Curo Places Limited (202340054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340054

Curo Places Limited

29 August 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 response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a joint tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 6 March 2020. The property has 4 bedrooms.
During November 2022 the resident reported damp and mould. The landlord inspected the property. In December it raised follow on works including to the radiators and a leak above the window in the utility.
In January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report ongoing damp and mould. Further works were raised including works to the chimney and a drainage channel against the back wall of the property.
On 20 January 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about delays in carrying out works. This was partly caused by issues with appointments including the landlord failing to attend and/or failing to notify the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2023. It said the repair had been booked. It would monitor progress and communicate with the resident.
Between January and April 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged emails regarding ongoing work.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord issued a revised stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the resident’s experience. It set out works it would carry out to resolve the complaint. It also said it would consider compensation for the time and impact caused by its failures of service.
During April to November 2023 the landlord carried out various works to the property.
On 17 November 2023 the resident called the landlord to report her dissatisfaction with its response. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2024, as follows:
1. It acknowledged and apologised for “multiple errors”, delays and lack of communication. This had caused the resident to chase works for them to progress. This was not the level of service it expected to deliver.
2. It had implemented changes to ensure it stored all repair jobs together. This meant it could see what had been done to prevent duplications. It was also able to monitor works more closely and take a more “proactive approach.”
3. It said it would take the case to its directors as lessons learnt to ensure it did not repeat its failures.
4. It signposted the resident to make a personal injury claim on its insurance in relation to the impact on the health of her daughter and husband.
5. It was unable to comment on alleged paint damage caused by its contractors as this was denied.
6. It offered £1,500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for poor complaint handling at stage 1.
  2. £50 for missed appointments.
  3. £1,000 for time and impact.
  4. £200 to acknowledge annoyance and time spent cleaning items affected by paint splatters.
  5. £200 for cleaning the sofa and mattress or as a contribution towards their replacement.

Events post internal complaints process

On 7 February 2024 the resident submitted an online complaint to us. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the ongoing damp and mould. She said delays and issues with appointments had caused “upset and stress.”
An internal email dated 3 April 2024 was sent as a reminder to refer the case to directors for lessons learnt.
A works order was raised on 10 April 2024 to replace the downstairs kitchen and shower extractor fans with moisture reactive fans.
On 27 June 2024 the landlord raised a works order to complete a new heating installation including new boiler and radiators.
During a call with us on 15 August 2025 the resident said a number of repairs were outstanding, including replacement of the extractor fans and installation of an opening window in the downstairs toilet.
In its email to us dated 27 August 2025 the landlord advised it last inspected the property on 28 April. It said it had been trying to complete follow on works but had been unable to gain access to the property.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould

The landlord’s Tackling Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy (damp policy) says that:
1. It will undertake responsive repairs to resolve the problem as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimise damage to the property and to maintain the health and safety of residents.
2. For each reported instance of damp, condensation or mould its approach is to ensure that a case is opened and managed until the problem is resolved. There will be regular contact with the customer affected to keep them informed of progress and ensure their wellbeing.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says that it will only pay compensation for damage to property where the damage is a clear consequence of failure of service and where it has evidence of the damage. Compensation maybe in the form of repairing damaged items or like for like replacement.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure says it will pay £10 to recognise the impact of a missed appointment up to a total of £50.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 February 2024 was open and honest about its failures. It said there had been “countless delays, errors, and minimal communication.” It acknowledged it only progressed works in response to being chased by the resident which was “unacceptable.”.

Appointments

The evidence shows that the landlord’s failure to attend appointments was caused by miscommunication, failure to record the resident’s contact preferences and/or details of her availability.
On 9 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord via its online chat to report damp and mould. It booked its surveyor to visit on 22 November however it failed to attend. When the resident followed up with the landlord she was advised there had been a mistake. The appointment was in fact booked for 22 December.
An internal email dated 1 December 2022 set out a call from the resident that she had missed an appointment when the landlord tried to attend. She said she’d set out the times of her school runs and provided her contact details. It confirmed these were not added to the job.
On 2 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report another failed appointment. A third appointment was arranged for 13 December however it failed to attend again. The landlord’s records show the job was rebooked for 19 December.
On 20 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord because she had expected it to attend that day. She said she was advised it was rearranged for 2 February but she had not been told. She was frustrated at having to waste a day off work.
An internal email dated 17 November 2023 set out a call from the resident who said her partner received a message saying it would attend that day but she did not know for what. She was “angry” because she had repeatedly requested that contact be through her and gave her availability for appointments.
The resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on 3 January 2024. She said that its contractor had attended to carry out works without an appointment. The operatives let themselves into the garden and had a dog with them. Her 16 year old daughter was home alone at the time and was distressed by the incident.
The evidence set out above shows that the landlord’s failure to manage the appointments effectively was a consistent theme across the duration of the complaint period. The failures caused the resident distress, inconvenience and caused time and trouble when she had to follow up.

