Salix Homes Limited (202338063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338063

Salix Homes Limited

19 September 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 handling of the:
1. Resident’s concerns about vehicles obstructing emergency access to the block.
2. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block of flats. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The block has a secure car park, and residents must register their vehicle with the landlord to park there.
The resident’s local ward councillor contacted the landlord on his behalf on 12 March 2023. They asked the landlord if it could use CCTV footage to assist with deterrent or enforcement action against residents causing parking obstructions.
The resident also raised enquiries between 17 March 2023 and 29 March 2023 regarding residents parking inconsiderately in restricted areas of the car park. He provided photographs of vehicles parked in the emergency access areas on various dates and asked if the landlord was using CCTV to monitor the situation and take enforcement action.
On 2 April 2023 the resident expressed further dissatisfaction about the matter and that he felt the landlord was not taking residents’ safety seriously. He said:
1. Failure to ensure the emergency access areas were clear of obstructions for fire and ambulance services posed a serious safety risk to the residents.
2. The landlord should conduct a thorough investigation and consider implementing measures such as new policies and procedures, training for staff and enforcing penalties for non-compliance.
The landlord wrote to residents at the block on 4 May 2023. It advised them against parking their vehicles within the yellow hatched restricted areas. It explained the area is intended to give access to emergency vehicles 24 hours a day.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 November 2023. He said the parking obstructions continued to pose significant threats to the safety of all residents and the landlord’s management procedures were not working. He said the landlord had not provided an update as promised.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2023. It said it had addressed the parking issues appropriately by writing to all residents and it had also written separately to those it had identified as parking incorrectly. The landlord also assured the resident it works very closely with the fire and rescue services and acts upon government advice to ensure it takes all the necessary measures to maintain resident safety. It said the responsible housing officer would also be undertaking regular block inspections and monitor the situation.
Following the stage 1 response the landlord sent an urgent notice to the residents of the block. It warned that it would treat continued parking in restricted areas of the car park as a breach of tenancy. It also identified cars parked inappropriately during its inspection on 7 December 2023. The landlord noted it would conduct further investigation to identify the responsible parties.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 17 December 2023. He complained that the landlord did not address all the issues in its original complaint response. He asked the landlord to implement a more proactive approach to managing the issue, such as regular out of hours inspections of car parks (in person and via CCTV), increased signage, and enforcement action.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 19 January 2024. It did not uphold the complaint. It acknowledged that the stage 1 response did not cover all the issues raised by the resident. It apologised for the error and assured the resident it would discuss this with the responsible staff for improvement.

Post complaint events

Following the completion of the complaints procedure the landlord did the following:
1. Continued internal investigation through CCTV to identify owners of cars parking in yellow marked areas of the car park.
2. Put up warning signs in the car park on 15 March 2024.
3. Issued tenancy warning letters to residents and warned its staff against parking in restricted areas of the car park.
4. Submitted a report to its customer committee on 2 July 2024 which included a proposal to:
  1. Implement a new vehicle registration and car park policy.
  2. Design a pilot scheme which would help it manage the limited car park spaces in a fair manner.
5. It sent a further warning letter to residents of the block (2 July 2024) that it would continue to act against those who did not comply with the parking advice.
The landlord has shared a copy of its updated vehicle registration and car park management policy (version 4 issued February 2025). This includes the management of the car park to ensure residents do not park in or block areas designated for emergency access.
During a telephone conversation with the resident on 9 September 2025, he advised us the parking situation had improved but the issue is ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said parking issues had been ongoing for a decade. However, the evidence suggests he did not pursue the matter as a formal complaint with the landlord until March 2023. We are unable to consider historical events. Therefore, our investigation focusses on events from March 2023 onwards as this was when the resident raised a formal complaint on the matter.
We acknowledge receipt of photographic evidence which the resident has provided us to assist with our investigation. It is important to clarify that our role is not to ascertain whether any parking breaches occurred or not, or who is responsible. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded to such reports in the required period and to assess whether it has followed its policies and procedure, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Resident’s concerns about vehicles obstructing emergency access to the block

