Curo Places Limited (202301406)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301406

Curo Group (Albion) Limited

31 July 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. The residents are joint assured tenants of the landlord in a 1 bedroom bungalow, where they have lived since April 2006. Both residents have vulnerabilities of which the landlord is aware, including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and dementia. They are represented in raising their complaint by their son who, for the sake of brevity, will be referred to in this report as Mr A. The residents will be referred to as “the resident”.
  2. On 13 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report extensive damp and mould in her property. In response to this, the landlord carried out an inspection on 26 January 2023. It found that there was mould present in the hallway, bedroom, living room, kitchen and around the washing machine, and that the trickle vents throughout the property were closed. The landlord advised the resident to leave the vents open to “create an airflow”, and raised the following works to tackle the damp and mould:
    1. Carry out a mould wash throughout the property;
    2. Fit new radiators in the bedroom and hallway;
    3. Install new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen;
    4. Fit additional loft insulation to fill cold spots on the ceiling, which were causing mould formation;
    5. Inspect roof felt to check for any holes.
  3. On 15 March 2023, Mr A raised a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident. It stated that:
    1. The damp the resident had reported in December 2022 had a significant impact on his mother’s breathing.
    2. The landlord completed a survey in January 2023 and recommended a “long list of works”. However, since then, and after multiple visits, the only jobs completed had been a mould treatment and installation of a radiator in the bedroom.
    3. The landlord had promised that its surveyor would contact Mr A but he had not received “a single outbound call in all that time”.
    4. His mother’s quality of life had been “severely impacted” over the previous 4 months and he wanted to know how the landlord could improve her living conditions “in the last few months of her life”.
  4. It is unclear when the landlord acknowledged Mr A’s complaint. However, it sent him its stage 1 response on 3 April 2023. This stated that:
    1. It had ignored Mr A’s requests that the landlord should contact him rather than the residents, due to their vulnerabilities. It acknowledged that this should not have happened.
    2. It had completed work on 31 March 2023 to install new extractor fans in the residents bathroom and kitchen.
    3. It stated that, in order to resolve the complaint, it would take the following actions:
      1. Complete the loft insulation work, which was booked for 28 April 2023;
      2. Install a radiator in the hallway;
      3. Contact Mr A rather than the resident with any further updates;
      4. Pay the residents compensation for the delays in completing repairs and removing the damp and mould, which it would calculate once all works were completed.
    4. As a result of its investigation, it upheld the complaint.
  5. Mr A telephoned the landlord on 12 April 2023 to say he believed the works had “slowed down” since he raised his complaint. The landlord assured him that work was still continuing in the background and that it would update him more regularly going forward. It also explained to him the reason for the delay installing a radiator in the hallway and the difficulties surrounding this. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day to say it had booked in a mould wash for 21 April 2023 and that it would be ensuring there were no further delays in completing the loft insulation work.
  6. The landlord contacted Mr A again on 10 May 2023 to confirm that it had visited the residents property that day. It stated that it had installed a radiator in the hallway and a larger one in the living room to help prevent damp and mould. Mr A responded on 18 May 2023 to say the resident was happy with the new radiators and asked whether the landlord had planned to redecorate the rooms that had been “badly” affected by the damp and mould. He added that the living room ceiling had “ a huge damp stain”, the kitchen had a patch of white where mould had been treated and there were visible mould patches in the bedroom.
  7. The records show that the landlord had agreed to redecorate the property, and to attend on 11 July 2023. However, the resident asked for the job to be cancelled because she had COVID-19. The landlord rescheduled the works for 30 August 2023. The landlord contacted Mr A on 31 August 2023 to confirm that the decorating works had been completed and, on 5 September 2023 it wrote to him with an offer of £275 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
    1. £25 for miscommunication errors”;
    2. £50 for missed and unnecessary appointments;
    3. £200 for time and impact”.
  8. On 13 September 2023, Mr A responded to say that the resident was not happy with its offer. He stated that it did not sufficiently recognise the severity of the damp, the time taken for the landlord to fix the problems and the administration errors that had caused the resident significant distress. He added that she expected an offer that was equivalent to 6 months’ worth of rental payments. The landlord wrote back the following day to say it could not consider the level of compensation that the resident had requested but that it would offer an additional £100 for time and impact”, making a revised total of £375.
