Curo Places Limited (202327579)

Decision
Case ID	202327579
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 March 2026

Background

The resident has mental health issues and is immunocompromised. At the time of her complaint, she said that there was damp and mould throughout the property. She complained that the landlord delayed completing repairs and that its communication was poor.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp, mould, and follow on repairs
2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s responses to reports of damp, mould, and follow on repairs.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Responses to reports of damp, mould, and follow on repairs

The landlord delayed addressing the damp and mould and did not show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not act in line with its Repairs Policy and missed opportunities to put things right sooner. However, its response, compensation offer and delivery on its response commitment went far enough in putting things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation.

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
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident within 4 weeks the £300 compensation that it offered in its final complaint response for its complaint handling if it has not done so already.
The landlord could consider whether additional training is required for staff on complaint handling, including the requirements of its Complaints Policy and the Code. This would help ensure staff understand the timescales, escalation routes, overall requirements and apply them consistently.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 February 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord and contacted Environmental Health (EH). She said she had damp and mould in the bedroom, lounge, and kitchen. The windows were wet and the property smelt damp. She sent multiple photos of the mould and said she did not like living at the property. She asked the landlord to “help her.”
15 May 2023	The resident complained again. She said EH had given the landlord until 8 May 2023 to complete several damp and mould repairs, but it had not done so. She also reported that the landlord did not check the wall and loft insulation or the lounge window. She told it she had cleared the blocked guttering herself. She asked it to complete the repairs and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays.
Between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint on multiple occasions. She also asked it for compensation. She was unhappy with its communication and how it handled the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2023.
21 February 2024	The landlord gave its final complaint response. It apologised for its repair and complaint response delays. It also apologised for not “listening fully” to the resident and acknowledged the negative impact this had on her. It recognised that she no longer enjoyed living in the property and offered to support her in transferring to another property. It promised to pay up to £700 in removal fees, and to funding ‘appropriate flooring’ at a reasonable cost. It offered the resident £1,550 compensation made up of: £200 for repair delays £200 for not ‘listening’ £150 for poor communication £300 for complaint handling £700 for the distress and inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise increase its compensation offer

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 responses to damp, mould, and follow on repairs.
Finding	Reasonable redress