Delays

The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were delays in its response to the substantive issue. One of the reasons for the delays was issues with the management of appointments as set out above. However there is also evidence that duplicate work orders were raised for the same repairs. It is often unclear why repairs did not progress in line with the landlord’s damp policy to resolve them quickly and efficiently.
The resident first reported the issue on 9 November 2022. The landlord did not attend until on or around 21 December. It noted there was “major condensation” in the property. It identified follow on works including to the chimney, windows and radiators. On or around 30 December the landlord also raised a works order to dig a channel below the damp proof course against the back wall.
In an email to the resident dated 9 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that works to the chimney, window and garden would be confirmed “as soon as possible.” The works were raised in December 2022. Therefore it was unreasonable that approximately 5 weeks later it was unable to provide timescales. The need to manage the resident’s expectations was particularly important given the number of repairs to be carried out.
A completion report dated 24 February 2023 said the radiators had been relocated as required.
Also on 24 February 2023 the landlord raised a works order to dig a narrow channel against the back wall below the lounge. It’s unclear why another order was raised in addition to the one in December 2022. A file note dated 23 March said the works to dig the channel were pushed back to May. This was because it was the earliest date the contractor could attend. This was 5 months from the date works were first identified. This was unreasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s damp policy to carry out works quickly and efficiently.
On 3 March 2023 the resident reported issues with her boiler. On the same day the landlord raised a request for a boiler inspection.
By 27 March 2023 the landlord had inspected the windows and recommended they be replaced. An internal email of 18 April confirmed this was approved.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to upgrade the extractor fan to a humidistat fan in the kitchen, bathroom and shower room. The records show works were completed on 20 July. A new job was also raised to replace the fan in the downstairs toilet.
On 3 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the channel had been dug but she was dissatisfied with the standard of work. On 24 May the landlord requested that works be post inspected. While this was positive this was 22 days after the resident had first raised her concerns. The reason for the delay is unclear therefore it was unreasonable.
Internal emails sent on 5 June 2023 confirmed the windows had been measured but the resident had not been given a timeframe for completion.
The landlord said it was prioritising planned works so it was working in a “broad timeframe” of 3 months for reactive works. Its response failed to consider the nature of the substantive issue and the impact the damp and mould was having on the resident and her household. Therefore it failed to comply with its damp policy to minimise damage and maintain the health of residents.
A file note dated 8 June 2023 set out the landlord’s visit to the property to review works. There was damp and mould in all the upstairs bedrooms. A request was made for a damp and mould inspection to be carried out. There is no evidence that this took place which was inappropriate. This was a missed opportunity to review the current situation and its response to date to ensure it took effective action moving forward.
An internal email dated 22 June 2023 referred to ongoing issues with the repairs. It also suggested removing the shower room altogether and upgrading the bathroom to reduce condensation. There is no evidence that this was progressed.
While the landlord was ordering various works there was no case management in place to ensure they were coordinated. This would’ve been appropriate to ensure all works were effective, carried out on time and with minimal disruption to the resident. Its failure meant the landlord failed to comply with its damp policy.
An internal email dated 5 July 2023 set out works required to investigate a leak to the chimney which was causing damp to the chimney breast internally. A works order for the chimney was raised on 26 July. It’s unclear why it took 21 days to raise the works order. This was inappropriate given its link to the damp and mould issue. Considering a works order was originally raised on 23 February 2023 it is unclear why another order was raised 5 months later.
The landlord’s records show that during October 2023 it carried out works to fit a new fan in the downstairs toilet. This job was originally raised in May 2023 therefore the response time of 5 months was unreasonable. During her call to us on 15 August 2025 the resident said this was still outstanding.
On 13 October 2023 the landlord raised an order to carry out a mould wash in all affected areas. While this was positive it was 4 months after its inspection which noted there was damp and mould upstairs.
An internal email dated 19 December 2023 set out the resident’s request for a window inspection because one of the new windows did not open. An internal email dated 3 January 2024 confirmed that the downstairs window was not one that could be opened therefore the matter was referred to its assets team. In the resident’s call to us on 15 August 2025 she said this was still outstanding.

