Curo Places Limited (202527801)

Decision
Case ID	202527801
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

The resident reported concerns about the external concrete stairs that lead to their first floor flat. This included concerns about subsidence and the safety of the stairs. They were unhappy with the landlord’s response about this and referred the complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of safety issues affecting the external stairs and the subsequent repairs.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of safety issues affecting the external stairs and the subsequent repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of safety issues affecting the external stairs and the subsequent repairs

The landlord delayed completing works to the stairs and it did not respond to some of the resident’s reports about safety concerns.

Complaint

The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy, ensuring they had a response in good time.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of safety issues and subsidence affecting the external stairs and the subsequent repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 20 February 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must consider the findings from its inspections. If the inspections show that an additional handrail is needed, it must install this by the due date. If the inspection shows that a handrail is not required, the landlord should write to the resident by the due date to reoffer this as an option.	No later than 20 February 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the delays and communication failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 20 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord shares its inspection findings of the stairs with the resident, and what works were recommended, if any.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 19 October 2023 and 21 January 2025	The resident reported that the external concrete stairs to the property were affected by subsidence and that they had slipped on the stairs on at least on 2 occasions. The landlord installed grips on the edge of each step, completed repairs to the walls surrounding the stairs, and said it had applied an anti-slip coating to the steps.
22 January 2025	The resident complained that the stairs were dangerous as they had slipped, injured themselves, and the grips the landlord had added to the steps had not resolved the issue.
10 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had found no issues with the external stairs and there was no further action it could take. It referred the resident to its insurer about their injuries. On the same day the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 as they reported they had slipped on the stairs and the landlord had not completed repairs.
7 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it had found no issues with how it handled the residents reports and what it had done to improve the safety, such as installing grips to the stairs. It offered to install an additional handrail and said the resident could consider other housing options through mutual exchange or the housing register, if they found their current property was unsuitable. It also offered to support the resident through their personal injury claim.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us. They said the steps to the property were falling apart due to subsidence, but the landlord had not improved the situation. They said this caused them stress. They wanted the landlord to review its policies and procedures, complete outstanding repairs to the steps, apologise and offer 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	Reports of safety issues affecting the external stairs and the subsequent repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident made reports about the external stairs dating back to 2018. It is not possible for us to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back that far. We may only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, we investigated events from October 2023. Any reference to events prior to this will be for context only.
The resident said they had sustained injuries from the external stairs. We are unable to find if a landlord’s actions or inaction had affected someone’s health or caused injury. These matters are likely better suited for a court, or a personal injury or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this, they can seek independent advice. However, where we have identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

The resident reported a slip on the stairs on 19 October 2023. The tenancy agreement said the landlord was responsible for repairing the structure of the property and outside of the home. Its customer commitment said it was responsible for steps in outdoor areas. It said it would complete health and safety checks in and around the property to ensure it was safe. It said it would attend to repairs within 28 days.
The landlord completed an incident report about what happened, whether there was an injury, and the causes of the slip. It said it had already planned to install grips to the steps and brought this forward by a month to 30 October 2023.It was in line with its customer commitment to assess the issue and set out ways it could improve the safety of the stairs.
However, the landlord did not install the grips to the stairs until 3 January 2024 which was not in line with its agreement with the resident to do so by 30 October 2023.
The resident reported concerns about possible subsidence affecting the stairs on 18 July 2024. However, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report or investigated whether there was an issue. This was not in line with its customer commitment which said it would be clear about who was responsible for repairs and respond to communications within 3 working days.
On 16 September 2024 the landlord completed a post inspection report of repairs to the walls that supported the stairs, including repointing between some of the brickwork and repairing the cracks. It concluded that no further work was needed. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the repairs it carried out. However, there is no record of the initial inspection, why the repairs were needed, and when they were completed. This was a failure of its record keeping and has made it difficult for us to assess whether it responded to the resident’s reports and completed repairs within the timescales set out in its customer commitment policy.
On 1 October 2024 and 19 November 2024, the resident continued to raise concerns about subsidence that they said affected the safety of the stairs. They also reported that they slipped on the stairs on 21 January 2025which caused them injury. There is no evidence the landlord assessed or responded to the reports made by the resident. This was not in line with its customer commitment policy.
After the resident complained that they found the stairs dangerous, the landlord visited the property on 28 January 2025. It found the steps were not slippery but recommended to jet wash the steps to clean them and remove moss. The landlord jet washed the steps on 4 February 2025. This was in line with its customer commitment policy to assess the health and safety of the property and surrounding areas.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that the stairs had a handrail on one side. It offered to install another. It also provided housing options advice if the resident felt the property was unsuitable, such as a mutual exchange or applying through the housing register. It also assisted them with their injury claim with the insurer. These were reasonable actions to improve the safety of the stairs and support the resident. The resident later declined the new handrail, the insurance claim was concluded, and a new complaint was raised about another slip on the stairs.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it did not recognise the issues set out under the summary of reasons of this report. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience it caused to them for the delays and lack of communication, in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy. We have ordered it apologises to the resident and sets out learning from the failures found in this report. We have ordered it to consider its findings from its inspections and if it needs to install another handrail. If it finds it does not need to install a handrail, it should reoffer this as an option to the resident.
Since the complaint response the landlord inspected the stairs, and a structural survey was recommended. We have recommended that the landlord shares its findings with the resident of its inspection and structural survey of the stairs.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s acknowledgement and response to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 was in line with its policy. We found no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord maintained good oversight of the complaint. It ensured that the resident received contact and responses about their complaint within the times set out in its complaint policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords keep clear records. Doing so can help landlords meet their obligations and provide us with information for a thorough investigation. The landlord did not provide evidence of some inspections and repairs. At times, this impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord did not consistently keep to its customer commitment to respond to communications within 3 working days. It also failed to respond to all of the resident’s concerns.