Curo Places Limited (202333320)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property and 2 months later reported concerns that there were rats in the walls. The rats accessed his property and caused damage. The resident was not happy with the handling of the issue, so he complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Pest infestations.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest infestations.
4. There was reasonable redress in the handling of the complaint.

Reasons

A pest infestation

5. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2023 to request help as he could hear scratching in the walls. He sent further emails to the landlord chasing the issues and he was advised to contact the contractor directly. A pest control contractor first attended to carry out an inspection on 5 October 2023. They confirmed rats were gaining access through holes in the walls which pipes run through under the bath and under the kitchen units. They put down bait for monitoring and confirmed that further visits would be needed. The resident stated that further appointments were arranged with the contractors, but these were missed, causing further inconvenience to him. He also stated that on 23 October 2023, a contractor attended and told him that the landlord would need to take further action.
6. Due to the landlord’s lack of response, the resident raised a complaint on 30 October 2023. He said the rats ate food items, chewed through the broadband cable preventing him from working from home, chewed through the washing machine pipe causing a flood and left droppings under the bath and kitchen units. The resident said this had impacted on his sleep and that he was concerned for his health. He said he felt let down by the landlord.
7. On 6 November 2023, a further visit was carried out by a pest control contractor who confirmed the rats had eaten the bait and chewed the kitchen kick board. They advised the landlord needed to carry out rat proofing work as previously recommended.
8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response and apologised for the resident’s experience. It confirmed it would work with contractors to resolve the issues. The landlord offered to pay the resident £350 for the insurance excess fee provided he made a claim for the damage caused. The landlord also said it would offer a compensation payment based on time and impact for the service failings, but it did not confirm the payment amount. This was not reasonable. Following the response, the resident sent the landlord several emails requesting further clarification about the compensation offers and the repairs. This demonstrates that the information was not clear and did not fully resolve the issues raised.
9. On 13 December 2023, the contractor left the resident a message confirming the pest control works at the property had been completed. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord as he could still hear rats and was concerned as work to block the access holes had not been completed as agreed. The resident chased the landlord multiple times between December 2023 and February 2024 reporting continued issues with the rats and a fly infestation. He confirmed he would like to sell the property due to the issues, but he was advised the pest issues would need to be resolved first. The landlord did not always respond to the resident within 3 working days as outlined in its customer commitment nor was it proactively keeping the resident informed. This is a communication failing by the landlord.
10. In its stage 2 response the landlord outlined the issues raised and provided a full history of the actions to that date. It acknowledged the resident informed it he was at breaking point and he had been referred for cognitive behaviour therapy by his doctor due to the stress caused. However, in the evidence the landlord provided to us it stated it was not aware of any vulnerabilities. The landlord also stated it was first made aware that proofing work was needed on 6 November 2023, however the evidence shows it was first informed by the contractor a month earlier on 5 October 2023. In addition, the landlord made us aware that some of the contractors reports and some of the resident’s communication were not saved to its database. This demonstrates that the landlord needs to improve its record keeping ensuring they are up to date and accurate.
11. The landlord confirmed that it raised a new job for the access holes to be blocked in the property on 7 February 2024. Its repairs timescales in place at the time stated it would attend emergency repairs on the same day they were reported, priority repairs before the end of the following working day and routine repairs at a mutually convenient appointment agreed at the time of reporting. It missed an opportunity to explain why the job had not been raised in October 2023 following the contractor’s report, nor did it offer an apology for this. This is a failure of the landlord’s policy.
12. The landlord stated it could not complete the work to fill the holes, as the kitchen needed to be removed. As the resident was a shared owner it advised him to get quotes for the kitchen removal and confirmed it would then carry out the work needed. It is not clear why it did not use its own inhouse team to carry out this work to prevent further delays.
13. When investigating complaints, we look at all the evidence to decide if the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord identified further service failures in its stage 2 response relating to communication and complaint handling and it offered redress for these. However, it did not provide a full resolution to the issues raised and it did not clarify the compensation figure for impact, time and trouble. Therefore, we have found service failure in relation to the handling of pest infestations.
14. In February 2025 the landlord confirmed the issues had been resolved, and it offered the resident total compensation of £985 which he accepted. This is in line with our remedies guidance therefore we have not made any orders in relation to this complaint.

Complaint handling

15. On 29 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord which was acknowledged within 2 working days. A stage 1 response was issued on 15 November 2023. This is within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and the complaint handling code (the Code).
16. On 13 December 2023 the resident asked how he could escalate his complaint and contacted the landlord several times to ask when he could expect a stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged this on 20 March 2024, over 3 months later. The landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request in a timely manner and then requested extensions as necessary. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. This was within 20 calendar days of the acknowledgment but over 3 times longer than the expected 25 working day timescale from the escalation request. The excessive delay to respond to the escalation was a failing of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
17. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had escalated his complaint on 17 December 2023. However, the resident expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the handling of his complaint in an earlier email on 13 December 2023. His complaint should have been escalated at this point. As mentioned above the landlord needs to make improvements to its record keeping.
18. The landlord acknowledged that the resident has contacted it several times asking when he could expect a stage 2 response. While it acknowledged his emails, it was unable to provide him with a response timescale. This was a failure of its complaint handling policy and the Code.
19. On a positive note, the landlord apologised for the delays, identified the service failing and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was a reasonable position to take. We have therefore found reasonable redress for the handling of the complaint.