Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited (202419323)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202419323

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Mosscare St. Vincent’s Housing Group Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

28 January 2026

Background

  1. The tenancy started in October 2020. The landlord has said it provided food to the resident as part of the tenancy agreement. It accepts that its initial information about the meal charges was not clear. It says that in February 2022 it provided more information about what the resident would need to pay for. Following this, in October 2023 it stopped providing food and charging the resident. It explained that this was due to concerns about the quality of food. It has since made the food provision optional for residents.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to concerns about the meal charges forming part of the tenancy agreement.
    2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found that there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the meal charges forming part of the tenancy agreement.
    2. No maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns about the meal charges forming part of the tenancy agreement

  1. The landlord identified its tenancy information was not clear in relation to the food provision and offered the resident some compensation. However, it missed opportunities to apply a full refund in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate and in line with its policies.

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.

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

1

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • The apology is provided by a senior manager.
  • The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

25 February 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £2,248.47. This is a refund of the amount the resident paid towards meal charges. This is in addition to the amount offered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. 

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

25 February 2026

 

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations

The landlord may wish to consider its records of other residents impacted by similar circumstances and whether other residents should be entitled to similar redress.

 

Our investigation

What we found and why

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

Complaint

Response to concerns about the meal charges forming part of the tenancy agreement.

Finding

Maladministration
  1. On 14 August 2024, in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged the resident’s complaint was made more than 12 months after he would have been aware of the food charges. The resident became aware of the food charges following its letter on 22 February 2022 but complained on 1 July 2024. The landlord explained that due to the vulnerabilities of the resident it considered the complaint despite its usual time restrictions. This was reasonable given the circumstances.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the “unfair manner” the provision of food was “forced” upon him by the landlord. The landlord’s position is that the provision of food formed part of the tenancy agreement.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out the rent, fixed service charges and an element of ineligible service charges. We would expect the wording of the tenancy agreement to be clear to include any services the landlord is providing and charging for. The tenancy agreement makes no reference to charges relating to food or meals. On 20 January 2026, in communication with us, the landlord agreed the tenancy agreement was silent on the provision for food.
  4. A document titled “extra care housing attachment to tenancy agreement” (the document) makes reference to a ‘meal charge’. The landlord has said that this document formed part of the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence to show the document formed part of the tenancy agreement and without such evidence the meal charge would not be enforceable in these circumstances. The landlord missed opportunities to identify this and fully put things right.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 15 July 2024, it explained that the resident was not told about payments towards food (the meal charge) when he signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord accepts it had no evidence to show the resident was informed what payments related to food, there was no breakdown of service charges and that its paperwork did not make food charges clear. The landlord’s insight into what went wrong was reasonable, and what it said here has not been disputed. In light of this, it offered the resident a refund of payments he made from the start of the tenancy until its letter from 22 February 2022 (74 weeks at £26.29, totalling £1,945.46).
  6. The letter from 22 February 2022 sets out the rent and service charges applicable from 4 April 2022. It noted “catering charge HB ineligible” amount of £27.09. The landlord has said this letter “clearly” stated the food provision and explained where housing benefit was ineligible. While the letter mentioned a catering charge, it did not ‘clearly’ explain that the resident would be responsible for paying £27.09 towards the costs of food or the ‘meal charge’. This letter also did not resolve the issue concerning the wording of the tenancy agreement not being clear. Furthermore, it did not offer the transparency expected under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  7. On review of the charge, we are unable to evidence that the landlord was entitled to pass this on to the resident. In our view, this amounts to maladministration. Had the landlord not made some attempts to put things right as part of its internal complaints process, the findings here may have been more severe.
  8. To put things right, the landlord should increase the amount it agreed to refund to include meal charges paid by the resident between 22 February 2022 up to 1 October 2023, when it stopped providing the service. This is around 83 weeks. It would be fair in the circumstances to apply the £27.09 weekly amount mentioned in the letter from February 2022 for this timeframe. This means £27.09 multiplied by 83 amounts to a further refund of £2,248.47.
  9. The resident has confirmed the refund of £1,945.46, previously offered, has been received. The amount of £2,248.47 is in addition to this.
  10. As part of the resident’s complaint he also raised concerns about the quality and standard of food. The landlord has accepted that there were issues with the quality of the food. It did investigate this and it has said this led it to cancel the food offer in October 2023. When considering the actions taken and the overall refund, no further compensation has been ordered.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

No maladministration
  1. The resident raised his complaint on 1 July 2024 and this was acknowledged the following day. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 July 2024, within the 10 working days timeframe set within its complaints policy. Its response demonstrated insight into its failings and made some attempts to put things right.
  2. When the resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this on 19 July 2024. Its stage 2 response from 14 August 2024, was issued within the 20 working days timeframe set within its complaints policy. The landlord’s overall complaint handling was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.

Learning

  1. The landlord missed opportunities to fully identify that its food provision did not formally form part of the tenancy agreement. The landlord may wish to consider its processes on interpreting tenancy agreements to ensure it provides correct information and that it only charges what it can.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

  1. The landlord should improve its record‑keeping arrangements so it can reliably evidence that information provided to residents is accurate.

 

Communication

  1. As mentioned above, the landlord may want to consider how it can ensure its communication includes accurate information.