Curo Places Limited (202449268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449268

Curo Places Limited

5 September 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 damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. For clarity, the resident and his partner signed their tenancy agreement with the market rent arm of the landlord. The resident and his partner will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor maisonette.
For context, the property is in a listed 4-storey Georgian building which has high ceilings. The resident said there is a basement property/area which has his gas and electric meters and a front door which does not close properly. At least one of the other properties in the building is owned by a leaseholder.
Shortly after moving in, the resident reported a number of issues with the property. He:
1. Said the carpet smelt of “wet dog [after being cleaned by a landlord contractor 2 days earlier]” in an email to the landlord on 7 January 2024.
2. Said the carpet felt “very damp” in an email to the landlord on 17 January 2024.
3. Called the landlord on 19 January 2024 and reported the bathroom extractor fan had stopped working. He said black mould and damp was starting to build up on the walls. The landlord fitted a new bathroom extractor fan shortly afterwards.
4. Emailed the landlord and said there were “big areas of mould in the bedroom despite using sprays and having a dehumidifier” on 19 February 2024. On the same day an internal landlord email said:
  1. A contractor had visited the property that day to clean the carpets a second time.
  2. The contractor noted black mould on the walls but said it could be caused by the first carpet cleaning contractor “over-soaking” the carpet.
  3. Someone should attend to assess, wipe down and treat the mould.
In a call with us, the resident said he had tried to chase the landlord to address the mould issue between February and May. He said during this time he was “living with the mould”, by “cleaning it with black mould spray and sponges on extendable sticks.”
After the resident reported damp in the bedroom, living room and bathroom on 10 May 2024. The landlord:
1. Believed the mould was caused by the first carpet clean.
2. Attended on 21 May 2024 to clean the mould.
The resident chased the landlord on 27 and 31 May 2024 in relation to a complaint made about further issues with the property, “mould problems” and “mould damage.”
A landlord contractor attended on 7 June 2024 to complete a gas safety check. It noted damp issues at the property.
The resident reported the bathroom light/extractor fan pull-switch had broken on 2 October 2024. The landlord visited the resident on 15 October 2024. It noted:
1. “Damp and mould in the bedroom… [and] in the living room around the windows and in corners of the room.
2. The window condition was poor and the living room window did not close.”

It completed the bathroom light/extractor fan repair the next day. It then raised work orders on 23 October 2024 to address the damp and mould it had seen when it visited 8 days earlier.

Historic weather data showed it rained on 16, 19, 20 and 28 October 2024. A follow-up email from the resident sent to the landlord on 30 October 2024 said the “mould situation had become uncontrollable and [had] rapidly become a lot worse… it is everywhere, carpet, skirting, kitchen. We believe it might be affecting our health.”
The landlord completed a second mould wash on 6 November 2024. A surveyor visit was booked the next day. The surveyor attended on 20 November 2024 and:
1. Noted:
  1. “The main problem was when the heating is on, the property would not maintain heat due to the poor state of the wooden sliding sash windows.
  2. He had spoken to the landlord’s asset management team regarding window repair/replacement after the visit. Due to the building being Georgian and listed, any works required permission. But repairs can be sourced locally which made a big difference when completed.
  3. More investigation was required.”
2. Raised work orders to:
  1. Insulate the void behind the bathroom window and screw the window shut.
  2. Overhaul the bathroom extractor fan.
  3. Check whether an extractor fan could be installed in the kitchen/living room.
3. Told the resident the heating “should be kept on a minimum of 18 degrees at all times.”
Historic weather data showed it rained on 23, 24 and 25 November 2024. The resident called the landlord on 25 November 2024 and said:
1. “The gutters were blocked [which caused rainwater to pour directly onto the building wall].
2. He had not received a copy of the surveyor’s report.
3. He had been told to keep the heating on a minimum of 18 degrees at all times but he could not afford to do this.
4. He wanted to raise a formal complaint.”

The same day the landlord:

Raised a gutter repair.
Chased the surveyor report.
Raised a formal complaint.
Said it would amend the bathroom window work order to include repairs to the living room window as the resident said it “allowed water in when it rained.”
Was contacted by another resident in the building who reported a leak from the building roof.

