Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202324247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324247

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

25 June 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 resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould in the property.
2. window repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy under an agreement dated 12 September 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3–bedroom, end of terrace house. It is occupied by the resident and her 3 young children. The landlord is aware that one child has respiratory vulnerabilities.
The resident has reported issues with damp and mould in the property since at least January 2023. On 10 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about her concerns. She said that:
1. after a damp and mould inspection more than 2 months earlier, no works had commenced.
2. during a loft inspection on 3 October 2023, a contractor took photographs of mushrooms growing on the kitchen ceiling to show the landlord.
3. she had 3 young children in the property, one of whom used an inhaler.
4. she was removing mushrooms and black mould from the walls every week.
5. the landlord continually said it would get back to her then failed to do so, which caused her distress.
On 15 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication and care regarding the damp and mould issues.
2. she had reported several times that the mould had spread, including to her daughter’s bedroom, and felt the house was unsafe for her children.
3. she felt that the landlord could not have checked the house properly before offering it to her, considering the number of issues in such a short time.
4. the landlord previously suggested that the resident had caused the mould on her skirting boards by the way in which she mopped her floor.
5. she felt her concerns were trivialised after the landlord inspected her property on 25 July 2023 and stated that it had seen worse properties.
6. there had been no work or communication since the July inspection, despite numerous calls to the landlord and the issue was getting worse.
7. she also raised issues with her daughter’s bedroom window, and condensation on the upstairs windows that the landlord had not addressed.
On 18 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. On 27 October 2023 the landlord explained the intended works to the resident. The whole terrace would benefit from a program of works, including reroofing, repointing, fan replacements and mould washes.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:
1. apologised that the resident had to chase for completion of the works.
2. identified that the property had required internal and external work.
3. confirmed that it had completed the internal works on 29 November 2023.
4. requested a heat survey to check the property’s radiators were adequate.
5. agreed to continue to chase the contractor for dates to start external works.
6. advised that it could not say if defects were present when the resident signed for the property, as building fabrics changed due to various factors.
7. offered £250 compensation as a goodwill gesture for the resident’s belongings that had been damaged by mould. It stated that the offer was for furniture, as she could wash or wipe down clothing and shoes.
On 11 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. there had been no explanation for the delayed stage 1 response.
2. she felt that the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously, and that it initially blamed her and played down the matter.
3. she disputed that the landlord had completed the internal works, stating that mould was still present, and that her daughter’s bedroom window had not been addressed.
4. she felt insulted by the landlord’s suggestion that she could wipe or wash the mould off her clothes and shoes.
5. despite informing the landlord that her son used an inhaler, she felt it had disregarded his vulnerability.
6. she wanted an explanation for why mould was growing in areas that were not damp (e.g., bedroom walls).
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 12 December 2023. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023. In its response, the landlord stated:
1. it was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the service it provided.
2. external work to the property would start in the first week of January.
3. it would visit the resident that same week to address any outstanding internal works, such as undercutting doors and checking the bathroom fan.
4. to recognise the disruption experienced by the resident caused by the repair issues, it offered compensation of £500.
5. it would ensure it completed all works in January 2024.
On 8 January 2024 the resident informed this Service that she felt distressed and inconvenienced by the damp and mould issues and the length of time taken to resolve them. The resident said that the issues were still present and that she wanted them resolved.
On 19 January 2024 the resident confirmed that the landlord had fixed the window on 17 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that she was unhappy as there were still outstanding window repairs. She said that the landlord had not fixed all the windows in her daughter’s room, and that she had concerns about her son’s bedroom windows. The specific window issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 15 October 2023 were later confirmed as repaired or were not raised again in her reasons for escalating the complaint.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed. Therefore, these issues have not been assessed in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. The HHSRS classes damp and mould as a potential category 1 hazard and threat to heath. The Housing Act 2004 mandates that properties be free from category 1 hazards.
New provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 added by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 require that properties are free of hazards, including damp and mould, which are so serious that the dwelling is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy states that it will:
1. treat residents reporting damp and mould with empathy and respect; it will not prejudge the cause of the damp.
2. carry out thorough building surveys to determine the underlying issue to ensure that it gets to the route cause and remediate, rather than simply treating the symptoms.
3. make reasonable adjustments for people who have noted vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s Compensation policy states the following:
1. if it is clearly responsible for a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment up to £500.
2. it will not pay compensation for items that home contents insurance could cover. It is the responsibility of each resident to ensure adequate home contents insurance.
3. if it is found that the landlord’s negligence has directly caused damage to contents, it may compensate for this regardless of whether the resident has contents insurance.
The resident’s Occupancy Agreement states that it is the landlord’s obligation to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including the roof, outside walls, internal walls and window frames.
The resident reported mould in the property to the landlord around 16 January 2023, then again on 6 February 2023. The landlord’s repair log shows that it raised the following work orders, although neither work order had a completion date logged:
1. 16 January 2023 – inspect black mould in the bathroom.
2. 7 February 2023 – treat mould.
The landlord’s records from 6 October 2023 state that it carried out mould treatment on 21 June 2023, however this does not show on the repair log. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs (found on our website) states that it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.
