Curo Places Limited (202345803)

Decision
Case ID	202345803
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 December 2025

Background

1. The resident was living in a 1-bedroom semi-detached sheltered housing bungalow at the time of the complaint. The landlord is aware that the resident has a disability. She uses a powered electric wheelchair and is registered blind. From 2021, the resident reported antisocial behaviour issues from a neighbour involving verbal abuse, being watched and inappropriate feeding of her cat. The resident reported concerns about allegations her neighbour made against her from 2021 onwards. She reported an issue with blocked drain on 20 October 2023 that she said was causing the water level in the toilet basin to be low. She had requested rehousing from 2016.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s concerns about allegations made against her.
   3. Reports of repairs to the drains and toilet.
   4. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
   5. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
4. The resident’s concerns about allegations made against her is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the drains and toilet.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
7. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times in its response to the resident’s ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour. It did not respond with an outcome to the resident’s report of the neighbour using CCTV to record her. It failed to ensure it kept accurate and complete records to record risk assessments, its agreed actions and to accurately record phone calls. The landlord failed to appropriately risk assess the resident’s reports, to ensure it communicated with the resident when closing cases and to update her on its actions.
9. The resident’s concerns about allegations made against her is outside of our jurisdiction as the evidence shows that the resident’s complaint did not complete the internal complaints process.
10. There was a small delay outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale for a priority repair in respect of the landlord’s response to the report of the drain being blocked. The landlord also failed to consider that it could need repairing when the resident phoned the landlord on 19 October 2023 causing her inconvenience in having to email the following day about the same issue.
11. The landlord offered some earlier support to the resident with her rehousing request that the resident refused. However, it could have reconsidered whether a management move or direct let would be appropriate in October 2023 in response to the resident’s ongoing requests. Its communication was unclear that it was offering support with rehousing in its 6 March 2024 email to the resident. It knew the resident’s property was not appropriate for her needs and it needed to ensure that this support offer was clear.

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 leader, 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 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £350 for the landlord’s response of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour comprising £200 for of its handling of the antisocial behaviour reports and £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. £100 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delayed actions. £100 for the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the drains and toilet in respect of the inconvenience caused to the resident. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident £100 for the complaint handling failings previously offered as our reasonable redress finding is dependent upon this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 – 24 March 2023	The resident made requests that the landlord rehouse her. The landlord emailed the resident to offer support and an offer to meet the resident to see if it could help her. The resident also complained about a neighbour’s allegations of antisocial behaviour against her.
30 April 2023	The resident began reporting allegations of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.
19 October 2023 – 20 October 2023	The resident reported a drain blockage that was causing the water level in the toilet basin to be low by phone. She then emailed the landlord reporting the same issue. The landlord raised a works order on 20 October 2023 that was attended to the following day out of hours.
2 May 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord concerning reports of antisocial behaviour, a neighbour’s allegations of antisocial behaviour, a request for rehousing and a drainage issue.
16 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and opened cases in September and November 2023 and February 2024. These were closed due to a lack of evidence, and the resident did not wish to discuss the cases with the landlord. It offered to assist if the resident could provide further information. It said that the resident reported a blocked drain on the estate impacting her toilet was on 20 October 2023. Its contractor attended the next day and there was no service failure. It had offered support to the resident in seeking alternative accommodation. Its case manager emailed the resident on 6 March 2024 to advise of this but did the resident had not replied. It had closed the action on 22 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint but offered further support of its navigator.
16 July 2024	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint regarding the allegations.
1 August 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding as it had wanted to arrange to meet the resident to discuss a communication plan. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident did not wish to allow its communication. It awarded £100 in compensation for complaint handling delays. It did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 December 2024. She felt that the relationship with her landlord had deteriorated. As a remedy, she felt that the landlord should apologise to her.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

12. The resident reported an incident from 2021 concerning her neighbour. The landlord’s records also show earlier incidents dating back to 2016. We have not investigated these earlier incidents as the resident did not refer this to us until 2023 which was over 12 months from the incidents occurring.