  9. Mr A wrote back to the landlord on 15 September 2023 and asked for it to escalate the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 21 September 2023 and sent Mr A its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It stated that:
    1. It was sorry for the service the resident had received and acknowledged it took longer than it should to complete the repairs.
    2. It acknowledged it had failed to abide by Mr A’s communication preference and for contacting the residents rather than him. It stated that it had raised the matter internally with the staff member’s line manager.
    3. It confirmed that it had:
      1. Treated the mould and redecorated the affected rooms on 20 August 2023;
      2. Installed the hallway radiator on 10 May 2023;
      3. Installed new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 31 March 2023;
      4. Completed loft insulation works on 28 April 2023.
    4. It acknowledged that it had given conflicting information regarding installation of the hallway radiator and apologised for any confusion it had caused.
    5. It wanted to increase its offer of compensation to £625, which it broke down as follows:
      1. £500 for “time and impact”, which it said was the maximum it could offer under its compensation policy;
      2. £50 for the delay in “picking up” the complaint at stage 2;
      3. £50 for appointments that it had made unnecessarily;
      4. £25 for miscommunication.
  10. On 3 January 2024, Mr A discussed his complaint with the Service and stated that the landlord had offered insufficient compensation. He said that, although all the repairs had been completed, the level of redress was too low considering the distress and inconvenience the resident had been through. Mr A added that the landlord’s response had been “poor and slow” and that he would like it to take steps to improve its service for all residents.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that landlords must carry out certain repairs. This includes maintaining the exterior and structure of the property, and installations for the provision of water, heating systems, drainage and sanitary appliances. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is “fit for human habitation” in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
  3. The landlord’s reactive repairs policy states that reactive repairs are the day to day repairs required to keep the structure, exterior and the internal components of the landlord’s properties in good condition, and to keep them safe, healthy and warm. Its principles include thoroughly investigating damp, ensuring residents are informed of progress and outcomes, and aiming to meet the highest standard in the delivery of the service.
  4. The landlord’s customer commitment leaflet states that it will publish its response times for repairs, and will aim to keep to all its published timescales. Residents will be able to know in advance the approximate time for the repair to be completed, and receive a confirmation text from the operative before they arrive. It lists 4 categories of repair, which are referred to as, emergency, priority, routine and complex. Emergency repairs are attended to on the same day. Priority repairs, which are those likely to affect a resident’s wellbeing and cannot be left unattended for longer than 2 days. These are attended to within 48 hours. Routine repairs are those that do not pose an immediate threat to the resident or property and appointments for these are arranged at a mutually convenient time. The landlord does not have published timescales for routine repairs.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out 5 categories of discretionary compensation in recognition of the level of time taken by and impact on the resident as a result of failures in service. The amounts range from between £0 and £50 for low impact and short delay to between £350 and £500 in recognition of high impact and long delays.

Reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting damp and mould within the property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live in a damp home, especially when living with a serious health condition. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the residents reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report, ‘Damp and Mould – It’s not lifestyle’, published in October 2021, states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
  3. The evidence shows that it was not until 6 weeks after the resident reported extensive damp and mould that the landlord inspected the property. According to the landlord’s telephone records, the resident had made the landlord aware from the outset that she had severe COPD. The records show that 26 January 2023 was the earliest date available on the landlord’s booking system. It explained to the resident that this was because there were only 3 surveyors available. However, it is unclear from the records whether it had made any attempts to liaise with its surveyors or repairs team managers to check whether it could prioritise the inspection. Records show the landlord was aware of the seriousness of the residents vulnerabilities. Given this, it would have been appropriate for it to have made reasonable efforts to try and explore whether it could have arranged an earlier appointment. The evidence does not such that any such efforts were made. As such, the landlord is not able to demonstrate it took the residents vulnerabilities sufficiently into account or that it exercised any flexibility or discretion in the handling of her report. This was a failing.
