Curo Places Limited (202452992)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202452992 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Curo Places Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
17 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house, where she lives with her husband and 2 children. She has reported damp and mould to the landlord since the start of her tenancy in 2019. While the landlord made repairs, the problem remained. The resident says she told the landlord that her family has mental and physical health conditions, including asthma.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found:
- Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The Ombudsman found that the landlord:
- Took too long to identify the root cause to provide a permanent remedy.
- Did not manage its complaints process in line with the Code. This resulted in a significant delay to escalate the resident’s complaint. It made no offer of redress for its failings.
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:
|
No later than 17 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,470 made up as follows:
The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence of the payment to us by the due date. The landlord may deduct any of the £1,170 it offered as redress for its handling of the repair, if already paid.
|
No later than 17 November 2025 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
Pay the resident its total offer of £2,032.27 to reimburse her for the damage caused to her possessions. |
|
It should ensure its understanding of issuing complaint handling responses is in line with the Code. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 2019 to 2023 |
The resident reported ongoing problems with damp and mould in her home. Each year, the landlord did repairs. However, the resident says the landlord did not find or fix the underlying cause, so the issues continued. She also said she often had to chase the landlord for updates because it failed to keep her informed. The resident told the landlord that the poor conditions were affecting family members with asthma. |
|
8 January 2024 |
The resident again raised concerns about the effects on her family’s health. She described a damp smell and the constant need to clean mould. She also said the landlord’s surveyor had not attended as arranged in October 2023 and there had been no communication from the landlord since. |
|
11 January 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She repeated concerns about the condition of her home. While the landlord had installed a French drain, she described how its contractors had not completed damp, mould, or loft work in full. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement the same day. However, its reply did not define its understanding of the resident’s complaint. |
|
24 January 2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It outlined the steps it had taken over the years, but it accepted damp and mould had returned. The landlord scheduled a surveyor to inspect the property on 2 February 2024 and said it would arrange the recommended work. It also provided the resident with its insurance details, should she wish to make a claim related to the effects on her household’s health. It said it would calculate a compensation offer once it had completed the remedial repairs. |
|
On 19 and 27 February 2024 |
The resident chased the landlord for updates. |
|
27 February 2024 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint due to the lack of communication and action by the landlord. The landlord did not respond. |
|
4 March 2024 |
The resident chased the landlord again, as she had not received any updates regarding its proposed repairs. |
|
15 March 2024 |
The landlord arranged for a specialist structural waterproofing company to inspect the resident’s property on 19 March 2024. |
|
Between 25 March 2024 to 14 May 2024 |
The landlord started repairs. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication throughout the repairs, its failure to provide copies of requested reports, and she described project managing the work herself. The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for possessions damaged by the damp and mould if she provided receipts. |
|
17 May 2024 |
The landlord completed repairs and offered the resident compensation of £1,199.73. It offered £50 for a missed appointment, £400 for the resident’s ‘time and impact’, and £749.73 to reimburse for damaged possessions. |
|
28 November 2024 |
During an annual gas safety check, the landlord’s engineer reported the recurring damp and mould issues in the resident’s home. |
|
Between November 2025 to February 2025 |
The landlord inspected the resident’s property again and arranged further repairs. It also recommended monthly mould washes until it resolved the cause of the damp and mould. |
|
11 February 2025 |
The resident complained. She felt disillusioned by the landlord’s failure to provide a lasting repair. She said it had completed 4 more surveys but could not agree on the work required. The resident considered the landlord was trying the same repairs which had failed to resolve matters before. She was upset by the time taken and reported mould damage to the recently replaced possessions. She also repeated her health concerns. |
|
11 and 12 February 2025 |
The landlord said its surveyors did their best to identify the root cause. It said this process could often be trial and error. It also said it would do all it could to resolve the issues for her. The landlord reopened the resident’s complaint and sent a stage 2 acknowledgement. |
|
Between 12 February 2025 to 17 March 2025 |
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord arranged further property inspections and identified rising damp due to the lack of a damp proof course (DPC). The resident also raised concerns regarding the poor standard of works taking place, and the lack of communication. |
|
18 March 2025 |
The landlord sent is stage 2 response. It accepted its surveyor had not correctly informed her of an appointment which delayed progress. It also accepted it had failed to correctly send a copy of a damp and mould survey as the resident had requested. The landlord apologised for the poor communication from itself and its contractors. And it also acknowledge the effects on the health of her household and further damage to her possessions. It said it would calculate compensation when it had completed all remedial work. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought the complaint to us as the landlord had not resolved matters. She wanted a home free from damp and mould, an apology, and recognition of the effects on her family’s health and possessions. |
|
Between March 2025 to October 2025 |
The resident’s home continued to experience damp and mould. A specialist contractor completed further surveys in April 2025 and the landlord agreed to start additional work around the resident’s availability, in June 2025. However, in May 2025 the resident said scaffolders disturbed her in the bath as she had not received advanced notice about their work. The resident says the landlord’s communication remained poor. On 15 September 2025 the landlord moved the resident and her family into temporary accommodation for 1-month while it started extensive repairs. On 10 October 2025 the landlord offered the resident an additional £2,002.54, made up of an additional £720 for her ‘time and impact’ and an additional £1,282.54 to replace her damaged possessions. The landlord confirmed to us that its total offer came to £3,202.27. |
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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- On 11 July 2025 and 6 October 2025 we informed the resident we could not investigate parts of her complaint. We explained our position regarding complaint time limits, effects on health, and damage caused to belongings.
