From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202325828)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325828

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

20 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
    2. complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom bungalow, which he has occupied since October 2016. He is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident is elderly, and the landlord is aware that he is receiving treatment for cancer.
  2. On 17 January 2023, the resident made a disrepair claim to the landlord through his solicitor. In response to this, the landlord carried out a survey of the property on 24 March 2023. It found moisture levels to be “within acceptable tolerances” and “minor mould spots” to the corners of ceilings and walls in some of the rooms. The surveyor advised the resident on how he could control condensation and improve ventilation in his property and recommended a number of remedial works.
  3. The resident’s solicitor conducted their own survey of the property on 25 April 2023. It recommended urgent repairs to the roof. It found that works required for the living room, bedroom and corridor cupboard were “largely cosmetic”. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey on 24 June 2023. It then completed a further property inspection on 5 September 2023, which recommended a number of works, which included:
    1. replacing the roof and removing the chimney stack.
    2. replacing defective loft insulation.
    3. filling cracks on the living room ceiling and replastering the living room and bedroom walls.
    4. completing various works to the bathroom.
    5. carrying out a “full electrical test”.

It is unclear when the resident moved into temporary accommodation or when the landlord started the works. However, following a post-inspection, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 October 2023 to confirm that, apart from some outstanding decoration work, it had completed the repairs. It told the resident he would be able to move back in. There is no record that he responded to the landlord after this.

  1. The resident wrote to us on 1 November 2023 to raise a complaint about his landlord because:
    1. there was mould growth throughout the property.
    2. the gutters were leaking and affecting his aerial.
    3. there were holes in his roof where his gas boiler was located.
    4. the survey commissioned by his solicitor found that his property was “uninhabitable” and needed various works done urgently. However, the landlord’s surveyor had written a report “dismissing” this. He felt the landlord’s report was “not accurate”.
    5. he had spent over “£2,000 on gas trying to keep warm”.
    6. he believed there was asbestos in his attic, and where his boiler had been removed.
    7. the back of his toilet was leaking.
    8. there was “very thick moss” around the front and back of the property.
    9. he should be put into temporary accommodation and be given a plan of action, informing him when the repairs would be done and how long they would take.
  2. On 10 January 2024 we forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord. It wrote to him on the same day to acknowledge his complaint and tried to call him on 18 January 2024. When this was unsuccessful, it wrote to him to explain it would inspect the property on 25 January 2024 for any incomplete remedial work from its visits in October 2023. When it attended, the resident was not home.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 February 2024, which stated that it:
    1. was sorry to hear the resident was unhappy with its service.
    2. had been unable to contact him about the concerns he had raised, specifically about his roof, and damp and mould.
    3. had left him messages but did not receive a response. It had also sent a letter advising him that a surveyor would be attending his property on 25 January 2024. However, during the visit it had been unable to access the property.
    4. had inspected the roof from the outside but could not identify any issues.
    5. had tried to call him again but “the phone just kept ringing”.

It advised the resident to contact it if he felt the issues he had complained about were still present.

  1. We contacted the landlord on 13 May 2024 and asked it to take further action to address the outstanding repairs the resident had reported. In response, it wrote to the resident on 15 May 2024 to tell him it would be visiting his property again on 20 May 2024 to carry out a “full inspection”. It asked him if he could be available on that day or contact if it the date was inconvenient. The landlord attended the property on 20 May 2024 but was unable to complete its inspection as it reported the resident had become “abusive”. It carried out another asbestos survey on 4 June 2024.
  2. On 17 July 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to escalate his complaint. He said he was not satisfied with the work that it had done, and there were still repairs that remained outstanding. He added that he wanted “someone preferably the executive director” to inspect the property. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 19 July 2024 and inspected the property on 7 August 2024. Following this, it issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and stated that:
    1. its visit on 7 August 2024 had helped it understand the issues with his property.
    2. as he had requested, it would provide him with a copy of the report from the asbestos survey.
    3. it confirmed it would:
      1. arrange for his loft insulation to be checked.
      2. decorate his bedroom, living room and kitchen and give him some options for paint colour.
      3. make good the boiler and electric cupboard ceilings.
      4. carry out “the necessary alterations to the guttering” at the front and rear of the property
      5. check the kitchen and bathroom fans to ensure they were working.
      6. repair 3 radiator valves.
      7. make good the render at the front of the property.
    4. maintenance of the garden was the resident’s responsibility. However, as a “goodwill gesture” it would “arrange a one-off cut, which will put the garden back to a maintainable position”.
    5. it had a programme to replace the cavity wall insulation in all properties on the estate and this would be completed in March 2025.
    6. it hoped the proposed works it had listed were an “accurate reflection” of what it had discussed with him.
    7. it would contact him to arrange the works at a time that was convenient for him.
  3. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 9 August 2024. He said that the work the landlord had done “so far” had not been done to a “proper standard”. He added that “the rest of the work” had not been done.