What we did investigate

13. We have considered the resident’s further reports of antisocial behaviour from 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 1 August 2024. The resident’s emails to the landlord between 30 April to 19 August 2023 reported verbal abuse by her neighbour on several occasions. We have not seen that the landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case to investigate these allegations which was inappropriate. We have also not seen that the landlord completed a risk assessment or any action plan with the resident in response to her reports in line with its tenancy compliance policy.
14. According to the landlord’s tenancy compliance policy, the landlord should deal with antisocial behaviour reports “promptly” and to investigate thoroughly using a case management framework. It should use a triage approach to assess the nature and urgency of the antisocial behaviour allegations. It needed to advise the resident when the case would be opened and write to the resident to confirm any action that would be taken. We have not seen that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy which was inappropriate.
15. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour case following the resident’s further verbal antisocial behaviour report on 27 September 2023. It completed a risk assessment which was appropriate and it also completed a safeguarding concern. The landlord said that the resident was very distressed but was unable to give the landlord further details of the antisocial behaviour or who was responsible. This meant that the landlord’s actions would be limited so the action to raise a safeguarding concern was appropriate under the circumstances.
16. The landlord closed the resident’s antisocial behaviour case on 11 October 2023 after the council responded to the landlord’s safeguarding concern saying that the resident did not want support. However, we have not seen records that the landlord communicated the case closure with the resident which was not appropriate.
17. The resident reported further verbal abuse incidentsby phone and email to the landlord between 18 November 2023 to 31 January 2024. She also said that her neighbour had installeda camera to record her that she felt the landlord had allowed. However, we have not seen that the landlord raised a further case or communicated with the resident until 2 February 2024, nearly 3 months later, which was unreasonable.
18. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 2 February 2024 and it completed a further risk assessment, along with a further safeguarding referral. The resident alleged that her neighbour had verbally abused her and had sprayed cleaning products on her cat.
19. The landlord asked the resident what she wanted it to do. The resident did not request the landlord to take any action as she felt this would be “pointless”. However, she said she wished to move. The landlord also asked the resident if she needed some support which was reasonable. The resident said that her family supported her. The landlord also sent an external safeguarding referral to the council on 20 February 2024. It asked internally about the neighbour’s camera and whether it was aware of this. These were reasonable actions to take where the landlord had safeguarding concerns. However, the landlord did not provide a response to the resident concerning the neighbour’s camera.
20. The resident emailed the landlord between 6 February 2024 to 3 March 2024. The landlord then emailed the resident on 6 March 2024, a month later after her 6 February 2024 email, to ask her what her concerns were about so it could help. The landlord said in its complaint responses that the resident had not responded so it closed the antisocial behaviour case on 22 March 2024. The landlord’s tenancy compliance policy states it will close cases promptly and ensure that outcomes are transparent to all parties. We have not seen that the landlord reported the outcomes to the resident in line with its policy which was inappropriate.
21. The landlord advised in its final complaint response of 1 August 2024 that without detailed accounts of specific antisocial behaviour reports, it would be unable to take further action. This was true, though as this was a neighbour dispute with allegations of antisocial behaviour from both parties, the landlord could have also considered offering mediation. This could have provided the landlord with an opportunity to repair the relationship between the parties provided they were both willing to participate. In reviewing its policy, the landlord could consider this option and also its approach to cases involving vulnerable residents.
22. We can see that at times the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. However, it did not act in accordance with its policy at other times. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
23. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 in compensation. This comprises £200 in respect of its handling of the antisocial behaviour, poor communication with the resident and its delayed responses. It also includes £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about allegations made against her
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

24. The resident made a complaint to the landlord concerning a neighbour’s allegations of antisocial behaviour against her on 22 March 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. However, the evidence shows that the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process, so we are unable to investigate this. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint to the landlord if she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the allegations following its 6 April 2023 response.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the drains and toilet
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

25. The resident had a previous complaint with her landlord in 2021 concerning her reports of a blockage in the drain that was causing overflowing sewage onto her bathroom floor. The resident did not refer this matter to us previously and this is not something we can investigate as this was brought to our attention more than 12 months after it exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

What we did investigate

26. The resident made a further report concerning a blockage on a shared drain to the landlord by phone on 19 October 2023 and by email on 20 October 2023. She advised that the landlord had told her that unless the toilet was blocked that she would not be able to get this repaired. The landlord records evidence that it advised the resident that there was no blockage during the call, however, it is unclear what evidence it had to make this comment. After the resident’s email, the landlord emailed the resident on 20 October 2023 to advise it had arranged for its contractor to attend. Its contractor would email the resident to book a repair.
27. The landlord’s works order of 20 October 2023 was to clear a blocked drain by pressure jet and to remove and refix the manhole. The landlord’s repair records stated that this was a priority repair with a target completion date by 21 October 2023. The landlord’s records evidence that its contractor called on 21 October 2023 which was in line with its repairs policy for priority repairs to attend by the following working day. However, there was a service failure as the landlord should have raised the repair on the 19 October 2023 to be attended to the following working day. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure for this complaint issue.
28. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the short delay.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

29. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s direct let application from 2021 as this was not referred to us within 12 months from the matter occurring. The resident also had applied to the local authority’s housing register. We are unable to investigate the local authority’s handling of the housing register and its allocations scheme. This would fall under the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to raise a complaint to the local authority and refer this to the LGSCO if she is not happy with the local authority’s handling of her housing register application.

