as part of its investigation to understand how it could try and support her. It apologised that it was unable to resolve issues before they had such a “profound impact” on the resident. It said:
1. its policy did not include a trigger for escalation when a number of residents reported ASB. It accepted there had been reports of ASB but some reports did not meet its evidential threshold and/or with those reporting not willing to pursue the incidents
2. it needed evidence to pursue legal action for breach of tenancy and had received evidence of low-level breaches over the years. It had served informal warnings, cautions and NSPs but had been unable to pursue enforcement action
3. it agreed that it could have triggered an ASB case review and apologised that it was not proactive with this
4. previous reports of ASB would form evidence for when a case reached court, despite cases being closed
5. it had requested police information and explained the outcome of this would influence next steps which could include, NSP, or mandatory ground for possession or a referral for Team Around the Person. It acknowledged that this was something it could have done sooner and apologised
6. it made a goodwill payment to support the resident with the costs associated with the move
7. it detailed historic actions from 2018 and said it received no further reports until October 2022. It accepted it could have served another NSP at this point to run for another 12 months and apologised for its error
8. reissuing an NSP may not have resulted in legal action, but the case would have been managed by a different team. It explained how it did not have evidence to act beyond serving an NSP.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said the impact of the ASB on the resident’s mental health was such that an occupational therapist awarded priority rehousing. It explained that it received a referral in January 2022 and the original request was not agreed based on the information provided at that time. That decision was successfully appealed and priority was awarded. It said the case had been complex and it did not think it could have done things differently that would have resulted in possession action but accepted there were errors that may have impacted the length of time the resident remained at the property.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider the complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Within the resident’s complaint she has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her request for rehousing and its decision making surrounding this. She has said the landlord initially declined her request for priority banding, but later changed its decision based on the same information.
Paragraph 42j of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s decision surrounding priority banding was made in its capacity as a local authority. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to look into complaints about the local authority’s housing scheme, its housing allocations, bidding, banding and the housing register. This is because these are processes administered by the local authority and fall within the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for rehousing is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In light of the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has decided that it is appropriate for this Service to refer the resident’s complaint about her request for rehousing directly to the LGSCO. This will be referred following receipt of the resident’s permission.

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to ASB reports from 2018 onwards. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been assessed within this report. However, at times reference may be made to events before September 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint from September 2023) for background purposes.
The resident’s representative has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of ASB had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This includes concerns that the premature birth of the resident’s baby was due to the impact of ASB. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman may consider any general distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in light of her circumstances.
It is noted that concerns have been raised about other residents within the block reporting ASB and the landlord’s handling of these collective reports. It is important to explain that this investigation is limited to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB only. This is because the Ombudsman has not treated the complaint as a group complaint and has not received permission from other residents. As such, this investigation will consider what the landlord did following the resident’s reports of ASB.

Handling of reports of anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s housing and neighbourhoods service booklet sets out the meaning of its tenancy conditions. For nuisance and ASB, it says a resident, must not do anything which is illegal, dangerous or which could cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress to other people. It lists examples of behaviour that could breach this condition as excessive noise, verbal abuse, threatening or violent behaviour, and drug use, amongst other things. It explains that if such conditions are breached a resident could face legal action including eviction.
The landlord’s housing and neighbourhood service: our approach to ASB booklet, says that where someone is suffering ASB it will do all it can to help, it will provide a victim focused service by assessing the impact and tailoring its support based on individual needs. It says it will keep in regular contact with victims throughout the investigation, give advice, support and guidance.
It explains the support it can provide for vulnerable perpetrators to address the underlying cause of behaviour and says this may be the best way to find a lasting solution to the problem. Where such support is not accepted and ASB continues it will take appropriate action. In terms of the action it can take, it explains how:
1. it will utilise the full range of tools and powers available to tackle ASB
2. decide the most appropriate action based on evidence, impact on the victim
3. the best way to achieve a lasting solution
4. the action it takes will be proportionate to the behaviour and circumstances of the case
5. it will aim to use informal intervention to give perpetrators a reasonable amount of time to change their behaviour before escalating a case and where evidence and circumstances justify it, it may take legal action straightaway
It lists its informal action as including warning letters, mediation, acceptable behaviour contracts and breach of tenancy conditions. For legal action, it says it will take such action where it is necessary to resolve the issue and that this may be where a serious incident or breach of tenancy has occurred. It adds that this may be a result of continuous and/or escalating incidents which have not been resolved by informal means.
As mentioned previously, the evidence shows that there were historical ASB issues reported by the resident about the neighbour living within the same block. The neighbour was also a tenant of the landlord. These ASB reports were mainly between 2018 and 2021.