Post-complaint procedure

  1. On 12 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had been trying to gain access to his home to complete the works agreed in its stage 2 response. It stated that it had sent him letters to inform him of the dates when its contractor would be attending but, each time, access had “been denied”. It suggested moving the resident to temporary accommodation while it carried out the works and asked him if he would consider its offer so it could complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

  1. In line with Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. This includes the roof, internal walls and ceilings. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is obliged to allow employees or contractors acting on behalf of the landlord access at reasonable notice to inspect the condition of the property and carry out repairs or other works.
  3. Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould as a priority. Furthermore, 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 pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy
  4. While the repairs policy the landlord supplied to us does not outline repair timescales, the landlord’s website does. It states that it will address routine repairs within 25 days of the repair being reported. It is acknowledged that, with repairs that require multiple trades and/or multiple visits to complete, timescales would be dependent on the complexity of the work.
  5. The landlord presents a number of guiding principles in its landlord’s damp and mould policy. These include:
    1. taking responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where the problem is a result from issues that require repair.
    2. supporting residents on resolving damp and mould where they result from the use of the home, and providing them with appropriate, clear, sensitive, practical and accessible advice.
    3. communicating with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take and any actions residents are advised to take concerning damp.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 24 hours. It responds to both state 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. If it cannot respond within this timescale, it must agree to a revised timescale with the resident. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the Code allows landlords 20 working days to respond to stage 2 complaints.

Reports of damp, mould and outstanding repairs

  1. It is not our role to reach a decision on the extensiveness or seriousness of the damp and mould itself. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in accordance with its overriding obligations, to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Damp and Mould – it’s not a lifestyle’, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
  3. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  4. Following receipt of the resident’s disrepair claim on 17 January 2023, it took the landlord nearly 3 months to survey the property. The reason for the delay is unclear. However, there is evidence the landlord had tried to visit the property on 30 January 2023 but the resident did not answer the door. The resident later told it that he would not make a new appointment unless it was through his solicitor. The records therefore suggest that the delay may have been contributed to by, or caused by, the landlord’s difficulties gaining access to the property.
  5. The report from the inspection on 24 March 2023 notes “minor mould spots to corners of ceilings and walls”, believed to be caused by condensation. The importance of providing residents with advice on how to deal with condensation is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. Landlords should ensure they have measures in place to provide residents with information about dealing with damp, mould and condensation when such reports are received. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord during its inspection to give the resident advice about how to control condensation, mould growth, and how to improve ventilation.
  6. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about discrepancies between its own inspection report and the one commissioned by his solicitor. The landlord is entitled to rely on the recommended outcomes of their own inspections. However, it acted reasonably by taking the resident’s concerns on board and agreeing to carry out a further inspection on 5 September 2023. Its efforts in trying to reassure the resident it was making reasonable efforts to identify all the necessary works were appropriate.
  7. Following its inspection on 5 September 2023, the landlord completed the repairs at the beginning of October 2023 This was 4 weeks later. We recognise some of the work was complex, including the need to install a new roof. This would have therefore required additional scheduling and coordinating. As such we consider the landlord carried out the work in a reasonable time. It was also reasonable that it carried out an asbestos survey prior to starting the works. It is noted that some decoration works remained outstanding. However, internal records suggest that this was because operatives were unable to gain access to the property. Therefore, there is no evidence of a failing by the landlord.
  8. The evidence shows there were numerous instances when contractors and surveyors were unable to gain access to the property. There is also evidence the resident had not been at his property for pre-arranged appointments and that the landlord was often unable to contact him. Furthermore, there is an internal record reporting that the staff had to leave the property during a planned inspection because the resident was being “abusive” towards operatives. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of his responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
  9. The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner. As such the landlord’s difficulties in gaining access to the property contributed to the delays in carrying out inspections and completing repairs.
  10. There is no record the resident raised any concerns about outstanding repairs directly with the landlord before approaching us in November 2023. The landlord was therefore unaware of any ongoing issues before the resident made his complaint. Following receipt of the complaint, the landlord initially made reasonable efforts to engage with the resident. The evidence shows that, between 10 January and 6 February 2024, it telephoned him 4 times and left voicemail messages. It wrote to him on 23 January 2024 and visited the property on 25 January 2024. Despite its attempts, there is no indication it had been able to reach him.
  11. However, between 6 February 2024 and 15 May 2024, there is no evidence it made any further attempts to contact the resident. It was only when we prompted it on 13 May 2024 to take further action that it wrote to him on 15 May 2024 to let him know it proposed to inspect his property on 20 May 2024. We acknowledge that the difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete repairs. The landlord could not reasonably have established the extend of any damp and mould, or outstanding repairs without inspecting the property.
  12. However the landlord could reasonably have done more to consider the resident’s unique circumstances. It could have asked him if there were any reasonable adjustments it could make or support it could provide to facilitate better access to the property. It could have also considered agreeing a formal contact plan, with details on the best ways of contacting him, and convenient times. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered facilitating an advocate or assigning a single point of contact to liaise between the landlord and resident. These measures may not have achieved a different outcome. However, it would have demonstrated that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the communication difficulties contributing to the delays. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  13. When the landlord was unable to contact the resident in January 2024, after it had received his complaint, there is no evidence it considered whether a welfare check would be appropriate. Although it was not obliged to do so, it would have been reasonable to have considered a welfare check given the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, given it was aware the resident was receiving treatment for cancer at the time, it could have reasonably checked whether he was in hospital while it was trying to contact him. The landlord was put on notice that the resident had concerns about the condition of his property. The challenges the landlord experienced in contacting him following receipt of his complaint are acknowledged. However, that the landlord did not take any further steps to engage with him from early February until when the Ombudsman intervened in May 2024 was a failing.
  14. As part of its efforts to resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
    1. carried out an inspection and raised several repairs,
    2. clearly set out which repairs it agreed to carry out,
    3. offered to conduct garden maintenance as a good will gesture, which was the resident’s responsibility,
    4. responded to the resident’s concerns about asbestos by carrying out a further survey.