- The landlord’s policies do not specify a repair timescale for it to complete damp and mould repairs. However, it commits to complete complex repairs within 60 days. It is reasonable that our assessment considers this timescale for the resident’s case.
- The resident expected a surveyor in October 2023 and the landlord paid stage 1 compensation on completion of works in May 2024. Therefore, the landlord did not complete repairs within 60 days.
- The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment states it will track each report, ensure communication, and prioritise structural assessments. It also states it considers vulnerabilities and aims to maintain safe living conditions.
- The landlord completed multiple property surveys and attempted remedial repairs. While the repeat visits may have caused inconvenience and distress, they were necessary to identify the root cause.
- However, had its surveys been more effective, it may have identified the need to replace the property’s DPC sooner. The landlord’s communication regarding its actions remained poor and it did not identify the necessary structural work until 2025. The resident experienced an unreasonable time before the landlord started this work.
- Furthermore, the resident repeatedly raised concerns for the health of her household. She also informed the landlord of the household vulnerabilities. It is unclear why the landlord did not update its records with this information. This did not demonstrate effective record keeping. Nor show how the landlord applied the principles of its damp and mould self-assessment to consider vulnerabilities.
- There is no evidence the property was uninhabitable. However, the resident should not have needed to regularly clean mould to manage the property’s conditions. The monthly cleans offered by the landlord went some way to offer her support while awaiting a temporary move. That said, the time taken to provide this solution was unreasonable.
- The landlord’s stage 1 offer included £50 for a missed appointment in October 2023. Having acknowledged a similar communication failing in March 2025, it made no offer of additional redress. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
- The landlord agreed to complete structural works around the resident’s availability. However, its communication failed again when its contractors installed scaffolding without notice. There were further delays before the landlord commenced work in September 2025.
- On 10 October 2025 the landlord offered an additional £720 compensation as part of its stage 2 final response. Therefore, offering a total sum of £1,170 for this matter.
- The landlord’s compensation offer came 7 months after its stage 2 response and after the resident had brought her complaint to us. This approach to awarding compensation is not consistent with the Code. Therefore, in such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined. While it may have been reasonable to offer the resident an additional sum on completion of the repairs, the landlord should have taken steps to offer redress within its complaint handling process.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged failings and it took steps to put things right. We have considered its acknowledgement, property surveys, and its attempted repairs as mitigation not to make a more severe finding.
- That said, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Our order will include an additional sum of £150 for the recurring poor communication, delayed appointments, and the scaffolder’s unannounced attendance. Therefore, taking the total sum for the landlord’s handling of the repair to £1,320. This does not include the landlord’s offer to reimburse the resident for her damaged possessions.
- The landlord’s decision to reimburse the resident for damaged possessions demonstrated its use of discretion. If the resident remains dissatisfied with its offer of £2,032.27 (£749.73 at stage 1 and £1,282.54 at stage 2), this would be a matter for a court or insurer to decide.
- It was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy for it to provide the resident with its insurance details on 24 January 2024 and 8 October 2025. The resident may wish to make a claim for any effects on her household’s health.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
- The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 8 January 2024. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not treat this as her complaint. This caused the resident time and trouble having to raise a formal complaint on 11 January 2024.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and stage 1 response on time.
- However, its written acknowledgement did not define its understanding of the resident’s complaint. This was not consistent with the Code.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised. It also sent the resident its insurance details and agreed to offer compensation on completion of repairs.
- Sending the resident its insurance details for health related claims was consistent with the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy. However, its approach to compensation was not in line with the Code. A failing it repeated at stage 2.
- The landlord accepts the resident attempted to escalate her complaint on 27 February 2024. It is therefore unclear why it did not acknowledge her request. Nor demonstrate any stage 2 investigation until she repeated her dissatisfaction on 12 February 2025.
- By sending its stage 2 compensation offer on 18 March 2025, the resident had waited 269 working days. This restricted her from bring her complaint to us sooner. The landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer did not include any redress for complaint handling. Nor did its response demonstrate any learning. It is therefore unclear how it will prevent similar failings happening again.
Learning
- The landlord may benefit from considering how its record keeping effected its communication with the resident. This includes how it updates its vulnerability records. It should also ensure it has changed its complaint handling process so that it provides complaint responses when the answer is known, not when it has completed the outstanding actions.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord initially failed to properly monitor its internal complaints process, which delayed the resident’s escalation request. The landlord also failed to update its vulnerability records for the household and it demonstrated poor monitoring of its contractors throughout. This led to missed appointments, workmanship issues, and attendance without notice.
Communication
- Between October 2023 to October 2025, the landlord repeatedly communicated poorly. Although the complaints team showed improved communication, issues remained with repair-related communication and monitoring.