Salix Homes Limited (202530781)

Case ID	202530781
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Salix Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

The resident moved via a mutual exchange process. When she moved into the property, she found issues which she thought the landlord should have told her about prior to moving in. She raised a complaint about its lack of transparency. The resident lives at the property with her family, including a young child and a child with respiratory issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s communication around the condition of the property during a mutual exchange and the associated repairs.
2. The handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication around the condition of the property during a mutual exchange and the associated repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication around the condition of the property during a mutual exchange and the associated repairs.

The landlord followed its mutual exchange policy. When it became aware of issues, it raised the necessary repairs. While there were some delays in the handling of the pest issue, it apologised, offered compensation, and identified the learning it had undertaken.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As a finding of reasonable redress is made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the compensation offered if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 August 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint. The key points were as follows: She had moved into the property via mutual exchange, but the landlord had not informed her of any issues within the property prior to moving in. She did not think the landlord had inspected the property and had found evidence of pests “everywhere.” She had paid herself for pest control to attend. The families’ belongings had been ruined as a result, and it had caused emotional damage. She asked the landlord to resolve the issues in the property.
2 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: It understood the resident was unhappy about it not telling her about repair and rodent issues prior to moving into the property. The resident had completed the mutual exchange application on 18 May 2025 following which the surveyor had inspected the property on 5 June 2025. The surveyor noted the property was in good condition and did not find any repairs. The resident noted on the application form she had visited the property, was aware of its condition and accepted it in the condition it was in. Shortly before the resident moved in a pest issue was reported to the landlord and it had asked its contractor to attend. This had overlapped with the resident moving in. The contractor had not attended, as planned, on 6 August 2025 due to an issue finding the property. Following contact the same date, from the resident, it had requested the contractor to attend. The same issue occurred on 13 August 2025. It confirmed the contractor had the wrong contact details and it explained the learning it had undertaken since identifying the error. It apologised for the poor level of service and lack of communication in relation to resolving the pest issue. It confirmed it would pay the costs incurred by the resident in arranging for her own pest controller. With regards to the repair’s element of the complaint, it confirmed it was not aware of any issues with damp and mould. It had found no issues, including mould, during the inspection. As it had not identified any issues in the inspection, it had not withheld information from the resident. It provided details of the overstanding jobs in the property. It offered £250 compensation made of £50 for the missed appointments and £200 for not attending to the pest issue within its scheduled timeframe.
3 September 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She questioned if there was a conflict of interest in relation to the person who had completed the stage 1 response. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response about the mutual exchange issues. She said the landlord left a note listing pending repairs that it had not told her about before she signed the tenancy. These repairs included mould treatment, repairs to the loft hatch and door latch, and a cellar leak.
8 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows: It was satisfied with the conclusion it had arrived at during the stage 1 response and partially upheld the complaint. It reminded the resident that she signed the mutual exchange declaration on 18 May 2025 confirming that she was fully aware of the property’s condition and was willing to accept it in that condition It had no reason to withhold the information about the repairs or the property. It wanted the property to be safe; shown by the work it had carried out since she moved in. It reiterated its apology about the missed pest control appointments and acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused It had found there was no conflict of interest in the handling of the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us that the landlord has carried out several works since she moved into the property, but some issues remained unresolved. As an outcome, she would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience, and for the damaged belongings.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s communication around the condition of the property during a mutual exchange and the associated repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not looked at