The next day the landlord called the resident in relation to the heating/bills. The evidence showed contractors visited the building over the following days in relation to the roof leak raised by the other resident, and for the blocked gutters.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 December 2024, in which it said:
1. It would complete work raised by its surveyor which it hoped would resolve the damp and mould.
2. It would offer compensation once the work was completed.

The resident emailed the landlord the next day to say although a contractor had attended that day, not all the surveyor’s recommended repairs were completed.

The evidence showed the landlord completed some repairs on 19 December 2024 to the chimney pots and stack. It fitted 2 chimney cowls, re-bedded 3 loose chimney pots and water-sealed the whole top of the chimney stack.
A landlord contractor attended to service the bathroom extractor fan on 24 January 2025. The resident chased for updates in relation to outstanding repairs on multiple occasions around this time. On:
1. 27 January 2025 he said “the paint on the walls is coming off… around the window cill is black” and “when we take the pillow cases off there is mould, and on the mattress and everything.”
2. 28 January 2025 he said “the mould has gone dark green and the carpet has started to go black.”
3. 3 February 2025 he said:
  1. “Every time it rains, it’s pouring in.
  2. He had a pile of towels on the floor to soak up water.
  3. His carpet had gone black and the walls were green with mould.
  4. There had been an on and off leak since October 2024.”
  5. He wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
4. 26 February 2025 he said:
  1. His partner had “been ill since September 2024… [they] believed it to be damp and mould related. Over the past few days her health had become worse and she had been to the doctors and was prescribed antibiotics after being diagnosed with a bacterial infection caused by damp and mould.
  2. The wall and ceiling were orange and green with mould and the outside of the building was now green.
  3. He believed he was continuously lied to and neglected and [was] still living in a wet flat”
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 March 2025 to request additional time to respond to the complaint. A second surveyor attended 2 days later and said:
1. “There was water ingress into the flat both in the living room and bedroom.
2. He believed this was caused by rain water ingress into the side of the property… which appeared to be coming from around the cast [iron] down pipe [which was the blocked gutter the resident had reported].
3. There was extremely high levels of damp in both the living room and bedroom.
4. Further investigation was required throughout the building including all other flats, the roof and basement.
5. Once external work is completed, the property will require a full repaint with mould resistant paint.”
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2025. It said:
1. It had identified a failure in its response to damp and mould and apologised for the delay.
2. The carpets were left wet from a wash when the resident moved in which would have caused high humidity. It offered a replacement carpet or a further clean at the time. And the resident had accepted a second clean.
3. It had completed mould cleans and repairs to the extractor fan and bathroom window.
4. Due to the building being listed, it would arrange for the most efficient solution for the windows. Its damp and mould team would provide further updates.
5. Scaffolding would be assembled on 30 March 2025 to complete repairs. It would try and bring this forward.
6. It had identified a roof leak. Once roof repairs were completed, it would ensure remedial work to the property was carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
7. It would consider losses incurred due to items damaged by damp and mould once the work was completed. But may refer this to its insurer.
8. It would support the resident in making a personal injury claim through its insurer.
9. The complaint would remain open, and once repairs were completed it would offer compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Scaffolding was assembled to the front elevation of the building and chimney on 27 March 2025. Repairs to the chimney flaunching and cast iron hopper at the top of the down pipe were completed on 30 May 2025.
The landlord noted it had received notification the complaint would be investigated by us on 16 June 2025. It sent a complaint closure letter to the resident on 11 July 2025 and offered £1,025 compensation made up of:
1. £1,000 for time and impact.
2. £25 for complaint handling.

This has subsequently been paid to the resident.