Based on the evidence, this Service is unable to determine if the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its policies and procedures and within a reasonable time. Had the landlord followed our guidance, the evidence may have better supported its handling of the resident’s reports.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 October 2023 with further concerns about damp and mould. She stated that the landlord had carried out an inspection 2 months prior, but she had heard nothing since. It is not clear from the evidence what the outcome of this inspection was. She also reported black mould and mushrooms growing in the property. The landlord responded to the resident the following day. It apologised and said someone would contact her in 4 to 5 working days. The resident stated that the landlord had said this before, but she had still not received contact.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s lack of communication and failure to acknowledge the worsening symptoms likely caused the resident distress, which was unreasonable.
The resident raised her complaint on 15 October 2023. She then informed the landlord on at least 3 further occasions that the mould had spread to her belongings and furniture. The records show that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 17 October 2023. It then discussed with the resident its intended repairs, which included internal, external works and roofing works. It also applied a mould wash in the property on 27 October 2023. This was 13 working days after the resident raised her concerns.
Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law, within a reasonable time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is to complete repairs; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. This Service has not seen the landlord’s response times for repairs relevant to the time of the complaint. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in line with its own policies and procedures.
However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated an action plan with the resident regarding start dates for the works. This would have helped to manage her expectations and assure her that it was taking steps to resolve her concerns. Given the resident’s reports of black mould and mushrooms growing in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively communicated with the resident to monitor the effectiveness of the mould wash. This would have allowed it to assess whether further interim works were required. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord did either. This was unreasonable.
On 15 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that despite the mould wash, the mould was growing back. She also reported that the damp had spread to her daughter’s bedroom. On the same day, the landlord requested a quote for a programme of works, including internal work to the resident’s property. The internal work included:
1. mould wash to the front door and bathroom, stain block to the rear door.
2. replacing the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
3. undercutting the bathroom and kitchen doors to improve air flow.
The landlord responded to the resident the next day. It said that it would complete all internal works whilst waiting for the external works to start. The internal work commenced on 22 November 2023. Whilst the landlord arranged the works in a reasonable time, the quote that the landlord requested did not include work to any bedrooms. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s report about her daughter’s bedroom and investigate this further. That it did not, was inappropriate.
On 20 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase for a start date for the external works. She said mould was now growing on her son’s bed and she was concerned as he used an inhaler. The landlord responded on the same day stating it was waiting for an update. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively monitored the issues in the property instead of the resident having to keep providing updates. The HHSRS recommends that landlords carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. That it did not, was unreasonable.
Our Spotlight report on damp and mould states that where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities. In its response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about her son’s vulnerability or assess the level of risk. This was a failure to recognise its obligations according to the HHSRS, which was inappropriate.
On 27 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to compensate her for belongings that were damaged by mould. This included furniture, clothing, shoes and toys. In its stage 1 response on 4 December 2023, the landlord offered the resident £150 as a goodwill gesture for items that she would not be able to wash. This was based on receipts provided by the resident. The landlord then increased the offer of compensation to £250, which the resident declined.
On 19 December 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would usually expect claims of this nature to be made through home contents insurance. Although it is recommended in the occupancy agreement that the resident takes out content insurance, there is no evidence that the resident had done this, nor that the landlord advised her to make a claim. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided its own insurance details to enable the resident to make a claim if she chose to. That it did not, was unreasonable.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord stated that it could not advise if defects were present at the time the resident signed for the property. It said this was because building fabrics could change due to various factors, e.g. the deterioration of pointing over time due to weather and other elements.
Our Spotlight report on complaints about repairs states that if there is a disagreement over the condition of a property, the landlord should be able to clearly demonstrate that it met its own letting standard with reference to robust evidence. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with evidence that the property was in a suitable condition when she signed for it. That it did not, was unreasonable.
In her request to escalate the complaint on 11 December 2023, the resident disputed that the landlord had completed all internal works and listed what was outstanding. In its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023, the landlord addressed this concern by agreeing to visit the resident and address any outstanding internal works. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
In her escalation request, the resident stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s initial suggestion that she had caused the mould. She said the landlord later played down the severity of the mould. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
There is no evidence that the landlord indicated the damp and mould were due to the resident’s lifestyle or actions in its responses to her. However, in communicating with residents, it would be reasonable for landlords to review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it made a new offer of compensation for £500. It stated that this was for the disruption the resident had experienced because of the repair issues. The landlord also confirmed that the external work would start in the first week of January 2024.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident stated that she was unhappy that the landlord repointed the back of the property, but not the front or the external bathroom wall. The evidence shows that the landlord sent all residents affected a letter about the planned works. Although the copy provided to this Service is undated, we can conclude the landlord sent it around December 2023, as the letter informed residents that it would be putting scaffolding up in the week commencing 8 January 2024.
The letter contained details of the works which included repointing to the rear and side elevations of the property. It made no mention of any work to the front. Therefore, the landlord explained the scope of the works to the resident, which was reasonable.