The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the reports of repairs had a detrimental impact on her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that it will conduct an inspection of a property due to be exchanged. It encourages an incoming resident to attend the inspection. The inspection will assess maintenance, property condition, and cleanliness. It sets out that the checks that it carries out prior to the exchange paperwork being signed.
The landlord’s notes from 5 June 2025 show that it carried out an inspection, in line with the policy. The surveyor found no issues with pests or damp and mould. However, it did note an issue with an overgrown tree and repairs to panelling. While the landlord was entitled to conclude it did not need to undertake repairs for damp and mould or pests, it is unclear if it had made the resident aware of the outstanding issues with the tree and the panelling, to manage her expectations.
However, the mutual exchange document signed by the resident included a declaration that she was aware of the property condition and accepted it in the condition it was in. There is no evidence that the resident raised any concerns at or immediately after the inspection. The mutual exchange process was highlighted to the resident prior to her moving into the property via the signed exchange document. It sets out clearly that residents accept the home they are moving into in the condition left in by the previous resident.
While it was unfortunate that a pest issue and potential damp and mould were present in the property when the resident moved in, the landlord was entitled to rely on its qualified surveyor when it deemed the property to be in good condition at the inspection.
The landlord accepted in its complaint response that it had been made aware of a pest control issue prior to the resident moving in and the appointment it had raised overlapped with her moving into the property. The evidence shows it became aware of the issue on 27 July 2025. While the resident had already signed for the property, it would have been useful for the landlord to have informed the resident of the issue and reassured her that it had raised the necessary works to resolve the issue. Though it was under no obligation to do so.
The landlord accepted that communication about the pest control appointments had gone to the wrong person and appropriately identified learning as a result to ensure the issue did not occur again. However, the lack of effective communication meant that when the resident moved into the property, she discovered the issue.
The resident also reported that there was damp and mould in the property. She said, in her escalation request, that the landlord had left a note in the property detailing outstanding repairs including treatment for mould. In the absence of evidence from either party to confirm whether the note was present, we cannot make a determination about this point. However, it is important to note that at that stage, the resident had already accepted and signed for the property, in line with the mutual exchange process.
The repair logs provided do not show that any damp or mould had been reported to the landlord prior to the resident moving in. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to conclude that it was not aware of the issue until the resident had reported the issue when she moved in and had not withheld information from her.
After being made aware of the issues with the damp and mould, the landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection to take place. It attended on 11 August 2025, in line with its damp and mould policy. It attended to complete the identified follow works on 19 and 29 August 2025, which was in line with the 30 day timescale in its repairs policy. We understand it completed the final works on 18 November 2025 when it installed a bathroom extractor fan.
In relation to the pest control issue, the landlord accepted that communication issues meant it was unable to find the resident’s property on 2 occasions. While this was unfortunate, it apologised and offered compensation of £25 for each missed appointment.
Due to the delays in attending to resolve the pest issue, the resident had arranged for a pest controller to attend and treat the issues. However, the landlord appropriately agreed to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred.
The landlord arranged for the pest controller to reattend on 27 August 2025, and it completed the necessary follow on works on 5 September 2025. This was in line with the 30 day timescale in the landlord’s repair policy.
The resident also reported an issue with the front door after moving in. The evidence shows it had previously attended on 14 July 2025 to fix the issue but follow on works were needed. It is unclear from the evidence if it had raised these prior to the resident reporting the issue when she moved in. However, the landlord appropriately attended to fix the issue, in line with its repairs policy, on 18 August 2025.
One of the issues found in the inspection completed in June 2025 related to the tree outside which was overgrown, but removal was not possible due to needing a road closure. We understand this is still outstanding. However, it is important to note that the resident accepted the property in the condition that it was in and therefore, it was not a failing in this case that the tree issue remained outstanding at the time the resident moved into the property.
In the complaint the resident raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest between the compliant handler and the housing assistant dealing with the resident’s mutual exchange application. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns and explained its position. It was entitled to conclude that no conflict of interest had occurred in this situation.
In this case the landlord demonstrated that it followed its mutual exchange policy. While it would have been useful for it to have informed the resident about the pests, it was not a failing that it did not do so. It apologised and offered compensation for the delays in attending to resolve the issue and identified the learning it had undertaken. In relation to the other repairs, it raised the necessary works and attended to resolve these in line with its policy and there is no evidence that it was aware of the issues, particularly damp and mould, prior to the resident moving in.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Code. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

During the complaint, the landlord realised it held an incorrect telephone number for the resident. The landlord has said that it has learnt from its communication error made during its contact with the resident. It has said that better note taking and checking records will avoid this in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The record keeping in relation to the repairs was clear and the landlord was able to show what actions it had taken in this case.

Communication

The communication during the complaint was good, but the landlord could consider if it needs to be more transparent with resident where it becomes aware an issue to manage expectations. This would help to establish better trust between the landlord and resident.