Salix Homes Limited (202451129)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of the block. The resident has several vulnerabilities which the landlord was aware of which include both mental and physical medical conditions. There is a history of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports made by the resident about 2 neighbours.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. ASB reports
   2. concerns about staff conduct
   3. complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the ASB reports.
4. We found service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. concerns about staff conduct
   2. complaint

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

Summary of reasons

ASB Reports

5. The landlord repeatedly failed in its communication with the resident. It did not follow through on the action plans it had set up or maintain a victim centred approach with the resident.

Staff conduct

6. The landlord initially failed to give the resident a fair opportunity to set out their position. It suspended any investigation into the resident’s concerns for around 2 months, which went against its complaint policy.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord told the resident his complaint was excluded because of them sending a solicitor letter about possible legal action. This went against the criteria in its complaint policy and there was no valid reason to exclude the resident’s complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident’s complaint relates to how the landlord handled his ASB reports. He said these issues go back several years. To ensure fairness to both parties, we focused on the 12 months before the resident raised his formal complaint. While we considered the history for context, our assessment covers the period from March 2024 to June 2025 (the date of the stage 2 complaint response).

What we did investigate

9. On 12 March 2024 the resident reported being a victim of ASB and told the landlord he had contacted the police. He said his neighbour had vandalised his property. Between 12 March and 14 March 2024, the landlord interviewed him, completed a risk assessment, and agreed an action plan. The landlord also explained what support was available. These steps met its ASB policy, which requires an interview and action plan within 7 working days of the report.
10. The landlord closed the case on 15 April 2024 after the resident said he no longer wanted to use the ASB process. This was because the police had resolved the matter. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed the action plan, contacted the neighbour, or kept in regular touch between 15 March and 15 April 2024. This did not follow its own policy to tackle ASB in a way that is fair and transparent and caused the resident distress.
11. The resident reported a new case of ASB on 23 June 2024. The landlord initially followed its policy and interviewed the resident, completed a risk assessment, discussed support options and created an action plan. However, there is no evidence of contact with the resident after 24 June 2024 until 31 July 2024. This was unreasonable and did not reflect its commitment to establish a pattern of regular contact to build trust and rapport with the victim. This added to the resident’s distress.
12. The landlord contacted the resident 3 times between 2 August and 1 November 2024, then closed the case because the police took no further action and no new ASB reports were made. However, the landlord’s lack of regular communication in this period continued to highlight its failure to establish a pattern of regular contact. The resident was not kept updated on progress and developments during this period. The landlord also failed to update its risk assessment and did not liaise with the police in a timely way. These failings added to the distress already felt by the resident.
13. The resident reported a concern about loud music on 31 August 2024, and the landlord sent its Out of Hours team to investigate. The landlord closed the case the same day as no evidence was found when it arrived. This did not follow its ASB policy as no interview with the resident was conducted, no risk assessment was completed, and no action plan was provided. This further heightened the distress felt by the resident.
14. On 30 January 2025 the resident reported new ASB involving harassment and obscene language. The landlord completed a risk assessment, interviewed the resident on 3 February 2025, discussed allegations and support options, and referred him for extra help. A follow-up meeting with 2 staff, including a manager, was set for 12 February 2025. These steps met policy and showed the landlord took the concerns seriously.
15. After a further meeting on 12 February 2025, the landlord paused ASB action until 7 April 2025 while consulting its solicitor about the resident’s behaviour, which led to a tenancy warning. While the landlord can act against a resident, this should not stop it supporting them as an ASB victim. Its policy promises a ‘victim-centred approach’, but the landlord failed to provide support, update the risk assessment, or agree an action plan. This added to the resident’s distress.
16. On 7 April 2025 the landlord met the resident again, discussed ongoing ASB, and created a new risk assessment and action plan. It also contacted agencies, including the police, for more information. These steps were reasonable and in line with policy.
17. Between April and June 2025 the landlord kept in regular contact, reviewed diary sheets, updated the resident, and worked with the police. It tried to gather evidence such as CCTV and interviewed alleged perpetrators. It closed the cases in June 2025: one after resolving a parking issue, the other after warning a neighbour. These actions were reasonable and followed policy.
18. The resident said he felt unsupported because the landlord did not consider his vulnerabilities, such as mental health conditions. The evidence shows the landlord noted these in initial risk assessments, discussed support options, and contacted other agencies. These early steps were positive, but after that the landlord failed to keep regular contact or update risk assessments. This was a missed opportunity to tailor its response to the resident’s circumstances as the case evolved.
19. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord recognised some failings and apologised to the resident. We do not consider an apology goes far enough to recognise the failings we have identified. In this case we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused which is in line with our remedies guidance.

What we did not investigate

20. We do not decide if staff conduct was poor. Our role is to check how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns and whether it followed its policy and good practice in the circumstances of this case.

What we did investigate

21. On 18 February 2025 the resident asked to meet the landlord’s CEO about 2 staff members’ conduct. The landlord refused, saying it was reviewing the resident’s behaviour at the meeting. On 21 February 2025, the resident made a formal complaint, but the landlord delayed investigating until April 2025, citing legal discussions. This was unfair and went against its complaint policy which says it will give residents a fair opportunity to set out their position. This caused the resident distress.
22. When the landlord accepted the complaint, it investigated thoroughly. It reviewed meeting notes, interviewed staff, and responded to each point. It concluded staff acted fairly. While the resident was disappointed, the landlord followed its policy and gave him a fair chance to present his case.
23. The time taken to investigate the complaint was a service failure that caused some distress but did not change the overall outcome for the resident. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 to recognise the impact of its failings. This is in line with our guidance on remedies.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy allows it to exclude a complaint only if legal proceedings have started, meaning a claim form and particulars have been filed at court. In this case, the landlord excluded the resident’s complaint after its solicitor sent a letter about “possible legal action”. This did not meet the policy definition, so there was no valid reason to reject the complaint in February 2025 or delay handling it until April. This was unfair and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process which aligns with our Complaint Handling Code: acknowledge within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. It responded to stage 1 after 11 working days but informed the resident of the delay, which is allowed under its complaint policy. The stage 2 response was sent on time.
26. As the failing here is the same as the one recognised in the complaint about staff conduct, we do not consider it fair to offer any further compensation for this. However, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate. It was able to provide clear records of its actions and communication with both the resident and other agencies. This meant it could properly investigate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

28. There was a lack of regular communication with the resident about the ASB reports, despite this being part of its ASB policy. This contributed to the resident feeling unsupported during a distressing time. The landlord must look at ways to ensure it sets up a tailored communication plan that takes account of all the circumstances in a case.