Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202343475)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343475

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

13 November 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident lived in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat and the resident lived there between 8 April 2022 and 18 February 2024.
  2. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised on 27 April 2022 requiring a damp and mould report. This job was cancelled on 16 June 2022. The resident reported a leak from the roof into the kitchen on 28 April. The landlord’s records do not make it clear when work was completed, however a supplier invoice was accepted on 2 September.
  3. On 26 September 2022 the resident reported damp walls in the kitchen when she cooked. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to install extractor fans. The records state that there was a failed appointment on 29 September, but it is not clear whether an appointment later went ahead.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 7 February 2023 to discuss ongoing issues with damp and mould. Her occupational health practitioner wrote to the landlord on 17 February to say that the resident had an increased vulnerability to respiratory tract infections and they were concerned about the negative affect on her health from the damp and mould.
  5. On 25 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again about installation of extractor fans and provided it with photos of belongings she said were affected by damp.
  6. The landlord carried out a damp inspection on 6 April 2023. It said that there was mould in the kitchen on the ceiling and window area and external wall and in the bedroom window area. The resident said she was having financial difficulties so could not afford to always use the heating system. The report said that the dampness was due to condensation and recommended that the mould be treated and then anti-mould paint applied.
  7. On 14 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that a previous member of staff had promised her compensation for items that had been damaged due to humidity issues. This included her washing machine, which she said had blown because of the issue.
  8. On 9 February 2024 waste water leaked into the property, flooding the whole property. The resident said that she tried to contact the landlord via its out of hours phone number over the weekend on 10 and 11 February. She said that she had tried 8 times each day, sometimes holding for over an hour, with no response. She says she left a message on a member of staff’s voicemail on 12 February but was unable to get any response from the landlord until she raised a complaint via email on 16 February. She told the landlord that her belongings had been destroyed and her health had been impacted due to the waste water contaminating the property.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days. The landlord’s records state that it offered the resident a hotel for the weekend, however the resident has told this Service she was not offered this. The resident responded to say that she had been diagnosed with E.coli due to exposure to human waste and had to pay for someone to remove and dispose of her belongings.
  10. The landlord raised a job to clear out the property on 19 February 2024 and visited on 20 February. It found that a toilet was blocked with wet wipes and cat litter.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024. It offered £300 compensation for inconvenience caused by the leak. It said it was unable to verify what a former employee had promised her, but provided its insurance details for her to make a claim for her belongings. It said that all damp and mould work had been completed.
  12. The resident responded the same day to ask for the complaint to be escalated. She said the landlord had not responded over the weekend after the leak when she had tried to report it.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 5 March 2024 and said it would aim to respond within 10 working days. On 8 March it sent her an email asking her for evidence of her damaged belongings. The landlord chased this evidence up on 12 and 18 March. On 27 March the landlord met with the resident to discuss the damages and on 28 March it completed a large file data request so she would be able to share the evidence, and an extension to 3 April was agreed.
  14. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 April 2024, in which it said:
    1. Damp and mould work was undertaken. A disrepair claim was open (which has since been closed) which would address any recompense around damp and mould, if appropriate.
    2. It had checked its phone records of the weekend of 10 and 11 February 2024 and found no issues with receiving customer calls that weekend. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure repairs were reported.
    3. She had reported the issue on 16 February 2024, 5 days after the leak occurred, which would have contributed to the damage to her belongings. A contractor attended on 20 February, which it accepted should have been sooner, but said this delay did not cause damage to her belongings.