  4. When considering whether there was a need to expedite an inspection or any works, the landlord could reasonably have carried out a pre-inspection visit to assess the possible risks to the resident and the property. This would have also allowed it to establish the extent of the damp and mould. It would then have been able make an informed decision and prioritise the survey accordingly. It is evident the landlord failed to properly ascertain the seriousness of the damp and mould and that it simply gave the resident the next available appointment. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to take an person centred rather than generic approach in responding to the residents report. 
  5. Following the inspection, where the surveyor had raised several repairs, there is no indication the landlord made any contact with the resident. The evidence does not demonstrate it made any efforts to provide updates, estimated completion dates or to keep her informed at any point. The telephone records show that the resident and Mr A contacted the landlord several times for updates, all of which went unanswered. This suggests the resident had to go to the trouble of trying to progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The evidence shows that it was not until she raised a stage 1 complaint, a month and a half after the inspection, that the landlord provided any indication of when it would attend to the repairs. The landlord’s poor communication following the inspection, and its failure to adopt a customer focussed approach, or provide any updates, would have added to the residents uncertainty over whether any of the works would progress.
  6. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional parts to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
  7. It is evident that, following the residents complaint, the landlord’s communication improved and that it was providing more regular updates to Mr A. In addition, when Mr A reminded it about the residents preferred method of contact, the landlord acknowledged it had made an error in continuing to contact the resident rather than Mr A, and took steps to ensure it followed the proper agreed contact arrangement. It also offered compensation in its response for its miscommunication error and advised Mr A the matter had been raised with the relevant staff member.
  8. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, published in January 2024 states that landlords must recognise that the failure to deliver a routine service can act as the catalyst for a prolonged period of service failure. Because of the presence of vulnerabilities, this can become more complex to resolve and result in more detriment to the resident. The records show that completion times for most of the repairs were excessive, particularly given the residents circumstances. For example, it took the landlord 61 working days to carry out the recommended mould wash. As the intention of the mould wash was to minimise further risks from mould spores prior to preventative repairs being completed, it is unclear why the landlord could not have reasonably expedited the treatment.
  9. It is accepted that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues or periods where they are busy and their services are therefore stretched. However, landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. Furthermore, given most of the rooms in the house were affected by damp and mould, and the nature and seriousness of the vulnerabilities within the household, it should have made some efforts to prioritise the works. Alternatively, it could have given the resident a proper explanation of why it could not have provided an earlier date and given greater reassurance that it was doing everything it reasonably could to progress the works. There are no records to show it had made sufficient attempts to do this.
  10. It took the landlord between 2 to 3 months to complete most of the repairs, which included installation of a radiator in the hallway, additional loft insulation and the fitting of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It is evident some delays in fitting a radiator in the hallway were caused by the technical difficulties the landlord was facing in laying pipework. The records show that it had explained this to Mr A, and that it had tried exploring other options such as installing an electric heater instead. However, it is evident the landlord had provided conflicting and unclear information to both Mr A and the resident about whether or not it could install heating in that part of the property. There is internal correspondence from 17 April 2023, where the landlord stated it could not fit the radiator as it was “unable to put the gas piping in”. However, during a telephone conversation, after Mr A informed the landlord that an operative had told him it was not possible to fit a gas powered radiator, it advised him it was still looking into this as it was the only option available. This would have caused uncertainty and confusion around whether or not these works could be completed.
  11. The evidence shows that the landlord succeeded in fitting the radiator on 10 May 2023. It is not clear from the records how it had finally resolved the problem. it is acknowledged that the radiator installation was delayed and that the landlord did encounter some difficulties. While some of the issues were beyond the landlord’s control, it is unclear from the evidence whether some of the delay could reasonably have been avoided.
