Curo Places Limited (202336482)

Decision
Case ID	202336482
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	03 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a one bed flat. Due to his vulnerabilities, the landlord identified a specific point of contact (SPOC) to coordinate its work to avoid unscheduled visits and direct correspondence to him. Since the arrangements were agreed (from 2022), he has raised concerns about unannounced visits and direct contact. On 15 July 2024 and 8 April 2025 he raised 2 complaints about issues including unannounced visits and the impact on his mental health. The evidence shows the landlord addressed his concerns such as by sending reminders about checking system notes. The resident brought his complaint to us as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses.
2. The resident has been represented during this process, and we have referred to both the resident and his representative collectively as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about visit and communication arrangements.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found:
   1. Service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about visit and communication arrangements.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Visit and communication arrangements

6. While the landlord appropriately accepted some failings and apologised, the evidence does not show it carried out its promised actions.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer compensation for its complaint handling failures such as delays with its 2024 final complaint response and its 2025 initial complaint response.

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	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £150 to recognise the stress, and time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about visit and communication arrangements. £75 for its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date, and the landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Evidence of complaint response actions The landlord must consider its 2024 and 2025 complaint responses and provide evidence of the steps it said it took. This must be in writing to the resident and evidence of compliance provided to us by the deadline.	No later than 26 January 2026

 

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, the landlord should also now pay the £450 compensation previously offered. This determination is partly based on it doing so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 July 2024	The resident complained about an unscheduled visit. He also said the landlord ignored a notice by his doorbell telling it not to ring the bell (unless the visit had been arranged with the SPOC). He stated the visit caused him distress and exacerbated his “fragile” mental health. He explained the landlord’s failure meant he was having to repeatedly complain to it about its failure to follow agreed arrangements.
31 July 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it apologised, acknowledged the anxiety and distress caused, and said it was disappointed the steps it had put in place had not stopped the visit. It said a meeting (with a director and managers) was due to take place to consider its processes and systems to identify the cause of the issue. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the impact the visit had had on him.
7 August 2024	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint. While he repeated his original concerns, among other things, he questioned why the landlord continued to contact him directly despite the SPOC process and he requested details of the meeting set out in its stage 1 response.
22 August 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say the meeting and system changes (to stop direct communication) had taken place. It apologised for the distress caused and invited him to a meeting to discuss the issues, so it could review his complaint and its compensation offer.
23 September 2024	The resident’s representative attended the meeting with the landlord. A broad discussion took place about matters such as his mental health, continued direct contact and visitors failing to carry identification (ID).
16 October 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident, it: Acknowledged it had not provided a “lasting remedy” despite an old complaint (2023) about the same issues and impact on him. Accepted and apologised for sending a direct letter and said it had made account changes to stop most letters being sent to him. Stated the failure to show ID was “unacceptable” and was being addressed internally to ensure future compliance. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and confirmed it was taking steps to stop the issues reoccurring. Offered £400 compensation (£200 for the impact caused by the issues and £200 for the inconvenience of complaining again about its failure to carry out its commitments from a 2023 complaint).
8 April 2025	The resident made a new complaint that at an agreed visit on 14 March 2025, its contractors did not have ID and/or masks. He said on 20 March despite his SPOC’s involvement, the landlord still hand delivered a letter to him about a further visit, which left him “terrified”.
12 May 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response set out the steps taken in respect of its contractors (retraining including about carrying ID, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), and reading job notes before visits).
21 May 2025	The resident was dissatisfied with the initial response saying among other things the issues were not specific to its contractors but a wider landlord issue. He said it had failed to take steps such as ensuring visitors were briefed about ID and PPE before visits. He said its initial response had not given an explanation or apology. And it had not addressed his complaint fully including about the SPOC being bypassed when a letter was delivered on 20 March 2025, which had triggered his PTSD.
2 June 2025	In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident, it: Agreed the stage 1 response did not meet expected standards and the stage 1 officer had attended new complaint handling training. Said it had taken steps around carrying ID (SPOC would issue reminders before visits, contractors could now see account notes about ID, and more reminders had been sent to trade colleagues). Had addressed the 20 March 2024 events with a separate apology and compensation (token), which it said should have been set out in its initial complaint response and apologised for not doing so. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience from both incidents as well as its initial complaint response. Offered £50 as a gesture of good will.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the responses the landlord had provided. The resident wants it to follow the agreed arrangements and, provide an apology and compensation.

 

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	Visit and communication arrangements
Finding	Service failure

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will give notice in writing for access. Its vulnerable persons policy says it will “embed” residents’ needs and adapt its communication when providing services such as with a nominated contact person.
9. The resident’s 2024 complaint centred on a 15 July 2024 visit which he said did comply with agreed processes such as scheduling visits in advance with the SPOC. He said the landlord rang his doorbell ignoring a notice not to do so unless it was a SPOC arranged visit. He explained the visit caused distress, a deterioration in his mental health, and frustration about making more complaints about it not following agreed arrangements.
10. The landlord’s initial complaint response said it would convene a meeting to address the causes, which showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It was also in line with its vulnerable persons policy to “embed” service delivery according to his preferences.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied and among other things requested details of the meeting and queried why the landlord still contacted him direct and failed to show ID at visits. On 22 August 2024, the landlord said in a letter the meeting had taken place but did not provide further details of it. Its stage 2 complaint response appropriately accepted and apologised for not providing a “lasting remedy” and the subsequent impact on him.
12. The landlord showed it was trying to correct its mistakes by confirming it had made system changes (to stop letters except legally required letters), addressing the ID issue internally, and offering £400 compensation. While these actions to put things right were appropriate, the landlord however has not provided any evidence of implementing the changes and improvements it said it had made (meeting, system change, and ID compliance actions). This therefore undermined the robustness of its otherwise reasonable response.
13. The resident’s 2025 complaint concerned contractors not carrying ID and masks at 14 and 28 March visits, along with the landlord delivering a letter to him at an unscheduled visit on 20 March 2025. It appropriately confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it had addressed the issues with the contractors including around carrying ID and PPE, but there is no evidence to support this. Its final complaint response reasonably acknowledged its failings, apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the events, and offered £50 compensation for not meeting its expected standards. While it set out wider work being done to put right its mistakes such as sending further reminders about carrying ID again there is no evidence of these actions being carried out.
14. The resident’s long running distress from the landlord’s actions is clear from his correspondence with it. The landlord recognised its poor service and identified several steps it could take to improve. While the evidence shows it proactively complying with its policy to “embed” the resident’s needs including with system changes, the landlord has not complied with agreed arrangements such as with the March 2025 visits. Overall, while the landlord accepted failings with its visit and contact processes and set out ways in which it would put things rights, it has not provided evidence that it subsequently did what it said it would do, so the complaints were unresolved.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

15. The landlord’s complaint’s policy sets out a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. The landlord’s 2024 complaints responses exceeded its policy timeframe by one day and its final complaint response of 16 October 2024 was 5 weeks late. With the 2025 complaint, it exceeded its policy timeframes for acknowledging the resident’s original complaint by 6 days and the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 May 2025 was approximately 2 weeks late. In addition, it also failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation. The 2024 final complaint response and neither of the 2025 complaint responses recognised the landlord’s complaint handling failures, leaving the matter unresolved.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s failings in this case were largely due to a lack of evidence and records. The landlord should consider the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for accurate record keeping.