    4. It was her responsibility to have contents insurance, which she had confirmed she did not have.
    5. It again provided her with the details for its insurer in order for her to make a personal injury claim.
    6. It offered an additional £2,000 of compensation in relation to the loss of belongings, which amounted to 20% of her claim for damaged belongings. This brought the total compensation to £2,300.
  15. The resident contacted this Service on 29 April 2024 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that she had lost all of her belongings and could not afford to replace them. On 23 August she confirmed that she wanted us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about her health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy that was in place at the time does not set out any classifications of repair types or timescales in which it aims to carry out repairs. This investigation will therefore consider what the Ombudsman thinks is reasonable.
  3. The landlord’s records show that a job was raised for a damp and mould survey to be carried out on 27 April 2022, several weeks after the resident moved into the property. This job was cancelled on 16 June and no evidence has been provided that a survey went ahead. The landlord’s records do not show why the job was raised, or why it was cancelled.
  4. A job was then raised on 28 April 2022 regarding a leak from the roof into the resident’s kitchen. A supplier invoice was accepted by the landlord on 2 September, however this does not show when the work was completed. The landlord has not kept records that demonstrate this work was carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
  5. The resident reported damp on the walls of her kitchen on 26 September 2022 and said she was waiting for an extractor fan to be fitted. The landlord attempted to visit on 29 September but was not able to. It is not clear what the purpose of the visit was, or if it was rearranged. The landlord subsequently raised a job on 23 January 2023 to inspect extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 7 February 2023 to discuss the ongoing issues with damp and mould. An inspection of the extractor fans was booked for 9 February. The landlord’s records show that it could not gain access at this appointment, but there is no evidence it tried to rebook the appointment.
  7. In a subsequent internal email of 21 February 2024 the landlord said that a contractor attended to treat mould and install an extractor fan in April 2023. However its repair records show that a job to install a fan was raised on 6 April with an appointment booked for 19 May, when its contractor was unable to gain access. So, it is unclear if, or when, an extractor fan was fitted.
  8. The landlord carried out a damp inspection on 6 April 2023, where it identified that the relative humidity was high and the temperature was below a comfortable level. The resident said that she was having trouble affording to heat the property. The report identified mould in the kitchen and bedroom. It said that the dampness was due to condensation but did not give any indication about the underlying cause of this.
  9. The report recommended treating the mould affected areas with mould treatment and applying anti-mould paint. It did not make any recommendations in order to reduce condensation. The recommended work was carried out on 1 May 2023, which was within a reasonable timescale.
  10. On 14 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had been promised compensation for damaged items, including her washing machine, due to the condensation problem. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it could not verify what a former employee may have said to her. In its stage 2 response it said this issue would be resolved as part of an ongoing disrepair claim.
  11. The resident has told this Service that she is no longer pursuing the disrepair claim as she has moved out, meaning she could not arrange for an independent inspection. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident was promised compensation at the time the damp and mould work was completed, so cannot make a finding on this.
  12. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident reported issues with damp and mould shortly after moving into the property in April 2022. It was not until a year later that it carried out a damp inspection, despite raising a job to do this in April 2022. This represented an unreasonable delay in taking action.
  13. The damp inspection that was carried out provided recommendations to remove the mould. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it tried to get to the bottom of what was causing the condensation. It appears from the information provided that there may have been a problem with an extractor fan in the property. Whilst jobs were raised to replace this, it is unclear whether this took place. If it did take place, it was more than a year after the damp and mould issue was raised, which was unreasonable.
  14. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500. This is broken down as £250 for the delay in it carrying out damp and mould work and £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this issue.

Leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy that was in place from February 2024 says that any repair that is classified as a risk to property or raises a health and safety issue would be classed as an emergency. It aims to make an emergency situation safe within 24 hours.
  2. The leak occurred late in the evening on Friday 9 February 2024. The landlord has said it could not find any problems with its residents getting through to its out of hours help line. However, the resident has provided screenshots of her phone records showing she attempted 8 calls to the landlord on both 10 and 11 February. She has explained to this Service that the line just rang with no answer, and she held for as long as an hour on some attempts.
  3. The resident says she also called a member of the landlord’s staff directly just after midnight on 12 February. She says she left a voicemail message and has provided evidence of a 2 minute call, which would be consistent with her leaving a message. Whilst this Service cannot be certain of what happened when the resident tried to call through, her explanation is consistent with the evidence she has provided. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why the voicemail message was not responded to.
  4. After not receiving a response to her voicemail, the resident sent the landlord an email on 16 February 2024 in which she told it that her whole flat was flooded and her belongings destroyed. She told the landlord her health was impacted from spending the weekend in the property. She later told the landlord on 19 February that she had been diagnosed with E.coli from exposure to human waste.
  5. The first contact the landlord made with the resident to acknowledge the issue was on 19 February 2024, by which time the resident’s tenancy had ended and she had moved out. This was 8 days after the resident had first tried to report the problem. This was outside its policy timescale for an emergency and represented an unreasonable delay given the circumstances.
  6. The landlord’s internal records say that it offered the resident a hotel for the weekend of 18 and 19 February 2024, however she says this was not offered. This Service has seen no evidence of such a discussion, however it does not appear to make a material difference as the resident was due to move into her new property on 18 February.
  7. In its stage 1 response of 4 March 2024 the landlord said that it could not reimburse her for damaged belongings. It said this would need to be claimed via her own contents insurance as per the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will insure the structure of the premises and the fittings, but it is recommended that the resident insures her personal belongings.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with its insurer’s details in order for her to make a personal injury claim regarding her contracting E.coli. It offered £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the leak.
  9. In its stage 2 response of 10 April 2024 the landlord said it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure repairs were reported. Given the evidence she had provided to it of her attempts to report the problem, this was not a reasonable response from the landlord. This response appears to blame the resident for not trying hard enough to report an issue that was out of her control.
  10. The landlord accepted it should have visited sooner, but said that any delay could not be blamed for the damage to her belongings. The resident has confirmed during a call with this Service before the investigation began that her belongings were covered with human waste on 9 February 2024 when the leak first occurred. Whilst there was a delay in the resident successfully logging the issue with the landlord, there is no evidence to suggest her belongings would have been salvageable if the landlord had attended earlier.
  11. The resident told this Service that there were previous issues with water leaking through her bathroom ceiling when her upstairs neighbour used their shower. She said these issues were reported to the landlord and she has provided videos she says evidence the previous issues. This Service has not seen any record of previous leaks being raised with the landlord.
  12. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on video or photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the videos/photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, the Ombudsman does not generally place significant reliance on videos or photographs in reaching its decisions.
  13. The landlord offered an additional payment of £2,000 to recognise the loss of the resident’s belongings, which represented 20% of what she told it she had lost. There is not sufficient evidence to show that the landlord’s actions, or failure to act, were responsible for the leak or the subsequent damage to the resident’s belongings. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £2,000 to recognise her damaged belongings was reasonable.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy reiterates what the tenancy agreement says about it being the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents of their home. It does, however, say that it has comprehensive insurance in place for all of its properties and any claim against these will be forwarded to its insurer. As the resident felt the landlord was responsible for her losses, it should have forwarded her claim for damaged belongings to the insurer for it to assess the landlord’s liability. From the evidence provided, the landlord assessed her claim internally, and did not submit a formal claim with its insurer. Whilst this Service cannot comment on the likelihood of the resident being successful with such a claim, she should been given the opportunity to have the claim assessed.
  15. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The landlord’s response to her complaint implies that it was the resident’s fault for the late response. Its responses to her complaint failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, and the impact on her by her property being flooded with waste water. Its offer of £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused does not fairly reflect the impact this issue had on her.
  16. Whilst the landlord said it offered to decant her on 18 February 2024, she was already moving out of the property on that date. The resident should have been able to report the leak on 10 February. If she had been able to do so, the landlord would have been required to attend within 24 hours in line with its policy, and could have made the offer to decant her much sooner. This could have reduced the distress and inconvenience caused.
  17. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her by having to remain in the property for a week after the leak. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £2,900.
  18. Orders have also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review and help the resident submit a claim for her belongings to its insurer.

Knowledge and information management

  1. Effective knowledge and information management plays a vital role in a landlord’s ability to manage both repairs and complaints effectively.
  2. As explained above, the landlord has failed to provide this Service with full records of the repairs that were carried out. It is likely that its failure to keep complete records in relation to the repairs contributed to the delays in getting to the root cause of the problems. The lack of records has also made it difficult for this Service to fully investigate the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues.
  3. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management as it has failed to keep complete records and update the resident’s records where appropriate.
  4. An order has been made for the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s reports of a leak.
    3. Its knowledge and information management.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £3,400, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £500 in relation to damp and mould.
    2. £2,900 in relation to the leak.
  2. A senior manager at the landlord to issue the resident with a written apology.
  3. The landlord to help the resident submit a claim for her damaged belongings for consideration to its insurer.
  4. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.
  5. The landlord to carry out a review of this case to understand how the resident was unable to get through to its helpline, and why the voicemail she left was not answered. A copy of this review should be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord to self-assess using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord should produce a report setting out the findings and learnings from the review, and provide a copy of this to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.