Curo Places Limited (202420836)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420836

Curo Places Limited

22 August 2025

 

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 decision not to evict the resident’s neighbour following the resident’s report of an incident.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for the property with the landlord. The property is a flat on the first floor of a block.
  2. On 26 April 2024 the resident was physically assaulted by her neighbour. The neighbour lives next door to the resident. Following the incident the landlord issued a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) to the neighbour.
  3. On 20 August 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s subsequent decision not to apply to the court to evict the resident.
  4. On 28 August 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response. It confirmed it reviewed the case with its solicitor, who advised not to seek to evict the resident at that time. The landlord confirmed a separate restraining order was in place against the neighbour, and it would be unlikely a court would approve re-possession of the resident’s home under these circumstances.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to seek to evict the neighbour. The resident said to resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to either evict the neighbour or, she wanted to move as the incident affected her mental health.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to seek to evict the neighbour

  1. On 29 April 2024 the resident reported to the landlord her neighbour had physically assaulted her. The resident had not reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the neighbour before this. The landlord opened an ASB case and completed a risk assessment. It deemed the incident high risk due to the nature of the report.
  2. On 8 May 2024 following a court hearing, the neighbour plead guilty to charges associated with the incident. The court put a restraining order in place until May 2026. The restraining order required the neighbour to not contact the resident.
  3. On 10 May 2024 the resident requested a move from the property due to the incident. The landlord met with the resident on 15 May 2024. Following the meeting the landlord made an internal request for the installation of an additional lock to the resident’s front door.
  4. On 17 May 2024 the landlord liaised with the police and requested information to support the resident’s request for a move. The police responded and confirmed it considered a move would benefit the resident.
  5. The landlord’s policy regarding ASB states the landlord’s principles in responding to ASB include:
    1. Dealing with reports promptly and thoroughly investigating using its case management framework.
    2. Partnership working with agencies.
    3. Actively supporting victims and witnesses of ASB.
  6. The evidence demonstrates the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy. This is because it responded promptly to the resident’s report and arranged measures to ensure the resident’s home was secure after the incident. In addition to this the landlord engaged with the police and in doing so, sought evidence to support the resident’s request for a move.
  7. On receipt of the information from the police the landlord’s support coordinator met with the resident and discussed her housing options. The support coordinator also completed an application form for the landlord’s welfare panel to consider the resident for a move. The resident was subsequently awarded Band A priority for a move. Band A is the highest priority band used in housing applications, indicating a resident had the highest housing need.
  8. On 18 July 2024 the landlord sent a NOSP to the neighbour. A NOSP is a formal letter from a landlord informing a resident it intends to take back possession of their home. The notice specifies a date after which the landlord may commence possession proceedings. In this case the specified date was in the middle of August 2024. Once this date had passed the landlord could issue a claim for possession to the court within 12 months. A NOSP itself does not end the tenancy. The landlord has to make an application to the court in order to take possession of the property and evict a resident.
  9. On 22 July 2024 the landlord notified the resident it sent a NOSP to her neighbour. It said the NOSP meant it could take possession action against the neighbour, via the court, after the middle of August 2024. On 5 August 2024 the landlord informed the resident its solicitor had reviewed its decision to issue the NOSP. The solicitor concluded it was not appropriate to apply for possession at that time, as a restraining order was in place and there had been no further breaches of tenancy by the neighbour since the incident. The landlord assured the resident the NOSP was valid for a year. Therefore, if there were further serious breaches of the tenancy by the neighbour in that time, the landlord could make an application to the court for possession.
  10. The resident responded with dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision not to immediately seek possession of the property in order to evict the neighbour. She submitted her complaint on 20 August 2024.
  11. On 28 August 2024 the landlord responded directly at stage 2 of its complaints process to the resident. It confirmed it sought advice from its solicitor and was satisfied it took the appropriate action. The landlord clarified its solicitor had said there was a low prospect of success if it applied to the court for possession because a restraining order was already in place which prevented contact between the parties. The landlord concluded it found no service failure in its decision to not to seek eviction via the court at that point.
  12. A review of the landlord’s response to the complaint shows that it informed the resident it had decided not to seek possession of the neighbours property at  on the basis of legal advice it had received. The advice stated it was unlikely to succeed at court with an application to take possession of the property. This was on the basis there was already a court order in place which restricted contact between the resident and the neighbour, following the neighbours conviction of assault against the resident.
  13. In these circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord to respond in the manner it did and to rely on the expert advice of its solicitor.
  14. In conclusion the evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy, which sets out the landlord should only pursue eviction where appropriate and as a last resort. The courts also require a landlord to demonstrate it has taken all reasonable steps to help a tenant maintain their tenancy and considered alternative measures before seeking possession.
  15. In addition to the landlord not seeking to evict the neighbour at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord also took reasonable steps to support the resident, including installing an additional lock to the resident’s front door and assisting the resident with a potential move. The landlord’s actions demonstrate it acted reasonably, proportionately, and in line with its obligations. This results in a finding of no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 20 August 2024. She stated she was unhappy with the approach taken by the ASB case manager, because they had not evicted her neighbour after the incident in April 2024.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy when the resident submitted her complaint stated if a complaint is about the behaviour of an individual staff member, the landlord will manage the complaint as a one stage process.
  3. The landlord raised the complaint at stage 2 and responded on 28 August.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy, however, its policy did not align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which says 2 stage complaint processes are ideal.
  5. The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024 and the landlord has since revised its complaint policy to align with the Code.
  6. While the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in line with the Code, it was in line with its policy at the time and we have not found that this caused any detriment to the resident. This is because the landlord’s complaint response was based upon its decision making taken following receipt of legal advice. Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s response would not have materially changed if the complaint had gone through a further review stage. The landlord has also taken the appropriate action to amend its complaints policy in line with the Code. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to evict the resident’s neighbour following the resident’s report of an incident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.