The landlord’s vehicle registration and car park management policy (version 3 effective June 2019) states that:
1. Tenants with vehicles have a responsibility to ensure their vehicle does not cause a nuisance to others or breach the terms of the tenancy agreement or any other relevant legislation.
2. It will not allow irresponsible vehicle owners to keep vehicles on its property, and they will forfeit any right or permission to continue to use the car park.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states it will:
1. Acknowledge all reports of potential tenancy breaches within 1 working day.
2. Provide all customers with an action plan of how it intends to address the issue.
3. Update all customers regularly on how their case is progressing.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will endeavour to apply a suitable remedy at an early stage when service failures occur. It will apologise for service failures and offer a gesture of goodwill payment in recognition of the time, trouble or inconvenience caused by its actions, or lack of action.
The landlord’s car park management policy does not specifically set out how it would deal with residents parking in restricted areas (yellow marked bays) of the car park. It said it addressed the matter as a tenancy management issue.
The landlord and the resident exchanged some emails in March and April 2023 after he reported concerns about vehicles obstructing emergency access points. The responsible officer contacted the resident by phone, and they assured him they were reviewing a list of vehicles identified to determine the owners. They also responded to the resident’s reports about staff parking in the restricted areas and they assured the resident that they had contacted the relevant managers to warn their staff.
However, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s enquiry of 3 April 2023, where he asked for specific measures to tackle the parking issue. This included implementing new policies and procedures, retraining staff, and enforcing penalties for non-compliance. The landlord assured the resident in an email dated 6 April 2023 that it would update him on its investigation the following week, but we have not seen evidence of this.
It was appropriate the landlord wrote to residents of the block on 4 May 2023. It advised against parking unreasonably and asked residents to provide information to assist with identifying those who were not following the parking advice. However, the resident previously provided photographic evidence of vehicles being parked incorrectly, and the landlord had not updated him on its investigation. It had also not responded to his query about whether it used its CCTV to monitor and enforce parking in the car park, rather than relying on residents to provide evidence.
From the records seen, the resident did not revisit this matter until November 2023 when he sent further photographic evidence and subsequently raised a formal complaint. He complained that the landlord failed to provide an update on the issues he had raised in March 2023 and that the parking obstruction continued to cause a safety concern.
There is evidence of some learning on the landlord’s part. It set out the steps it would take to monitor the parking issues in its complaint responses, and it acted on some of the resident’s suggestions. It advised the resident that:
1. Its caretaking team, the responsible housing officer and first response teams would monitor the situation and report any vehicles restricting access to the block.
2. It would take steps to trace the owners of the vehicles and follow up with them.
3. It had made staff aware they must not park in the restricted areas.
4. It would arrange for additional signage to be displayed reminding residents of the importance of keeping emergency access points clear.
5. It was in the process of undertaking a review of its vehicle registration and car park management policy and would consider the resident’s comments and feedback.
While we acknowledge the steps taken by the landlord, there was a delay of approximately 8 months in updating the resident on these measures. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and the impact on the resident throughout its handling of the case. The landlord had an opportunity to address this when the resident referred to the enquiry raised by his local councillor on 12 March 2023. It responded in its stage 2 response that it had no record of the correspondence, thereby missing an opportunity to put things right. This caused the resident to raise further concerns about the landlord’s record keeping in his post complaint correspondence.
The evidence shows the landlord actively monitored the parking situation at the block from December 2023 through regular inspections and the use of CCTV. It sent warning letters to the responsible individuals identified. An example is a pre-warning letter it sent to an occupant of the block on 5 December 2023 warning them to ensure that their visitors park considerably. The letter indicated it had written to them previously. The landlord warned them it would issue a formal tenancy warning and remove their car park access for 6 months if they failed to comply. This shows the landlord had committed to the actions agreed and was taking reasonable steps to enforce responsible parking in the car park.
We have seen from the evidence that the landlord has continued to conduct block inspections and issued further tenancy warnings accordingly. The evidence also shows it had implemented a new policy as recommended by the resident.
However, we have found service failure due to the landlord’s initial delay in addressing the resident’s enquiry in line with its tenancy management policy. To address this, we have awarded the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is line with our remedies guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failures and had not tried to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints handling policy states a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by its staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident, group of residents or another interested party.
The landlord will attempt to resolve a complaint at the point of contact using its normal working practices to resolve any concerns quickly and effectively. It will let the resident know what it will do, when they should expect it to be done and explain reasons for any delays. Where attempts to resolve complaints at point of contact are not sufficient it will proceed to its formal complaints process.
It will aim to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and:
1. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
3. Notify residents where there is a delay and advise the revised date for completion.
4. Advise which component parts of the complaint it had upheld or not upheld.
The policy also states the landlord will deal with MP and local councillor enquiries raised on behalf of residents outside its formal complaints procedure.
The resident’s email of 3 April 2023 was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of parking issues at the block. We note the landlord tried to resolve the matter at the point of contact, in line with its complaints policy. However, it would have been appropriate to address it under its complaints policy, because the resident had raised similar concerns in various emails in March 2023. The landlord contacted him on 17 March 2023 to discuss his concerns, but it is evident the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome. Therefore, it was a failing on the landlord’s part for not addressing this under its complaints policy. This caused the resident time and trouble as he had to raise another complaint on the matter months later.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint raised on 19 November 2023 in line with its complaints policy. It also responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord sent the response by post and a follow up copy by email when the resident reported a delay in receiving the posted response letter. This was appropriate.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 17 December 2023 which the landlord also acknowledged promptly. The landlord responded to the complaint 18 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was a slight delay of 3 working days outside the timeframe in its complaints policy. The landlord advised the resident of the expected response date from the outset. This was appropriate. However, while there was no evidence of a significant impact to the resident, due to the delays, it would have been reasonable to offer an apology for any inconvenience caused.
The landlord acknowledged it failed to address all the points raised in its stage 1 response. Examples were the resident’s request for a policy review and the details of the “responsible person” as referred to under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The landlord addressed the outstanding issues in the stage 2 response and apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord also assured the resident that it would provide feedback to the complaints staff for future improvement. However, the landlord made an overall decision that the complaint was not upheld, failing to uphold the parts of the complaints where it found failures. This was not in line with its complaints policy.
We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. This was due to its failure to:
1. Address the resident’s complaint raised in April 2023.
2. Uphold aspects of the complaint handling where it identified service failures.
To address this, we have awarded £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is line with our remedies guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and had not tried to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about vehicles obstructing the emergency access to the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident a total of £150 made up of:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the parking issues.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience due to its handling of the complaints.
The landlord must, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s complaints and its communication based on our findings. It must share any learning with us and the relevant staff within 8 weeks.