Curo Places Limited (202449617)

Decision
Case ID	202449617
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

The resident lives with her husband and their 2 adult children. The resident and her husband both have significant physical and mental health conditions. Their physical health conditions mean they require adaptations to the property. The resident’s daughter also has mobility issues. The resident was unhappy with the time taken for the landlord to progress major adaptations to the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Adaptations to the property following planning permission.
2. Request for rehousing as an alternative to the adaptations.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Adaptations to the property following planning permission.
2. Associated complaint.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:

Adaptations to the property following planning permission

Acknowledged the delays in progressing the adaptations. Apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and made an offer of compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance.

Request for rehousing

Dealt with the resident’s request for rehousing as an alternative to major adaptations in line with its policy.

Associated complaint

Acknowledged its failures, apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, and made an offer of compensation which resolved the matter.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should inspect the property to review what adaptations the resident requires to allow her to access toilet and bathing facilities.
The landlord should discuss the major adaptations with the resident and agree an action plan on next steps.
The landlord should write to the resident again setting out its offer to organise a meeting with the local council’s housing options team to discuss the resident’s rehousing options.
We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the adaptations and complaint handling on the basis it pays the resident the £1,500 compensation it offered at stage 2.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 August 2021	The local council granted the landlord planning permission to convert the existing lounge into a bedroom, widen the wet room, and build a single storey extension to the rear of the property. The extension would create a new lounge.
21 October 2024	The resident informed the landlord she was waiting to be discharged from hospital, following a stroke. She said she needed the wet room to be accessible for a wheelchair. She also wanted to know why it had taken the landlord so long to complete the adaptation works following planning permission.
23 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
13 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had given permission to the occupational therapist (OT) to install handrails and remove the radiator in the wet room to allow more room. It would not make any major adaptations to the property because the resident was actively looking to move. It apologised for the delays in progressing the planned adaptations and offered £350 compensation.
27 November 2024	The resident told the landlord she was not happy with its response and said she wanted to escalate to stage 2.
23 June 2025	Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
25 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation.
24 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it would continue to support the resident by looking for alternative accommodation, if this was what she wanted. It said it would progress with the adaptations to her current property as it may take a long time to find a property which would meet the family’s needs. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit and review the adaptations that the family needed. It apologised and increased the compensation to £2,000.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. She told us the landlord had not installed the handrails or removed the radiator, as promised at stage 1. She also said the surveyor had not attended as promised at stage 2. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to complete the adaptation works so that the property met hers and her family’s needs.