In calls with us on 21 and 27 August 2025, the resident said:
1. Internal property repairs had not been completed.
2. He still had mould.
3. He was unsure whether the roof repairs would address the damp and mould as there had not been much rain. And the property had damp and mould prior to October/November 2024 when he thought the roof leak started.
4. He was worried about the winter months, particularly with his partners health.
5. He had submitted claims to the landlord’s insurer for damaged belongings and a personal injury claim but had not heard anything further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We have previously determined another case in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in another of its properties in February 2025 (202309540). As part of its 2 complaint responses, the landlord detailed that it had undertaken process changes and learning with regards to its handling of damp and mould, which was positive. The landlord provided a copy of this to us on 13 March 2025. The events assessed below mostly predate the positive changes the landlord has made. Therefore, no additional orders will be made which would duplicate work carried out by the landlord to improve its handling of damp and mould cases.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises (including drains, gutters, and pipes).
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend:
1. Emergency repairs the same day to make safe.
2. Priority repairs, including a rainwater leak from a roof, before the end of the next working day.
3. Routine repairs at a mutually convenient appointment, within a maximum response time of 28 days.
The landlord’s ‘dealing with damp and mould’ leaflet says it will:
1. Treat all reports of damp and mould seriously and as health and safety issues.
2. Carry out repairs needed because of damp and mould as quickly and efficiently as possible.
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 is a potential category 1 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. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould.
The first report of black mould was on 19 January 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended 17 days later, in line with its routine repairs policy, and fitted a new bathroom extractor fan. Given the mould was reported to be in the bathroom at this point, this was a reasonable approach to take.
The landlord’s carpet cleaning contractor and resident both reported black mould in the property on 19 February 2024. Internal landlord emails show it requested a mould wash twice after the reports. But despite the 2 requests, there was no evidence a mould wash was raised, which was failing.
The landlord raised a work order for a mould wash and to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould on 10 May 2024. This was reasonable given the mould had now spread to the living room and had returned to the bathroom. However, while the contractor attended 11 days later and completed a mould wash, there was no evidence anyone attended to identify a cause, which was a failing.
After this, there was no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to the damp and mould for almost 5 months, which was unreasonable. This was despite:
1. The resident chasing in relation to mould problems/damage at least twice on 27 and 31 May 2024.
2. A contractor reporting damp issues at the property after a gas safety visit on 7 June 2024, only 2.5 weeks after the mould wash.

The resident said he continued to chase the landlord after the mould returned and continued to clean areas he could reach.

The resident tried to contact a specific landlord staff member about damp and mould multiple times. Around the beginning of October, the resident learned the staff member had left after receiving a letter from a new staff member. The new staff member then visited the property on 15 October 2024 and noted damp and mould. It was unclear why it then took 6 working days to raise a second mould wash and diagnosis of the cause of the damp. This was an unnecessary delay and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould leaflet.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 6 November 2024 and completed a mould wash to the bedroom, living room and kitchen areas, in line with its routine repair timescale. However, there was no evidence any effort was made to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould. However, the contractor did recommend a surveyor visit, which was raised promptly the next day.
The surveyor attended 13 days after the visit was requested and raised repairs, which was positive. However, the landlord had missed 2 previous opportunities to diagnose the cause of damp and mould on 10 May and 23 October 2024, which caused delays. By the time the surveyor attended, it was 6 months after the first mould wash, and 9 months after the resident’s reports of bedroom black mould. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to wait for a surveyor to visit, which was a failing.
The landlord called the resident on 26 November 2024 after the resident had raised concerns over the cost of keeping his heating on following the surveyor recommendation. The evidence from the landlord’s call records showed it told the resident “if he wanted to look for a different property, the fixed term tenancy ended in January.” This was an unreasonable and insensitive approach which caused the resident distress. Particularly given:
1. The advice to keep the heating on was provided by the surveyor.
2. The fact he was told to keep the heating on was given due to the landlord’s failure to properly address the damp and mould.
5 days after the surveyor visit, the resident reported blocked gutters. The evidence showed the landlord’s contractor attended the building the next day, but this was in relation to a reported roof leak from another resident. The contractor attended again 2 days later in relation to the blocked gutters. It noted scaffolding was required, but this had already been requested for the roof repair. The evidence showed the scaffolding request was not followed up until 16 December 2024, over 2.5 weeks later, which was a delay.
The landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the bathroom window raised by the surveyor on 13 December 2024. This was within the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair. However:
1. There was no evidence the contractor completed any repairs to the living room window, despite the resident being told it would do so on 25 November 2024.
2. The landlord noted the bathroom extractor fan job needed to be completed on 16 December 2024. But there was no evidence it chased this up.

Failure to promptly complete the repairs recommended by the surveyor caused the resident inconvenience chasing for updates. It also delayed any potential improvements to the damp and mould within the property, which were failings.