In light of this we consider that the landlord took reasonable steps to try and resolve the resident’s complaint following its inspection.

  1. We note that, following conclusion of the complaints process, there were further delays in completing the repairs agreed as part of its response. The evidence shows this was due to difficulties the landlord and its contractors experienced in gaining access to the property. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access, it would have been unable to carry out the required works in a timely manner. Therefore, we are satisfied that the delays in completing repairs after the stage 2 response were not as a result of a failing by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  3. Overall, the landlord took positive steps to resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs. It consistently tried to gain access to the resident’s property and tried to engage with him. However, the landlord could not demonstrate it made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident between February and May 2024. It only did so again after intervention by the Ombudsman on 13 May 2024. It could also have given more consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities and discussed any adjustments it could make to remove any possible barriers in allowing access. Given its repair obligations and the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord could reasonably have made further attempts to engage with the resident after it had issued its stage 1 response. This would have contributed towards the delays in assessing for any outstanding repairs. This amounts to a service failure and we will order that the landlord pays the resident £100 redress in line with our Remedies Guidance to put things right.

Complaint

  1. The landlord took 18 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The Code states that “any extension to the 10 working day timescale must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident”. There is no evidence the landlord made any attempt to contact the resident to let him know its response would be late, or to explain the reasons for the delay. It did not acknowledge the delay in its response, its failure to agree a new timescale or offer any redress for its failure to follow its own complaints policy. This was a departure both from the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy, and caused avoidable additional inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. In his stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that his property was “hard to heat” and that he had “spent over £2000 on gas trying to keep warm”. He also raised concerns about the discrepancy between the surveys prior to completion of the works in October 2023. The landlord did not address these issues in either its stage 1 or 2 responses. This  was a further departure from the Code.
  3. The landlord could have signposted him to any advice and support that was available to assist him in managing and/or reducing his energy costs. Alternatively, it could have offered to contact him to discuss any advice and support it was able to offer. With regard to the surveys, it should have provided him with an explanation of why there may have been differences between the surveys. It could have clarified that it had carried out a further inspection in order to reassure him that it had made a thorough assessment of the works that were required, and that it had carried out roofing works as per the recommendations of his solicitor’s survey report. That it failed to do so meant the resident was left with ongoing confusion over why the surveys differed and why this did not mean the landlord’s one was “not accurate”.
  4. The Code states, “where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken or intends to take to put things right”. These include apologising, acknowledging where things have gone wrong, providing an explanation and providing a financial remedy.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord states that it had upheld the resident’s complaint.  However, it did not give any explanation as to why it did so. It provided a summary of the discussions it had with the resident during the inspection and the works it had agreed it would carry out.  This was appropriate. However, it gave no explanation for the reasons why it concluded it had been at fault, or the failings it had identified that made it uphold the complaint.
  6. There is an internal note where the landlord acknowledged that while the resident “delayed works by refusing access, more could have been done to get in sooner”. It is unclear why the landlord could not have included this in its response and provided details of what it could have done to access the property at an earlier stage. Furthermore, given it had upheld the complaint, there is no evidence it had considered whether a financial remedy was appropriate, or given details of any learning from the outcome.
  7. That the landlord departed from its policy and the Code amounts to maladministration. Its poor complaint handling would have added to the resident’s ongoing frustrations and caused avoidable confusion. We will order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for this failing. This is line with our Remedies Guidance, and recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with the our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused, calculated as:
      1. £100 for its inadequate efforts to contact the resident between February and May 2024, and the associated delays.
      2. £150 for poor complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to discuss any advice and support he can access to help manage his heating costs.
  2. With the resident’s cooperation, and if it has not done so already, the landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the outstanding repairs as agreed in its stage 2 response. It should do this within 56 days of the date of this report and inform the Ombudsman when the repairs are complete. If the resident is unhappy with the standard of the repairs, he should be invited to raise a new complaint with the landlord. It would then be open for him to approach us again once he has completed the landlord’s complaints process.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider developing a policy or protocol for instances where it experiences delays meeting its repair obligations due to difficulties gaining access. This should outline the measures it will consider in order to ensure it can complete repairs. It should also set out any support it can provide to vulnerable residents in order to help them allow access to its operatives and contractors. This should include making reasonable adjustments, and consideration of residents’ individual circumstances.