There were some events that happened after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We have considered these events as they related to the issues raised in the complaint. For this reason, our investigation focuses on events between February 2023 and September 2024.
After the resident complained on 16 February 2023, Environmental Health (EH) inspected the property. It told the landlord to arrange a damp inspection and complete the following by 8 May 2023:
1. identify the cause of damp near the rear door
2. identify the cause of mould throughout the property
3. check whether the existing insulation provides adequate thermal insulation
4. check whether the bathroom and kitchen ventilation prevents high condensation levels
5. carry out a mould wash and redecorate affected areas
In response to EH’s report, the landlord delivered a dehumidifier to help dry out the property. While this was appropriate, it is unclear why it had taken until 29 March 2023 to do so. This likely caused the resident frustration who had waited a month for the landlord to contact her.
On 6 April 2023 the landlord raised various repairs following its inspection earlier that day. These included mould washes in multiple rooms, repairs to the extractor fans, clearing the gutters and installing a new lounge windowsill panel.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord completed the mould wash and inspected the living room window panel. It recorded no work was needed to the window. It is unclear how it came to this conclusion, as it later agreed and changed the windowsill panel. This inconsistency was a shortcoming in the landlord’s investigation and contributed to the overall delays.
Between 4 and 18 May 2023 the landlord updated EH. It said condensation and ventilation caused the damp and mould. It reported that the resident would not agree to an anti-mould paint unless it painted all the walls. It also recorded that the resident did not want the guttering repairs.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy requires it to keep the properties safe and free from disrepair. Considering this, it could have explained the purpose of the anti-mould paint and guttering works to help the resident understand the benefits of them.
On 15 May 2023the resident complained again. She repeated her concerns about damp and mould and said the landlord had not checked the wall or loft insulation. She saidthe lounge window panel had not been checked and asked it what had caused the mould.She alsotold it that she had cleared the front guttering and would clear the back in ‘due course.’
The landlord responded on 17 May 2023 and agreed to visit the resident on 31 May 2023 to address the issues and offer support. This was a reasonable step to rebuild the resident’s trust in the landlord.
After the landlord’s visit, the resident askedit for an update on 7 June 2023.The landlord arranged another visit for 19 June 2023. Meeting the resident in person was not unreasonable, but the 2-week gaps between visits contributed towards the overall delays.
Even though the landlord knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities, including that she was immunocompromised, it did not show it considered this when making decisions. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out that mould can cause breathing difficulties and fungal infections. Considering this, the landlord could have arranged the visit or repairs sooner. Not doing so prolonged the resident’s distress and exposure to the mould.
On 20 June 2023, 1 day after its visit, the landlord raised the following repairs:
1. front and rear gutter and roof repairs
2. replaster the corner of the lounge
3. install an external drain to the rear of the property
4. upgrade the lounge window panel to a more thermally efficient unit
5. relay the loft insulation
It is unclear why these repairs were not identified during the landlord’s earlier visits. This suggests the landlord’s earlier investigation into the damp and mould was poor. Multiple visits with little progress likely compounded the resident’s distress.
When the landlord completed the wall insulation survey on 28 June 2023, it found the insulation was insufficient. It installed new insulation 16 days later, on 14 July 2023.
While the actual works were completed in a reasonable timeframe, it delayed the inspection by more than 3 months. This was not in line with its Repairs Policy, which requires timely and thorough investigation. This resident had to ask it several times to complete the insulation survey as required by EH. This caused the resident frustration.
Between 5 and 6 July 2023 the landlord installed the new drain. This was within 16 days of it raising the repair. Similarly to the insulation, this repair was completed in a reasonable timeframe. However, it is unclear why this had not been identified during its earlier visits.
The landlord’s records do not clearly show when it completed the gutter, roof, plastering, and insulation repairs. Evidence suggests these were finished between 20 July 2023 and 3 August 2023.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it will agree a repair date with the resident and keep its properties safe and free from disrepair. Although the policy does not set a specific completion timeframe, it is still expected to carry out repairs within a fair and reasonable period.
In this case, the resident waited more than 5 months for the repairs to be completed. This was not reasonable and did not reflect the landlord’s duty to act promptly to prevent ongoing disrepair.
On 8 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord for compensation for the distress from the repair delays. The landlord responded 6 days later. It said it was speaking with the staff members involved in dealing with her repairs. It missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and explain what this meant and when she would be updated.
Between 16 August and 6 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her compensation request. She also reported that the scaffolding had not been removed.
The landlord’s policy says residents will know when repairs will be completed. Considering the resident had to inform the landlord, the landlord fell short of informing her this would happen. The landlord removed the scaffolding, but it is unclear when this happened.
On 14 November 2023 the resident complained again. She explained how long she had experienced damp and mould issues for and asked for compensation. She contacted it again on 20 December 2023 to tell it that the black mould in her kitchen had returned.
Between 8 and 17 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord on at least 2 occasions. She told it she wanted to live in a property without damp and mould issues. She added that the mould was above the kitchen window and she did not want to climb up to clean it.
The landlord said it would investigate her new reports, but there is no evidence it did so. This was not consistent with its Repairs Policy, which requires it to investigate thoroughly. Instead, it said it would look at what properties were available, as the resident had expressed she wanted to move.
The landlord still had a duty to ensure the property was safe and free from disrepair. While it could not have reasonably foreseen the damp recurrence at this stage, taking no action was unreasonable and likely compounded the resident’s distress.
On 16 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord for an update and on 21 February 2024 it gave its final response. It apologised for its repair delays and for not fully listening to her concerns. It set out that it had reviewed its records and found its communication had been poor.
The landlord also acknowledged that the situation negatively affected the resident’s wellbeing, property enjoyment, and her relationship with the landlord. Identifying its failures showed the resident it took accountability for its actions.
The landlord offered to work with the resident to transfer her to another one of its properties through its Management Move process. It offered her £700 towards removal costs, and to fund some flooring at a ‘reasonable cost.’ The resident later disputed that it had offered £800 and the landlord agreed to change this.
The landlord’s total offer of £1,250 was consistent with its Compensation Policy. This says awards between £350 and £500 are appropriate where its failure causes distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It also allows higher awards on a case-by-case basis.
This also broadly aligns with our remedies guidance, which sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has made some attempts to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
While these were reasonable steps, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s new reports of damp and mould in its final complaint response. It could have raised a new complaint about these reports or included them in its stage 2 response. It did not do either. This was a shortcoming.
In July 2024 the landlord offered the resident another property, but she could not move until September 2024 due to unforeseen circumstances. When the resident moved, the landlord contributed towards both the moving fees and towards flooring costs. This was consistent with its final response commitment.
Overall, we found the landlord’s actions and compensation were proportionate to the failings and amount to reasonable redress. It recognised its poor communication and how it affected the resident. It apologised, acknowledged delays, showed it considered the impact on the resident and offered her fair compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
On 16 February 2023 and 15 May 2023 the resident made a complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge these within 5 working days or respond with 10 working days, as required by its Complaints Policy and the Code. This likely made the resident feel that her concerns had been overlooked.
Between 22 May 2023 and 20 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord at least 3 times for an update. She said she did not know who was managing her complaint. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to give its stage 1 response, causing the resident avoidable frustration, time and trouble.
Between 14 August 2023 and 14 November 2023 the resident asked for a response and compensation on at least 5 occasions. On 17 November 2023 the landlord said it would reply within a week and that it had been managing her complaint under its Complaints Policy.
The landlord’s statement conflicted with its actions. It had not followed the required steps or timescales in its policy or the Code. It had not acknowledged the complaint, given a stage 1 response, or kept the resident updated. This statement likely caused the resident further confusion and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint, 212 working days after the resident first complained. It gave its final complaint response on 21 February 2024, 45 working days after the acknowledgement. The resident chased the landlord at least once during this time.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling and communication were poor. The onus was unreasonably on the resident to ask it for updates, which caused her significant time and trouble. The landlord failed to explain its delays throughout the complaint. The resident remained uncertain about whether the landlord would respond. This caused her distress and inconvenience. The pattern of poor communication and delays persisted, adding to her loss of confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
However, the landlord acknowledged these failings in its stage 2 response. It apologised for its delayed response and for not progressing her complaint. It offered the resident £300 compensation.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says payments between £200 and £350 are appropriate where its failings cause distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. This also broadly aligns with our remedies guidance where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

Learning

The landlord’s approach to addressing the damp and mould was delayed. It did not complete investigations in a timely way or provide clear updates. However, it has since introduced a standalone Damp and Mould Policy with an escalation process where cases exceed target times. This is a positive step. The landlord could strengthen the policy by adding guidance on how it will respond when a household is vulnerable. This would help ensure vulnerabilities are identified early and reflected in its approach.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could improve the quality and consistency of its repair records. In this case, repair dates, scaffolding removal dates, and completion times were unclear. This made it difficult to track progress. Better records would help the landlord effectively manage repairs and show that it has met its obligations.

Communication

The landlord missed opportunities to give regular updates, explain the purpose of some repairs, or confirm completion dates. Clearer and more frequent communication would help rebuild trust, reduce uncertainty, and ensure residents understand why certain works are required.