The resident chased the outstanding repairs again on 22 January 2025, over a month later. The landlord serviced the bathroom extractor fan 2 days later. This was 65 days after the surveyor raised the work order, double the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair, which was another unreasonable delay. This should have been done by 18 December 2024, so we cannot say the Christmas period contributed to delays. As the contractor had sealed the bathroom window shut on 13 December 2024, it was possible the failure to promptly service the bathroom extractor fan may have contributed to worsening damp and mould.
The resident chased the remaining repairs on 26, 27, 28 and 31 January 2025 as the damp and mould issues got progressively worse. The repair log showed the landlord chased its contractors in relation to the blocked gutters. However, after no further update, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. After the complaint escalation, the landlord:
1. Chased the scaffolding the same day.
2. Raised a work order on 11 February 2025 for another surveyor visit.
3. Discussed claims for damage to personal health and belongings.

While it was positive the landlord was using its complaints process to try and address the damp and mould issue, it should not have taken a complaint escalation for the landlord to act.

There was little evidence any action had been taken to address concerns raised by the first surveyor in relation to the window condition. However, a second surveyor attended on 7 March 2025. An internal email the same day said “there are a number of issues in the block with complaints linked to all flats within it [in relation to] damp and mould caused by leaks/structural issues/windows.” And “it needed a combined approach, rather than dealing with each issue separately.” It was positive the landlord recognised the importance of dealing with the issues with the whole building, as well as the level of damp within the resident’s property. However, this was now 13 months after the resident first reported black mould in his property, which was unreasonable.
After the stage 2 complaint response, scaffolding was assembled within a reasonable timeframe. However, it was another 2 months before repairs were completed, which was another delay. The evidence showed this was down to a communication issue between the landlord and its contractors. The contractors had only quoted for the scaffolding and not the repairs. It was also unclear why the landlord did not complete gutter repairs when it was on the roof anyway on 19 December 2024. The landlord could have taken the opportunity to complete all the repairs at once, but it did not do so, which caused delays.
The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. Overall, its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould has been exceptionally poor. The landlord:
1. Missed 2 separate opportunities to raise a mould wash in February 2024.
2. Failed to diagnose the cause of damp and mould in May 2024.
3. Failed to diagnose the cause of damp and mould in October 2024.
4. Failed to monitor repairs raised by the first surveyor in November 2024:
  1. There were delays completing repairs to the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. There was no evidence to confirm what happened in relation to a kitchen extractor fan. Although the resident has since said he was told the landlord would not fit one.
  3. There was no evidence the window repairs were proactively followed up. Internal emails on 4 December 2024, 30 January 2025 and 18 March 2025 showed window repairs were considered. Repairs were eventually raised on 11 June 2025, almost 7 months later. However, the resident said these have still not been completed.
  4. There was no evidence the landlord conducted any further investigation into the cause of damp and mould.
5. Noted scaffolding was required on 26 November 2024 for chimney repairs. The evidence suggests scaffolding was in place for repairs completed on 19 December 2024. But the landlord did not complete gutter repairs at this point. This led to a further 4 months of delays getting scaffolding assembled for the gutter and additional chimney repairs.
6. Was poor in its management of repairs which caused confusion. The repair logs showed:
  1. Multiple work orders raised for the second carpet clean in January and February 2024.
  2. Duplicate work orders raised for the mould wash in October 2024.
  3. Multiple roof/chimney work orders raised under a void property and a neighbouring property in November 2024. But with notes under the void that related to the resident.
  4. Duplicate work orders raised for the bathroom extractor fan.
  5. Multiple work orders raised for the blocked gutters.
The landlord took little or no action between:
1. 19 February 2024 and 10 May 2024 – a period of 2.5 months.
2. 7 June 2024 to 15 October 2024 – a period of 3 months.
3. 15 October 2024 and 23 October 2024 – over a week.
4. 20 November 2024 and 24 January 2025 – a period of 2 months.
5. 25 January 2025 to 7 March 2025 – a period of 1.5 months.
6. 30 March 2025 (when scaffolding assembled) to 30 May 2025 (when further repairs were completed) – a period of 2 months.

This adds up to over 11 months.

