Curo Places Limited (202409175)

Decision
Case ID	202409175
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	11 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in an end terrace house. She has physical and mental health conditions. The landlord completed extensive repairs in the property. Following this the resident reported cold air coming into the property. She complained that despite several visits from the landlord it had not resolved this issue.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property.
2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property

The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about draughts in her living room when first raised and failed to act after subsequent reports, despite saying it would. In its stage 1 response, it agreed to a surveyor’s inspection but later cancelled this without informing the resident. It initially said a surveyor would attend, then the same day changed to sending other staff. The landlord could also have advised the resident on the running costs of the monitors it planned to install.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to record a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction, despite her raising new issues. It also failed to act on the proposed remedy at stage 1 and closed her complaint. It could have escalated the resident’s complaint when she raised another. Additionally, when discussing the complaint with the resident, the landlord said it would close it without clarifying it would send a stage 2 response.

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 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in her property £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from this amount any compensation it has already paid.	No later than 13 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must: take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the resident’s property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: the most likely cause of any reported draughts in the resident’s property whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) information on monitoring equipment (if the surveyor recommends using this) including how much they cost to run the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 13 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord ensures residents are clear about how they should communicate with it including raising complaints.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 January 2024	The resident complained about several issues, including cold air coming into her property. She said this was due to a gap under the front door and gaps under the skirting boards. The landlord said that other than the gap under the front door, it had added these issues to her previous complaint. It said its repairs team would follow up the issue with the front door.
26 April 2024	The resident complained that cold air was coming through her living room floor.
29 April 2024	The landlord said an operative would attend on 14 May 2024 to see if they could resolve the issue or if a surveyor was required. The resident confirmed that she wanted to raise a complaint as she had reported the issue before. She said cold air was coming through a vent that was disturbed during previous works. She said it was unbearable and made her feet go numb.
2 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
16 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and any inconvenience caused. It said it would arrange a surveyor’s inspection due to the severity of the draught. It said if she was not happy with this resolution, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2. In a telephone call, the landlord confirmed that a surveyor would attend. The resident said there were draughts throughout the property, and it was very cold since the landlord removed slate from an external wall. She added she could not sit in the living room due to the draughts and had to live upstairs. The resident said she wanted the landlord to resolve the issue by winter as heating the property was “waste of time” because the heat escaped.
3, 18 and 19 June 2024	The resident requested an update on the surveyor’s inspection and a response to her complaint. She raised a further complaint about cold air throughout her house. She said she had already complained, and the landlord told her a surveyor would attend.
20 June 2024	The landlord opened a new complaint. It apologised for not responding to her regarding the surveyor’s visit. It said it had asked the team responsible to contact her.
10 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s inspection of 2 July 2024. The landlord reiterated the findings from the inspection. It said because the carpet was removed, there would be a draught and there was no further action it could take. It said it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 but could not guarantee a different outcome.
15, 19 and 24 July 2024	The landlord said it had found no draughts in the resident’s property. It provided information on monitors it intended to install, including an internet link. It asked the resident to confirm if she wanted it to install them. It gave the resident 7 days to decide, which she felt was unfair. She said she was worried about the cost of this. The landlord explained it needed to either progress or close the complaint by this point.
1 August 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for not acknowledging the complaint in writing and offered £50 for this failure. It said it did not allow additional time for the resident to decide on having monitors installed as it felt 17 days was sufficient for this. It said it did not uphold the complaint as it had completed previous work in line with Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) expectations and found no evidence of draughts.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. She said the landlord was denying there was anything wrong and did not plan to do any work to resolve the issue. She wanted the landlord to resolve the reported draughts in her property.

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 handling of the resident’s reports of draughts in the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident told us that the issues impacted her health conditions. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any negative impact. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any issue and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The landlord received the property back from its contractor on 29 November 2023 following extensive repairs. An Environmental Health Officer (EHO) from the local authority signed the works off as complete on 6 December 2023.
On 9 January 2024 the resident reported a gap under the front door and missing beading from the skirting boards which she said allowed cold air into the property. She asked when the landlord would repair the beading in the living room as it was very cold. The landlord attended on 25 January 2024. It fitted and sealed beading around the skirting boards in the dining room area and realigned the front door. Its customer commitment at the time stated that it would attend to routine repairs at a mutually convenient time. The landlord completed these repairs in a reasonable timescale. However, there is no evidence it considered the issues with the beading in the living room.
On 30 January 2024 the resident said that there were still big gaps between the floor and the skirting board in the living room and bedrooms where the landlord had completed work. She reiterated this caused the house to be very cold. The landlord sent an internal email querying if it could raise a job for this and for somebody to update the resident. There is no evidence it did either of these.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 March 2024 as she had raised issues with the gaps in the skirting boards during visits for unrelated issues. It said there may be a “slight gap” due to the level of the flooring laid and the way the walls were structured. It said it had raised a job to silicone the gaps to prevent draughts coming through. There is no evidence the landlord raised this job or completed any work.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 14 May 2024 following her complaint. It noted excessive draughts from under the living room floor and an exposed external air vent that was previously covered. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would arrange a surveyor’s inspection. It confirmed this in a call to the resident the same day. The landlord attempted to raise a surveyor’s inspection. However, a surveyor rejected this as it had completed several repairs at the property and had not found any issues with the floor. It noted that the floor needed to breathe to prevent rot in the future. The landlord did not inform the resident of this updated position.
The resident requested an update on 3 and 18 June 2024. The landlord did not respond as the resident had emailed a staff member rather than the complaint’s team email address. The landlord’s records indicated that there was confusion over which email addresses it should use for internal communications, and which email addresses residents should use.
The landlord apologised for the lack of response about the surveyor’s visit on 20 June 2024. It said it had asked the team responsible to contact her to arrange this as soon as possible. The landlord said it would contact her to give a date for the appointment on 25 June 2024 after she had again requested an update. However, the same day it told the resident that after viewing the repairs history of her property and discussing the issue with relevant teams, it would not be appropriate to send a surveyor. It said it would send 2 repairs team leaders instead. A call from the resident to the landlord on 27 June 2024 suggested this caused her some confusion having previously been told a surveyor would attend the property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 2 July 2024. It explained there were no issues with the floors and the laminate flooring the resident had would be colder than carpet. It said the external vents were there to prevent rot in the timber floorings. The delay in providing this information to the resident was unreasonable. It offered to install monitoring devices. The landlord reiterated this offer on 5 and 11 July 2024 when the resident said she did not understand what they were. It provided some information on the monitoring devices on 15 July 2024.
The landlord repeated its offer to install monitoring devices on 19 and 24 July 2024. The resident raised concerns about the cost of running them and requested more time to decide. In its stage 2 response the landlord refused additional time to consider having the monitoring devices as it felt it had provided enough time. The resident had raised concerns about the cost. The landlord could have provided this information to help the resident make an informed decision.
The resident continued to report issues with draughts in her property. She told us the issue was ongoing. The landlord did not acknowledge any of the failings identified in this investigation. Therefore, it did not try to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the draughts in her property had an adverse impact on her. She described how the cold affected her and that the landlord’s actions caused confusion. Therefore, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise, pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance and inspect the property to address the resident’s concerns.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process that is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published in April 2024. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint of 9 January 2024 under her previous complaint regarding the extensive work at her property. It did not log a new complaint even though the resident had raised new issues. Its complaint procedure from October 2023 stipulated that it should log any new issues as a new complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 26 April 2024 and provided its stage 1 response in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy. As part of the resolution offered, the landlord said it would arrange a surveyor’s inspection. However, it decided against taking this action and incorrectly closed the resident’s complaint. The Code sets out that landlords must follow any remedy proposed through to completion.
The resident logged a new complaint on 19 June 2024 as she said the landlord had not responded to her emails. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 July 2024 without another stage 1 response, following her dissatisfaction with the visit of 2 July 2024. As the resident had complained about the same issues and the landlord had incorrectly closed her previous complaint this was reasonable and prevented a further delay. However, the landlord could have escalated the issue when the resident first logged a new complaint.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the escalation on 11 July 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 1 August 2024. The landlord apologised for not acknowledging the complaint in writing and offered compensation. However, during discussions about monitoring equipment, the landlord told the resident that if she did not want the monitoring devices it would close her complaint. The landlord could have clarified it would still provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord has acknowledged some of its complaint handling failures. However, it has not acknowledged all failures identified in this investigation. These failures likely impacted the resident as they caused her confusion and inconvenience. The compensation offered by the landlord does not adequately reflect this. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Communication

The landlord failed to update the resident as she had emailed a specific employee. Its records show that there was confusion over which email addresses both internal and external parties should use. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord maintained adequate records.