What we did investigate

30. We have considered the resident’s further requests to be rehoused from 2023 until the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 1 August 2024. The resident requested rehousing to the landlord on 22 and 23 March 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 March 2023 offering the resident assistance if the resident needed this. Its navigator also spoke to the resident on 24 March 2023 offering to meet. These were all reasonable actions to take as the resident was vulnerable. However, the resident did not wish to meet at that time.
31. The landlord also offered to help the resident to move on 29 June 2023 when it spoke to the resident in a phone call. However, the resident felt that there would be no point in receiving the landlord’s help. She said that the local council was helping her. The resident also wrote to her MP who contacted the landlord on 6 July 2023. The landlord explained to the MP on 11 July 2023, after liaising with the local council, that the landlord was in the highest priority band and should keep bidding.
32. The resident requested rehousing again on 13 October 2023. The landlord mentioned a possible new property in its internal email of 20 October 2023. It also queried whether the resident should be on its management transfer list, but it felt that the resident would not agree to the landlord helping her. We have not seen records that the landlord followed up on this which was inappropriate. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to have reached out to the resident at the time so it could properly consider this option. This was particularly important as the landlord was aware that the resident’s property was not suitable for her needs.
33. The resident continued to request rehousing between 31 December 2023 to 3 March 2024. According to the landlord’s final complaint response of 1 August 2024, the landlord said it offered support to the resident in seeking rehousing in its email of 6 March 2024. However, its email was from its tenancy compliance team, and it did not mention anything about offering to help the resident be rehoused. The landlord needed to ensure a clear offer of support was given to the resident considering she was vulnerable. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
34. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. The resident made her complaint on 2 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledge this the same date which was appropriate. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2024 which was within 9 working days of its acknowledgement. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
36. This requires a landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from the acknowledgement and within 20 working days from the acknowledgement at stage 2.
37. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 30 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 4 June 2024. The landlord’s final complaint response was sent on 1 August 2024. This was delayed as it was sent 42 working days after its acknowledgement. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. However, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays on 19 June 2024.
38. It advised the resident on 26 July 2024 that it would compensate for the delay in responding. It was also trying to arrange to meet the resident to discuss her complaint as it concerned several issues, however the resident declined to meet the landlord. It offered the resident £100 for the delays in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress for the complaint handling delays at stage 2.

Learning

39. The landlord did not mention any learning in its complaint responses from its handling of the resident’s issues. Our recent Learning from Severe Maladministration report (July 2025) on antisocial behaviour highlighted the importance of risk assessing antisocial behaviour cases at an early stage and completing action plans. It also emphasises the important of good communication to help restore relationships. The landlord could benefit from considering this report to help improve its approach to resident reports of antisocial behaviour.
40. We recommend on reviewing its tenancy compliance policy, that the landlord considers a full range of options when dealing with neighbour disputes, for example mediation. The landlord should also consider its approach to dealing with residents with vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

41. There were some record keeping issues identified in this case. Some of the phone call records and risk assessments were insufficiently brief. The risk assessments were not dated, and the landlord could consider ensuring that the form is reviewed to include the date of completion. Similarly, phone call records were not clear and did not give much detail of the resident’s conversation. For example, the resident’s stage 1 complaint record in its records does not set out all the complaint issues. The landlord should consider reviewing its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based on our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its records management.
42. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not always responsive and there were gaps in its responses. The lack of communication would have likely caused the resident frustration and unnecessary inconvenience in writing and phoning the landlord reporting her concerns. It would have likely caused the resident to feel that the landlord was ignoring her causing her detriment, particularly due to her vulnerabilities.
43. This also contributed to the resident’s considerable email traffic to the landlord. It would have been beneficial for the landlord to consider a single point of contact as it had previously to ensure that the resident’s enquiries were managed appropriately. This would have also helped the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep track of what actions it needed to take.