Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202335517)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house, where she experienced damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould
   2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to follow its policy and there was a lack of communication with the resident. It should have done more to support the resident when she raised concerns about the impact on her health and damage to her belongings.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed its response at stage 2.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
8. During recent contact with us the resident said she was experiencing delays with a door replacement, gas safety check and electrical safety check. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will look at the matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 7 March 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

What we did investigate

9. The resident initially reported damp and mould in her bathroom and 2 bedrooms to the landlord on 1 February 2023. After the resident chased the landlord, it arranged for an inspection which took place on 21 June 2023. This was not in line with its policy, which says it will raise and complete an inspection within 5 days, and complete required work within 10 days. This delay caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
10. Following the inspection, the resident had to contact the landlord 4 times after the inspection to get an update. This was unreasonable, and understandably caused frustration for the resident. Although the landlord did provide some responses, it lacked clarity on its plans following the recommendations made during the inspection. This lack of clarity undermined the resident’s trust with the landlord.
11. On 8 November 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint as the landlord had not completed any work. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged the delay and issued an apology. However, the response did not include specific actions or timeframes, which would have helped reassure the resident that the issue was being addressed. The landlord’s statement that it had kept the resident updated was not supported by the evidence. Records show that the resident had to chase the landlord several times between the inspection and the stage 1 complaint. This lack of proactive communication caused avoidable frustration and inconvenience.
12. The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response and requested escalation to stage 2. It was appropriate for the landlord to request a visit at the property to inspect the damage caused by the mould. However, this was unable to go ahead as it had not been given access.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue to communicate with the resident via email and text messages. This showed the resident it was taking her reports seriously and was committed to resolve the damp and mould issue in her home. The landlord asked the resident to email her request for compensation for consideration in its stage 2 response.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in coordinating the repairs required to address the damp and mould in the property. It offered £500 in compensation for the delay and associated inconvenience. This was consistent with its policy, which says it can offer up to £500 discretionary compensation. It also confirmed it completed the internal work, and the external work had started which provided reassurance to the resident that it was addressing the root cause of the damp and mould.
15. The response disagreed with the compensation requests for rent reduction, damages, and health. It said that it needed additional evidence or a physical inspection, but it was not clear which aspects this related to. This was unfair as it did not give the resident a clear understanding of why it was disagreeing with the request and what its specific requirements were to be able to consider this. This caused frustration for the resident and led to her escalating her complaint to stage 3.
16. We cannot make judgements on liability for health. Once the resident raised health concerns during the stage 2 escalation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider reasonable adjustments such as expediting any repairs. This is in line with its damp and mould policy which says it can make reasonable adjustments when it identifies vulnerabilities. It did not acknowledge the resident’s health concerns or demonstrate empathy. This was not reasonable in the circumstances given the resident had told the landlord she had experienced chest issues and “stress”. While the £2,000 compensation request was not supported by medical evidence, the landlord missed an opportunity to respond more appropriately to the issue raised by referring to its liability insurer. This meant the resident had no guidance on how to make her claim causing frustration.
17. We cannot make judgements on liability for damages. Once the resident raised the compensation request for damage to her décor and personal items, it was reasonable the landlord attempted to visit the property. Although this visit did not take place due to reasons outside the landlord’s control, it would have been fair for it to explain how to make a claim through its liability insurance, in line with its compensation policy. This would have shown that it acknowledged her frustration at the damage and offered a way to progress the issue. This was a missed opportunity to address her concerns within the complaints process and refer to the appropriate liability insurer.
18. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint to stage 3. The landlord invited the resident to a panel hearing. She could not attend but she did provide a statement.
19. In its stage 3 response, the landlord acknowledged several shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould report. It was appropriate the landlord apologised as it showed a willingness to take responsibility for its actions. It also addressed the resident’s concerns regarding communication and evidenced that letters had been sent by the contractors completing the work.
20. In reviewing redress, the landlord explained it reviewed the photos of the mould from the initial report, the inspection, and the repairs. It concluded the rooms were not unusable, but not mould free. While we understand a visit had not been possible due to reasons outside the landlord’s control, it was unfair that the landlord only considered photos to determine the impact on the resident. She had told the landlord she couldn’t use the rooms as she felt embarrassed by the smell of damp and comments from others. There is no evidence the landlord considered this in its compensation offer, which was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress.
21. Its compensation policy sets out guidance on calculating a figure for refund of rent where rooms can not be used. It used this guidance to calculate compensation as above and then aligned this with its stage 2 offer. It did not clearly explain why it chose this percentage or how it reflected the resident’s experience. The landlord made the offer at stage 2, to recognise delay and inconvenience, not the loss of use of rooms, which creates confusion about the basis for compensation.
22. At stage 3, the landlord failed to fully address the resident’s request for compensation relating to damage and health concerns again. This showed a continued failure by the landlord to address this within its complaint process, causing further frustration and inconvenience. This lack of support led the resident to escalate the matter to this Service.
23. In summary, the landlord did not act in line with its own damp and mould policy, failed to communicate effectively, and missed opportunities to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about health and damage. While it acknowledged delays, ensured the work was completed and offered compensation for inconvenience, it failed to consider the full impact on the resident. It did not provide clear rationale for its redress or refer the resident to its liability insurer when compensation for damage and health was requested. These failings meant the complaint remained unresolved and caused further frustration. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
25. The landlord had a 3-stage complaint policy, which was compliant with the Code in effect at the time of the complaint.
26. Its policy said:
    1. it acknowledged stage 1 and 2 complaints within 24 hours and responded within 10 working days
    2. stage 3 had no timescale for acknowledgement, but an executive director would manage it and contact the resident
    3. it arranged a stage 3 hearing, and sent a written response within 20 working days
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 request within 24 hours and responded within 5 days. This was within its policy timescales.
28. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request within 14 days. This was outside its target timescale of 24 hours. It responded at stage 2 within 45 days from the resident’s request for escalation which is outside its policy timescales.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 3 request within 24 hours and responded at stage 3 within 18 days. This was within its policy timescales.
30. There were some delays with the landlord’s stage 2 response which would have caused further frustration and inconvenience for the resident as she waited for the resolution. There was no acknowledgement of this delay within its responses or offer of redress, which its compensation policy allows.
31. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord handling of the complaint and made an order of compensation in line with its policy and the Code.
32. The landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with our current Code. Therefore, we do not need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.

Learning

33. It is positive the stage 3 response explained the formation of a new team to manage damp and mould issues and a high volume of cases which address the internal challenges at the time of the initial report. It outlined improvements made since, such as increased staffing and revised triage processes. These changes suggest a commitment to improving future service delivery.
34. The landlord’s response to the resident’s health condition did not align with its policy. It should reflect on its approach in these circumstances. It should consider if there is a need for additional training for its staff around this.
35. It should ensure it responds to any concerns raised about damage to personal belongings. Providing information about making a claim through the relevant insurance is helpful.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s record keeping was good.

Communication

37. The landlord should ensure it clearly communicates its plan following damp and mould inspections.