The communication was also poor, with the evidence showing:
1. The resident chased for updates on at least 27 and 31 May 2024, 1 July 2024, 30 October 2024, 26 November 2024, 22, 27, 28, 31 January 2025, 3, 7, 21, 28 February 2025 and 10 March 2025.
2. The landlord failed to inform the resident when a member of staff had left, meaning he emailed an inbox to report damp and mould that was not monitored.
3. It failed to complete gutter repairs when it completed chimney repairs on 19 December 2024. It was months before the landlord identified a combined approach was needed, rather than dealing with each issue separately.
4. The resident was promised an update on 31 January 2025, but did not receive one.
5. The resident received a letter from the landlord’s damp and mould taskforce on 10 February 2025 which said it had visited and finished work to solve the problem, when it had not.
6. No update was provided to the resident after the scaffolding was assembled.
We accept there may have always been some delays completing external repairs due to a leaseholder in the block, and the need for scaffolding. However, the resident has lived in a property with damp and mould for an unreasonable length of time. The landlord’s lack of urgency and failings outlined above have protracted the issue. We acknowledge the landlord has already paid the resident some compensation. But this was not enough given the failings identified during this investigation. A finding of severe maladministration is made and further orders are made to put things right. This includes an additional £2,500 compensation. This is an appropriate remedy to reflect the significant, distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the property the resident has incurred since February 2024. The landlord could have reasonably avoided the loss of enjoyment if it had responded appropriately to the reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at stage 1 and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response within 20 working days. Any extension at stage 2 would not exceed 20 working days without good reason which must be explained to the resident.
It was positive the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timeframe outlined in its policy. However, apart from saying “sorry for the experience”, the complaint response failed to acknowledge any failings from February to the date of the response, 10 months of events. It also failed to offer any compensation which was unreasonable. In addition to this, the evidence suggests the resident had raised he was unhappy with the mould in May 2024. The landlord could have raised a formal complaint in relation to damp and mould at this point, but it failed to do so.
The stage 1 response said it would complete works raised by its surveyor. And if the resident remained unhappy, he had 10 working days to escalate the complaint. There was no evidence the complaints team took any responsibility or accountability in monitoring work orders raised by the surveyor. This contributed to delayed property repairs, and was a failing.
The stage 2 response was a second opportunity to try and put things right for the resident. However, the landlord again failed to do so:
1. There was no evidence the repairs were monitored.
2. The landlord said it would arrange for the most efficient solution for the windows, but there was no evidence it did so, or proactively followed this up.
3. The landlord said it would ensure remedial work to the property is carried out within a reasonable timeframe, but failed to do so.
4. It did not offer any compensation for 13 months of issues.
5. The delays in helping the resident with insurance claims for health and damaged belongings were unreasonable. There was no reason why the landlord could not start this at an earlier opportunity.
We welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response and a landlord is entitled to review its position. As mentioned earlier, we acknowledge the landlord has paid compensation to the resident. However, we note this was only after notification we would formally investigate the complaint. This delay offering compensation was unreasonable, and the £25 compensation offer for complaint handling was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. A finding of maladministration is made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. And an order for an additional £250 compensation is made.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing. This apology should:
  1. Come directly from a member of the landlord’s executive team in recognition of the serious failings identified in this report.
  2. Consider our apologies guidance found on our website.
2. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect all areas of the building for which the landlord holds a repair responsibility to identify any repairs needed to address damp and mould. This survey should includean assessment of the resident’s property and the basement below his flat. Please note, there is no requirement to assess the roof as this has recently been inspected and repaired. The survey should be provided to us and the resident.

If investigation into the cause of damp and mould has already been completed following the second surveyor’s recommendation on 7 March 2025, the landlord must provide a copy of the survey to us and the resident.

Provide an action plan/timescale of repairs to us and the resident. The action plan should clarify when the landlord will complete:
1. Any repairs the survey may identify.
2. Internal decoration to the resident’s property as mentioned in the stage 2 complaint response and by the surveyor in March 2025. This should be a full re-paint of the property with mould resistant paint.
The landlord should explain its position to us and the resident in relation to repairs to the property windows. The resident has said minor repairs were recently carried out, however the window wood is rotten.
Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £2,750 which made up of:
1. £2,500 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the property from 19 February 2024 to 11 July 2025.
2. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

This compensation is in addition to the £1,025 already paid to the resident taking the total compensation to £3,775.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact its insurer for an update on the resident’s insurance claims. It should then provide the resident with an update as to when he can expect an outcome.