In correspondence with us, the resident stated that following the repairs in January 2024, some of the damp and mould issues had not resolved. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord completed all works to the resident’s property that it agreed to as part of the complaint resolution. For example, it has not provided a post-works survey or repair records to confirm that the repairs have resolved the damp and mould in the property, or if any work remains outstanding. We are therefore unable to assess if the landlord completed its repairs and fully resolved the issues the resident complained of.
Whilst the landlord carried out works to resolve the damp and mould issues, this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because the landlord:
1. failed to effectively communicate with the resident following a damp and mould inspection.
2. failed to communicate an action plan for the intended repairs.
3. failed to monitor the effectiveness of repairs that it had completed.
4. failed to maintain accurate records to demonstrate the actions it took in response to the resident’s reports.
5. failed to address the resident’s initial report of damp spreading to her daughter’s bedroom.
6. failed to carry our additional monitoring where potential hazards had been identified.
7. failed to recognise and risk assess the vulnerabilities in the household.
8. failed to provide evidence that the property was in a suitable condition when the resident signed for it.
9. failed to provide evidence that the completed repairs had resolved the damp and mould issues.
After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident. Whilst it is positive that the landlord offered some compensation to try and “put things right”, it also failed to recognise some of the issues identified as part of this investigation. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to reoffer the resident the compensation of £500, and pay an additional £150, making the total compensation offer of £650.
We have also made orders for the landlord to investigate any outstanding damp and mould concerns from the resident, including carrying out a risk assessment in relation to the vulnerabilities in the household. It should also provide its insurance details and information on how to make a claim for the damaged belongings, should the resident wish to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs

In her complaint on 15 October 2023, the resident reported issues with the upstairs windows in her property. She said that the windows became extremely wet with condensation and that there was rubber missing from her daughter’s window which let in rainwater. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that within the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking.
When the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 October 2023, it only referenced the damp and mould issues. Although the quote requested by the landlord on 15 November 2023 did include window repairs, the landlord failed to acknowledge the windows in its initial response to the resident. This would have likely caused distress to the resident, which was unreasonable.
In her escalation request on 11 December 2023, the resident raised further concerns about the rubber missing from her daughter’s bedroom window. She felt that the water it let in could have been contributing to the damp in the room. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that there were internal works still required and agreed to visit the resident to address any outstanding issues. On 19 January 2024 the resident confirmed that the landlord had fixed the window on 17 January 2024.
The landlord completed the repair 64 working days after the resident raised her complaint. In the absence of the landlord’s repair response times for that period, we have considered that there is no evidence that the landlord communicated any reasons for a delay with the resident. It also failed to acknowledge the vulnerability of the resident’s young daughter and assess the impact of any delays on her. Therefore, the time taken to repair the window was unreasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to acknowledge the window issues in its initial response to the resident.
2. failed to carry out repairs in a reasonable time.
The failings identified likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its policy at the time stated it would send stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 3 responses (following a hearing) within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), at that time, stated that 2 stage complaints procedures are “ideal”, and that complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested it.
The Code also states that landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear time for when the resident will receive a response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If the landlord requires an extension beyond 20 working days to enable a full response, both parties should agree on this.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 15 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this 2 working days later. A stage 1 complaint response should have been issued to the resident no later than 1 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 December 2023. This was 33 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with its policy, which was unreasonable.
On 2 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the stage 1 response. In an internal record that same day, the landlord stated that a response would be issued by the following day, which it failed to do. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the delay, nor did it request an extension in providing its response. This was not in line with the Code, which was unreasonable.
On 17 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she had still not received a stage 1 response. The landlord replied on the same day. It stated that it was dealing with the complaint and would keep it open until it had a start date for the external works. The landlord failed to identify that by not providing a formal response, it had failed to comply with its complaint procedure. It therefore missed an opportunity to offer redress to the resident for the late response. This was unreasonable.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 11 December 2023. In her request, the resident stated that the landlord had still not provided her with a reason for the late stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 December 2023, and issued its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023, 7 working days later.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Whilst the landlord issued its stage 2 response in a reasonable time, it failed to provide the resident with a reason for the delayed stage 1 response. This was unreasonable.
This investigation has identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to provide a stage 1 response in a reasonable time.
2. failed to request an extension in providing its response once it identified a delay.
3. failed to identify that by providing a late response, it had not complied with its policy or the Code.
4. missed an opportunity to offer redress to the resident for its late response.
5. failed to provide the resident with a reason for the late stage 1 response.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 has been made.
The landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident additional compensation of £450. This should be paid directly to the resident and should not be offset against any arrears. The £450 comprises of:
  1. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window repairs.
  3. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
3. reoffer the resident compensation of £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the repair issues if it has not paid this already.
4. carry out an inspection to investigate any outstanding damp and mould issues in the property. This should include a risk assessment in relation to any vulnerabilities in the household. For any works identified, the landlord should create an action plan for the repairs, which should then be adhered to. A copy of the inspection and any action plans should be provided to the resident and this Service.
5. write to the resident with its insurance details and information on how the resident can make a claim for damaged belongings, should she wish to.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord updates its records to reflect the vulnerabilities in the property.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews how it records its work orders and repairs, to ensure that it can produce accurate audit trails.