The evidence shows that the landlord opened an ASB case on 22 November 2022. Its notes show it had received reports of ASB including screaming, shouting, and banging about the neighbour. At that time, the landlord said that if it continued to receive reports of ASB with supporting evidence, it would follow its ASB procedure. Given the similar nature of the previous reports, it is unclear why the landlord did not follow its ASB procedure at that time. This was not appropriate.
On 8 February 2023 the resident provided the landlord with diary sheets and a video recording to demonstrate the impact the noise nuisance was having on her young children. At that time, the landlord appropriately conducted a risk assessment and found there was a medium risk with the ASB case requiring bi-monthly reviews. However, there is no evidence to show it considered the support it could provide the resident at that time. This was not appropriate. Following this it continued to solely rely on the resident providing it with diary sheets or incident reports. When none were provided, it closed the case on 21 April 2023. The landlord’s approach did not demonstrate it taking action to achieve a lasting solution as per its policy. This was not appropriate.
On 11 July 2023 the resident reported further ASB which included the neighbour swearing/shouting at night, using drugs in the communal areas and being racially abusive towards her visitor. The following day the landlord issued a noise warning letter to the neighbour and when it spoke to the resident it advised her to contact the police. The landlord then took until 27 July 2023 to conduct a site visit. This timeframe to conduct a site visit in light of the concerns reported to it was not reasonable in the circumstances.
During its site visit the landlord witnessed shouting and swearing from the neighbour’s property. While it appropriately issued a caution on 9 August 2023, there is no evidence to show it provided the resident with support at that time. This was not appropriate.
Throughout September 2023 the landlord was aware the resident was not staying at the property and it was told about the impact of her living conditions on her mental health. However, despite this, there is no evidence to show it offered her support at this time. This was not appropriate.
It is noted that the resident continued to provide diary sheets including video footage in September 2023. The landlord failed to utilise the tools available to tackle ASB at that time. While it may not have been able to use the video footage for legal purposes, it failed to consider the other tools and powers available to it. This was not appropriate.
It took the landlord until its stage 1 response, from 11 September 2023, to consider installing night time monitoring equipment to help it to collect evidence. When considering the similar nature of the repeated issues it was aware of, it took the landlord too long to offer this and it remains unclear whether it installed such equipment. This was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it repeated how a lack of evidence made it difficult for it to take formal action against the neighbour. Had the landlord installed the monitoring equipment sooner, it may have been able to collect evidence to support alternative action. Its failure to consider what it could do sooner was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it accepted it could have taken further non-formal action which included triggering an ASB case review and a referral to its Team Around the Person to discuss the appropriate housing options when there were not enough grounds for legal action. The landlord’s failure to consider what it could do sooner was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of ASB was not appropriate. It failed to consider the full range of tools and powers available to it to tackle ASB despite the historic issues it was aware of. It took until its stage 1 response to consider installing noise monitoring equipment and until its stage 2 response to consider the actions it could have taken when it did not have enough evidence for legal action. While this demonstrates its learning, its lack of action between November 2022 and September 2023, meant it put the onus on the resident to provide it with diary sheets and evidence. This did not demonstrate a victim focused approach or attempts to achieve a lasting solution as per its policy. Despite it conducting a risk assessment, opening/closing ASB cases and witnessing the ASB, there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered the support it could offer the resident while she remained at the property.
The landlord’s handling of ASB amounts to maladministration. Had the landlord not taken action to provide alternative housing for the resident and made some attempt to accept what it could have done, the failing here would have been severe maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately apologised for some of its errors and made some attempt to acknowledge the impact of its service. It said it made a goodwill payment to support the resident with costs associated with the move. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of this payment amount. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said it did not think it could have done things differently that would have resulted in possession action. While it is unclear if the outcome would have been different if it had collected evidence, its stage 2 response did not acknowledge the impact its failure to consider the full range of tools and actions available to it.
Throughout her contact with the landlord, the resident and her MP, told it that the ASB had “ruined her quality of life” and that of her young children. In September 2022, it had awarded medical priority for rehousing and following this it was regularly told of the impact of ASB on her young children. This included video footage of her distressed children and how they had trouble sleeping due to the ASB. While the landlord’s stage 2 response noted the “profound impact” on the resident, its failed to compensate the resident for the distress caused by its handling of ASB. The goodwill payment to support the costs associated with moving is acknowledged. However, the landlord’s claims for money procedure allows for compensation payments for distress. The landlord failed to offer such compensation.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s failings and the impact this would have had on the resident between November 2022 and September 2023. When considering the landlord’s failings a compensation amount of £750 has been decided as appropriate, as the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This amount falls between the maladministration and severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.
It is important to explain that the amount of £750 has been made in attempts to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the request for rehousing is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior director to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident.