Curo Places Limited (202316714)

Decision
Case ID	202316714
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	14 April 2026

Background

The complainant is a leaseholder of the landlord and subletsthe property to a tenant. The leaseholder’s husband is her representative. For readability, this report refers to the leaseholder and representative as ‘she’ and ‘the leaseholder’ throughout. She said that the landlord’s major work costs were unreasonable, and its communication and quality of the works was poor.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s responses to the leaseholder’s:
1. concerns about the reasonableness of the major works costs
2. concerns about the landlord’s communication and the quality of the major works
3. complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have not investigated the leaseholder’s complaint about the reasonableness of the major works costs because it is outside of our jurisdiction.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the leaseholder’s concerns about the landlord’s communication and quality of the major works.
The was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint.

Summary of Reasons

Reasonableness of the major work costs

We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the Section 20 process and reasonableness of the major works cost is better dealt with by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). This is because the FTT are better placed to examine Section 20 disputes in detail and make legally binding orders on the parties involved. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the leaseholder to seek the outcomes she wants with that tribunal. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this complaint point.

Communication and quality of major works

The landlord missed opportunities to inspect and explain what, if any, steps it was taking to address the quality of works. While it reduced the overall costs, it failed to complete the works to good standard. Its responses did not go far enough in putting things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the leaseholder’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.

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 leaseholder 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 12 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £200 to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about the quality of major works. This must be paid directly to the leaseholder by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the leaseholder has reported the quality of the workmanship has not been resolved, specifically the painting and masonry (pointing) work. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the leaseholder to inspect the work and quality against the major works schedule. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 12 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis it pays the leaseholder the £50 compensation that it offered in its final complaint response if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 August 2023	The leaseholder made a complaint. In summary, she said: the landlord told her it would not consider her quotes for the major works that took place between March 2023 and May 2023 she had asked the landlord to delay erecting the scaffolding on 20 March 2023, but it did not do so it did not give her a breakdown of actual costs following the completion of major works
16 August 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it would not look at the leaseholder’s quotes for the major works as it had a contractor appointed under a long term qualifying agreement it provided a copy of the major works invoice and it had offered various dates to meet with her and discuss her concerns it was satisfied it had communicated with her in a professional manner
7 September 2023	The leaseholder escalated her complaint. In summary, she said: she had been charged for painting a gate and stair-treads, but the landlord had not done this the paint on the railings and door was peeling the landlord had not post-inspected the works
5 January 2024	The landlord gave its final complaint response. In summary, it said: it had given the leaseholder extra time to review the invoice and raise concerns, but it had not received a response it acknowledged there had been quality issues and offered to reduce the total costs to reflect this it did not feel it could progress the complaint and meet an agreeable solution for both parties it offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response
Referral to the Ombudsman	The leaseholder referred her complaint to us. To resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to: apologise reduce the overall major works bill compensate her for the time, trouble and inconvenience it caused

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 the leaseholder’s concerns about the reasonableness of the major works costs.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The leaseholder complained about the reasonableness of the cost of major works. She reported that she had comparison quotes for the works, which were much cheaper. We do not investigate complaints about the reasonableness of major works costs, so we have not investigated this.

Complaint	The landlord’s responses to the leaseholder’s concerns about the landlord’s communication and quality of major works.
Finding	Maladministration

On 20 March 2023 the landlord began major works to the exterior of the building. This included scaffolding, roof, masonry and windows repairs, and external redecoration. The landlord completed the repairs and removed the scaffolding by 22 May 2023.
The landlord gave the leaseholder 4 days’ notice that the scaffolding would be erected. The leaseholder explained that she had new tenants moving into the property and asked to delay the scaffold. The landlord explained it could not do this without incurring additional costs. This was reasonable and shows it had considered this may financially impact both itself and the leaseholder.
On 13 June 2023 the leaseholder reported that the landlord had not given her a breakdown of the actual costs following completion of the works. She also said its communication was initially “fine.” In response, the landlord offered to meet with the leaseholder at its office to discuss her concerns on 29 June 2023.
This was a reasonable step to take for the landlord to understand the leaseholder’s concerns in depth. However, the landlord’s Leaseholder Management Policy says it will provide clear information about costs. It missed the opportunity to provide this to the leaseholder at an earlier date.
Following the meeting, the landlord sent the leaseholder the breakdown of major works and her service charge account. It offered to meet with her to discuss any concerns she had once she reviewed the major works invoices.
When the leaseholder complained on 7 August 2023, the landlord arranged an appointment to meet at the property to discuss her concerns. This then took place on 14 August 2023.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. It explained why it would not look at the leaseholder’s quotes and gave her a copy of the final invoice. It reviewed its records and found that its staff had communicated appropriately.
The landlord contacted the leaseholder on 19 August 2023 following the meeting. It committed to reviewing the workmanship issues the leaseholder raised, agreed to sending photos of the repairs and review the gate painting costs. It also gave a breakdown of the costs for the leaseholder to review and respond with any queries.
These were reasonable steps to investigate the leaseholder’s quality concerns and shows that it was taking them seriously. However, it fell short of providing her with a clear timeframe for when it would follow through on its commitment. It also missed the chance, in line with its policy, to suggest an application to the First Tier Tribunal where it had been unable to resolve the dispute.
On 21 August 2023 the local MP contacted the landlord on behalf of the leaseholder. They reported that the landlord had charged the leaseholder for work on the external gate, and a stairwell that did not exist. They also raised concerns about the quality of the work completed to the external railings.
When the landlord contacted the leaseholder on 1 September 2023, it explained that it was waiting for her to respond with her specific concerns about the major works. It also confirmed it would remove the gate costs from the total bill. However, it did not set out its position in relation to the external railings. The landlord missed an opportunity to inspect the quality of repairs and explain what it would to do put things right.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord said it would close the leaseholder’s complaint as she had not responded with her concerns in relation to the major works. In response, the leaseholder asked it not to close the complaint. She repeated that the paintwork was peeling, and the landlord had not post-inspected the works.
The landlord agreed to keep the complaint open to allow her a further opportunity to review the invoiced work and provide feedback. This was reasonable as it showed it was open to addressing her concerns.
Between 7 September 2023 and 16 October 2023 both parties were in contact about the quality of the work. On 16 October 2023 the landlord agreed to remove the gate painting costs from the invoice.
This suggests the works were either incomplete or had not been completed to an acceptable standard. Although the landlord removed the gate costs, it did not say what it would do to address the gate and other quality issues. It missed the opportunity to manage the leaseholder’s expectations about what would happen next.
On 18 October 2023 the landlord and leaseholder met but there are no further records. Keeping clear records of actions and decisions helps landlords ensure transparency. This highlights a weakness in the landlord’s record-keeping, which may have contributed to the overall delays the leaseholder experienced. However, the leaseholder has explained to us this was to discuss the major works.
On 5 January 2024 the landlord gave its final complaint response, which went someway in putting things right. It accepted that there were issues in relation to the work standard, and some elements had been overlooked and agreed to reduce the overall costs. While we are unable to assess whether the total and actual costs were reasonable as set out in the reasons in the first complaint point, offering a reduction was fair.
However, the landlord missed opportunities to inspect the major works and ensure they were completed to a reasonable standard. It did not set out what, if any, action it would take aside from reducing a bill. The landlord’s actions do not show it sufficiently considered the appearance of the building.
In ordering compensation, we have considered the time and trouble the leaseholder experienced in the landlord resolving her concerns about the quality of works. We also considered our compensation guidance and the landlord’s Compensation Policy. This says payments between £100 and £200 are appropriate where it has caused inconvenience, time and trouble over a prolonged period.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is consistent with the Code. Our findings are:
On 7 August 2023 the leaseholder made a complaint, which the landlord acknowledged 3 days later. This was within the 5-day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord gave its stage 1 response. This was within the 10-workng day timeframe set out in the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge the leaseholder’s escalation request, dated 7 September 2023. Nor did it issue its stage 2 response within the Code’s 20 working day timeframe. However, both parties were in contact about the ongoing complaint. The landlord gave opportunities for the leaseholder to provide more information for it to investigate her complaint further.
In its stage 2 response, dated 5 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstance. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says payments between £50 and £200 are appropriate where its complaint response was delayed, causing a loss of confidence. Therefore, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

Learning

When leaseholders raise concerns about major works, proactive post‑completion inspections help ensure acceptable standards are met and maintain confidence in the landlord’s oversight.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Keeping written records that set out what was discussed and any follow‑up actions after meetings with residents and leaseholders supports landlords’ transparency and accountability.

Communication

Providing clear timeframes and regular updates to residents can help landlords reduce the risk of leaseholders and residents feeling uncertain and frustrated.