Communication

An internal email dated 31 January 2023 set out the resident’s request for a start date for works. She also asked the landlord to confirm if all the radiators would be relocated. The landlord’s evidence shows that it tried to seek an update from its contractor but struggled to get hold of them.
The lack of updates caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed again on 9 February 2023 to seek an update. On this occasion the landlord replied to confirm that all the radiators would be moved.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to update her about timescales to carry out works to the channel which, as set out above, would not be completed until May 2023.
An internal email dated 20 April 2023 sought an update on progress of the channel. On the same day the landlord emailed the resident to say works were complete. The resident replied to say it was incorrect and that various works remained outstanding.
In its reply also on the same day the landlord said it had made a mistake and confirmed works still needed to be carried out. Its error caused distress, time and trouble to the resident. It’s also further evidence that it did not adopt a case management approach in line with its damp policy.
There is no evidence that the anticipated delay in replacing the windows as set out above on 5 June 2023 was communicated to the resident.

A file note dated 13 July 2023 shows the landlord had attended to post inspect works. It’s unclear what works it had hoped to inspect. Furthermore it noted that the resident was “bemused” because no works had been undertaken. This is further evidence of a lack of effective communication with the resident and oversight of works.

Quality of workmanship

On 21 December 2022 the landlord attended the property to carry out a mould wash. However, due to the positioning of the furniture the contractor left the cleaning materials and gloves with the resident to carry out the work herself. It’s noted that the resident agreed to accept the materials. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord advised the resident to prepare for the visit or that it offered the option of a further appointment.
On 2 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the new radiators were smaller than the old ones and did not work properly. In a further email dated 3 March she said she suspected the fault was with the boiler as she could not have heating and hot water at the same time.
On 3 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say the channel had been dug. However she was dissatisfied with the work because it was not what had been agreed. On 10 May the landlord emailed the resident to say its lead surveyor would attend on 17 May. It’s unclear if they did so which is a record keeping failure.
A file note of 4 April 2024 noted that the landlord had inspected the radiators. It said the issue was caused by the way the pipework had been run to the radiators. It also noted that the boiler was “not strong enough for the job” and recommended it be replaced. While this was positive it was 12 months after the resident had first raised her concerns. It’s noted that the landlord had attended to investigate various issues with the boiler in the meantime. However it did so without considering the relocation of the radiators which delayed resolution of the issue.

Compensation

On 21 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report paint damage caused by its contractors. She also outlined the impact of the damp and mould on her household. In its reply of 22 January the landlord requested photographs of the damage which were provided. It also requested receipts for any damaged items.
In a further email of the same date it confirmed the resident would need to make a personal injury claim regarding the impact on health. While this was reasonable its approach to such matters was not set out in its Compensation Policy which was a shortcoming. It is noted that its current Compensation Policy (2024) appropriately sets out that it has liability insurance for claims of personal injury.
The resident was unable to provide receipts for the items that were damaged. She subsequently exchanged further emails with the landlord to establish the approximate cost of some of the larger items that were damaged including a sofa and mattress. In its email to the resident of 29 January 2024 the landlord said it would make an estimate with regards to the cost of the items. This implied it would make an offer of compensation accordingly.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 2 February 2024 the landlord said it was unable to comment on the paint damage because this was denied by the contractor. It offered a total of £400 for the inconvenience of cleaning and/or replacing items.
The landlord’s response was inappropriate because:
1. It’s unclear what steps it took to investigate the complaint with its contractor.
2. It inappropriately raised the resident’s expectations that an offer to replace items would be based on the estimates she provided.
3. Considering there was a question of liability it would have been appropriate for it to have referred the matter to its insurers so that a thorough investigation could be carried out.