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 handling of the adaptations to the property following planning permission.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord obtained planning permission on 17 August 2021. The local council had informed the landlord that funding was available via the disability funding grant (DFG) to partially fund the project. In line with its adaptation policy the landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact. It also put support in place for the resident by way of its navigator scheme. This was bespoke support which the landlord offered to its most vulnerable customers to help them navigate different departments.
There was then a delay of 8 months, until April 2022, where no progress was made. This was due to a misunderstanding between the landlord and the local council on what the next steps were and whose responsibility it was to take the project forward. This delay was avoidable. With proper project management the landlord should have anticipated and resolved this with the council within a reasonable period and commenced adaptation works. That there was this delay was a failing.
Following a meeting at the beginning of April 2022 the landlord instructed a surveyor to be the project officer. In May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the property would not be suitable for her family’s needs, even after the adaptations. At the time the resident was having difficulties with a neighbour. Although the landlord was trying to deal with the neighbour issues, the situation was affecting how the resident felt about remaining in the property. She asked the landlord to put the adaptation works on hold.
In July 2022 the resident told the landlord she was ready to proceed with the works. The landlord promptly instructed a project surveyor with a plan to put the project out for tender in early 2023. This was an unreasonable amount of time, approximately 6 months before the work would be put out to tender. However, this did not happen because the resident told the landlord to put the works on hold again in February 2023. She said she wanted to move.
The landlord continued to support the resident to progress other repairs by way of its navigator service throughout 2023. In June 2023 the resident approached a solicitor for help and advice to progress the adaptations and repairs at her property. In its response the landlord informed the solicitor that it would ask its DFG team to start booking in the works to complete the major adaptations as soon as possible.
In August 2023 an OT recommended the landlord start the works to meet the needs of the family in their current home. This was because it was likely to take a long time for the family to be rehoused to a suitable property. The landlord told the resident it would start to coordinate the works in September 2023. Although the resident was still actively looking for properties in 2023, she informed the landlord she wanted it to proceed with the major adaptations in November 2023. Despite the involvement of the solicitor, the OT, and the agreement of the resident, the landlord did not take any further steps to progress the works from June 2023 until May 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
In May 2024 the landlord instructed a project surveyor. It found a suitable property to decant the family whilst it completed the work. The landlord arranged for the surveyor to attend on 5 June 2024. The appointment was not convenient for the resident and did not go ahead. The resident said she wanted the landlord to provide more clarity on what work it was intending to complete.
It was understandable that the resident should want to know what work the landlord was intending to complete. However, the landlord had sent copies of the plans to the resident in 2021. It was also clear from the resident’s correspondence to the landlord that she was aware of the works it was proposing. The purpose of the surveyor’s visit was to prepare further detailed drawings of the required works. Had the resident allowed the visit to go ahead the landlord would have been able to provide her with the information she had requested.
In July 2024 the resident suffered a stroke, which resulted in her having less mobility. When she returned home she was unable to go upstairs and had to sleep in a bed in the lounge. She was also unable to access toilet or washing facilities because the wet room was not wheelchair accessible. She asked the landlord to widen the wet room to allow this. An OT assessment made at the time said the property was no longer suitable to meet the resident’s needs. It recommended the family be moved either together or to 2 separate properties. As an OT assessment had deemed the property no longer suitable it was right that the landlord no longer proceeded with the works.
In its stage 1 complaint response in October 2024 the landlord said it had given permission for the OT to install floor fixed rails by the toilet and to remove the small radiator in the downstairs toilet to allow more space for access. We understand the landlord attended the hospital discharge meeting for the resident. We have not seen the minutes for that meeting. We therefore do not know what was agreed in relation to who would arrange the installation of the grab rails and removal of the radiator. In addition, we can see the landlord spoke to the resident’s social worker and OT in April 2025 when the OT confirmed there were no outstanding adaptations at the property. Based on the evidence we have seen, we cannot say the landlord was responsible for a failure in relation to these adaptations.
At stage 1 the landlord said it would not allow any major works to start at the resident’s property because she was seeking alternative accommodation. The landlord’s policy says it will provide advice and support to residents in relation to moving home. It was right that the landlord did not proceed with the major adaptations at this time. However, this was not because the resident wanted to move, but because the OT assessment after her hospital discharge said the property was not suitable for the family.
At stage 2 the landlord said it would send a surveyor to review the adaptations so that the resident and her family could live more comfortably. It asked the resident to provide it with suitable dates. We can see the landlord’s surveyor tried to arrange the visit in September 2025. The landlord said the visit did not take place because the resident had requested the surveyor attend with an OT.
In summary, the landlord attempted to start the major adaptations on at least 2 occasions in July 2022 and May 2024. The work did not proceed at these times because the resident changed her mind about whether to proceed with the works or move. It was difficult for the landlord to proceed with the works without the resident’s engagement. However, there were delays between August 2021 and April 2022 (8 months), July 2022 to early 2023 (approximately 6 months for the works to go out to tender), June 2023 to May 2024 (11 months), where the landlord failed to progress the works.
In relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident, we recognise the frequency and content of the resident’s emails. It would likely have been a challenge for the landlord to manage and respond to. However, the landlord made reasonable attempts to keep the resident updated. It did this by providing a single point of contact and support via its navigator scheme. It offered to provide the resident with fortnightly updates, which she declined. Overall, we consider the landlord’s communication in this case to be good.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising, offering compensation, and agreeing to send its surveyor to review the adaptations. It accepted there had been delays in its progressing the major adaptations and there had been mistakes in its stage 1 response which had caused further delays.
The landlord’s offer of £1,500 reflects our remedies guidance which says such a sum would be payable where there has been a significant impact on the household. It also reflects the vulnerabilities of the household which meant the delays to progress the major adaptations and the landlord’s handling of it would have had a more severe effect on them compared to other residents in the same position without their vulnerabilities. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress. The landlord must ensure it pays the resident the compensation offered at stage 2.
Based on the evidence we have seen and what the resident has told us, we cannot be satisfied that the adaptations requested when the resident came out of hospital in August 2024 were completed. This included installation of additional grab rails and removal of the radiator in the ground floor wet room. We have therefore recommended that the landlord inspect the property to review what adaptations the resident requires to allow her to access toilet and bathing facilities.

Complaint	The request for rehousing as an alternative to major adaptations.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord first became aware that major adaptations were required to the resident’s property in 2019. The landlord’s Adaptation Policy states it will provide support and advice to residents about alternative options to major adaptations. It also says where there is a realistic alternative to a major adaptation it will support residents to move.
In line with its policy, the landlord has tried to support the resident with her request to move as an alternative to the major adaptations. This included:
1. Offering to move her to a new build bungalow in 2019.
2. Providing support by way of its navigator scheme.
3. Offering to set up meetings with the local council’s housing options team.
4. Liaising with other housing providers to check if they had any suitable properties.
5. Signposting the resident to register with the local council’s housing list.
6. Signposting the resident on how to access a mutual exchange or home swap.
7. Offering support to complete forms and register with the relevant agencies.
8. Agreeing to add the resident to its management transfer list.
At stage 2 the landlord agreed to hold an online meeting with the resident and the local council’s housing options team to ensure all options have been considered. The landlord did not receive a response from the resident as to whether she wanted this meeting to go ahead or not.
Based on the evidence we have seen, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. We have however, recommended the landlord write to the resident again with its offer to arrange a meeting to discuss her rehousing options, should she still wish to move.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
1. The landlord had a published complaint policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales at each stage.
2. At stage 1 the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and a further 10 working days to send its response. It acknowledged the complaint on time but its stage 1 response was 6 working days late (6 November 2024 – 13 November 2024). This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
3. The landlord failed to log the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. She had to contact this service for help in progressing her complaint. This caused a delay of approximately 8 months between the resident’s escalation and the landlord’s stage 2 response (November 2024 – July 2025). This was not inline with its policy or the Code.
4. The landlord failed to recognise any learning from this complaint. This was not inline with the Code.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures, apologised, and offered £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is higher than the amount we would award for the failings identified. Therefore, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer to the resident which resolves the complaint. This is a finding of reasonable redress. The landlord must ensure it pays the resident the £500 promised at stage 2.

Learning

The landlord has provided us with a significant amount of information and evidence in this case. Some of the information provided was not relevant to this complaint. The landlord should ensure that, for future cases submitted to us for investigation, it only provides information relevant to the complaint we are investigating.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was excellent in this case.

Communication

Overall the landlord’s communication with the resident was good.