  12. It is noted that the surveyor had recommended that the landlord check the roofing felt to check whether there were any holes that could be causing water ingress. Despite this recommendation, there are no records to show any such inspection took place. The landlord may have decided that this particular action was unnecessary. However, if so, it should have made a record to show it had considered this recommendation and explained the reasons why it had not taken the suggested action. Following completion of the damp and mould works, the records show that the resident reported the formation of a damp patch on her living room ceiling. Although the landlord had arranged to inspect this on 9 May 2024, it is unclear whether this went ahead. The Ombudsman will therefore make an order that, if it has not done so already, it inspects the property to investigate the cause of the returning damp. It should take account of the recommendation made following the 26 January 2023 survey and check for any holes in the roofing felt for signs of possible water ingress.
  13. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord made sufficient efforts to help the resident manage the damp while waiting for the repairs to be completed. Apart from advising the resident to leave the trickle vents open, there are no records to show the landlord provided any other support to minimise the impact of the damp. Furthermore, there is no indication it had offered to supply dehumidifiers, for example, to help reduce the damp within the property while the resident was waiting for the preventative works to be completed. The landlord could reasonably have asked Mr A if there were any adjustments it could make to accommodate the residents vulnerabilities. That it failed to take reasonable account of her vulnerabilities would have further aggravated the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in completing works.
  14. It is positive to note that the landlord agreed to redecorate the property once it had completed all the repairs. Although the redecoration works were delayed, the evidence shows that they had been rescheduled due to illness in the household. This delay was therefore outside the landlord’s control. However, there is evidence of operatives failing to attend to appointments with no notice given, or the landlord arranging unnecessary visits. This would have caused the resident unnecessary additional distress, inconvenience and disruption. These failings demonstrate a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its contractors, and poor contract monitoring. Furthermore, the records indicate that the landlord was on occasion unable to explain to the resident why appointments had been cancelled at short notice or why operatives had failed to attend. The telephone records show that when the residents called to make enquiries about the repairs, the landlord often had to call them back because it did not have the required information on its repairs management system. There is evidence the landlord lacked an effective mechanism for tracking repairs, which meant it could not provide the resident with timely and reliable updates.
  15. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  16. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its failings and acknowledged the delays, and its poor communication. Furthermore, it offered £625 compensation, which included £500 that it stated was the maximum its compensation policy could offer for “time and impact”. Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident. In particular, and in view of the resident’s health issues, it is important to emphasise the time it took for the landlord to carry out an inspection and mould treatment, and the delay in fitting a radiator. The landlord had also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress.
  17. The resident has paid approximately £456 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman can reasonably consider this to have started in mid-December 2022, which was when the resident first reported significant damp and mould in her property. It is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the landlord took to inspect the property and complete the outstanding works (5 months). It also takes into account the impact of the resulting damp and mould on the resident’s use and enjoyment of most of the property, comprising of the bedroom, living room, hallway and kitchen. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £570 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. We will also order additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  18. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In January 2024 we published our Spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated outstanding repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,395, calculated as follows:
      1. The £625 compensation it had offered in its stage 2 response, if not previously paid;
      2. £570 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of the residents bedroom, living room, hallway and kitchen due to the delay in responding to reports of damp and mould.
      3. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the identified failings.

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.

  1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Guidance on Remedies.
  2. Report back to the landlord on whether the inspection it had booked for 9 May 2024 has taken place. The purpose of the inspection was to look at the damp on the resident’s living room ceiling that she had reported. If the inspection has not taken place, the landlord to carry out an inspection to include an assessment of the roofing felt as recommended in the survey of 26 January 2023, and report back to the Service accordingly.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
    1. It understands how the landlord failed to consider the resident’s particular needs or to appropriately alert its contractors of those needs;
    2. It considers how it could more effectively prioritise vulnerable residents when they report repairs, paying particular attention to any safety concerns if repairs are delayed;
    3. It considers the formulation of a policy/procedure that covers responding to residents’ vulnerabilities.

The senior manager should prepare a report setting out their findings and learning and the actions recommended to prevent recurrence of similar failings. A copy of the report is to be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is noted that the landlord’s reactive repairs policy does not provide a specific timescale for when it aims to complete routine repairs. It is recommended that, when it next reviews its policy and in order to better manage residents’ expectations, the landlord considers amending it to include a timescale for routine repairs. This would align with what the landlord states in its customer commitment leaflet with regard to publishing timescales for repairs.