Health

The resident set out her concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on the health of her household during her communication with the landlord. For example in her email to the landlord of 20 January 2023 she said her family were experiencing coughs and respiratory problems.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer to consider compensation. However, its communication with the resident failed to demonstrate any empathy in relation to the impact on health. It also failed to demonstrate that it had considered her concerns in its approach to carrying out the repairs. Therefore, it failed to respond in line with its damp policy to maintain the health and safety of residents.

Summary

Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord broadly acknowledged its failures, tried to put things right with compensation and identified some learning from the complaint. However, there were repeated serious failures throughout the complaint which had a significant impact on the resident.
Considering these factors we conclude that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response. We would have made a finding of severe maladministration were it not for the landlord’s efforts to comply with our dispute resolution principles.
Our remedies guidance recommends that compensation up to £1,000 is paid for findings of maladministration. However, in cases were there has been a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident orders for compensation over £1,000 can be made. In this case the compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1,800. It may deduct the £1,050 it has offered if this has already been paid.
On 10 February 2025 we determined another damp and mould case, reference 202309540. On 12 March 2025 the landlord set out improvements and lessons learned from a review into reports of damp and mould. It said it had established a more structured, transparent, and effective approach to managing reports. It believed this would help prevent similar issues in the future. Therefore it has not been necessary to make a further order in this determination.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its responses will demonstrate that it takes the complaint seriously and learn from complaints.
Its Customer Complaints Procedure (complaints procedure) sets out what should be included in its stage 1 response including action taken to address each element of the complaint.
On 20 January 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued both its acknowledgement and complaint response on 24 January. The speed with which the landlord issued its response suggested it did not carry out a thorough investigation of the complaint.
Furthermore, the brevity and nature of its response failed to demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, considered each element and learnt from the complaint in line with its policies.
The resident’s frustration with the response was evident in her email to the landlord of 24 January 2023. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which further eroded the landlord/resident relationship.
An internal email dated 12 April 2023 addressed concerns about the quality of its complaint response which it said was “not acceptable.” A further email sent that day said the issue had been addressed with the officer in question. While this was appropriate it came almost 4 months after the resident raised her dissatisfaction.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord issued a revised stage 1 complaint response to try to put things right. While this was positive it failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failure, what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. It also failed to consider offering compensation for the delay in providing an appropriate complaint response.
As part of its complaint resolution it said it would consider compensation for the time and impact caused by its failures of service. It is unclear why it did not make an offer of redress as part of its complaint response. It is acknowledged this was put right to some extent by its stage 2 complaint response.
An internal email dated 17 November 2023 noted the resident’s request to escalate her complaint however it was closed. A response confirmed that the complaint was closed in error and would be reraised. This was a record keeping failure. However, it is positive that the landlord restored the resident to the position she would’ve been in were it not for its failure.
On 5 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the complaint had been escalated. It said it was working through a backlog and would be in touch when the complaint was assigned. It failed to provide a further update to the resident. Its inaction caused distress, time and trouble to the resident because on 3 January 2024 she emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction.
On 18 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint for a second time. It said it would provide its response within 20 working days. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February. Although it was within time from the date of its second acknowledgement it was 52 working days from the date of the complaint and 32 working days out of time.
Its stage 2 complaint response offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure at stage 1. While this was positive it failed to acknowledge the delay at stage 2 and therefore, failed to try to put things right which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out the changes it had made following the complaint. However, it also said it would refer the case to its directors for review to identify what it would do differently. While this was positive there is no evidence it did so and the evidence shows it was still outstanding in April. This was inappropriate given it was part of its complaint resolution.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the failures identified in this report. It has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a senior manager to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,900 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord may deduct the £1,050 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. Consider the failures identified in this report and review its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by its contractor. It should provide its response to the resident in writing. If its offer of compensation remains unchanged it should re offer the £400 if this has not already been paid.
4. Contact the resident to agree an appointment, which should be confirmed in writing, to carry out a fresh survey of the property. It should inspect for any ongoing damp and mould and outstanding repairs. It should set out any subsequent works in writing to the resident. This should include an action plan with associated timescales which should be adhered to assuming access is provided.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.