Curo Places Limited (202425356)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with his wife and 8 children. English is not his first language and he requires help through his friend and representative to interpret when speaking. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord dealt with repairs to a recurring leaking roof that from early 2023 and the amount of compensation it awarded for the impact.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a leaking roof and associated damage.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that the landlord was responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its handling of the roof repairs and associated damage.
   2. Maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that the landlord:
   1. Took accountability of and reasonable steps to put right failings in its handling of the repairs relating to:
      1. Building debris being left in the resident’s garden.
      2. Avoidable delays from it not completing a timely initial inspection, poor communication with its contractor, and the need to correct work.
      3. Not keeping the resident updated.
   2. Delayed in completing a further roof repairs identified shortly after the complaints process ended.
   3. Did not follow its 2-stage complaints process by issuing 3 responses or escalating the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

5. The resident said he is unable to use the affected bedroom and that he has experienced problems with mould. He said he had reported this to the landlord and it has not done anything to address this. While we have considered that the roof leak reoccurred shortly after the complaints process in this investigation, we have not looked at the resident’s report that the room is now unusable. This is because in the interest of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to consider this and respond first. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response, he may then refer the matter to us as a new complaint.

Roof repairs

6. Where someone says they have been caused an injury through fault on the landlord’s part, its compensation policy states they should be referred to its personal injury insurer. The landlord acted appropriately in completing a H&S incident investigation and form. It gave details of how to claim against its personal injury insurer, which was in line with its policy. The landlord’s offer to help him complete the necessary documents showed consideration for the resident’s needs.
7. The landlord would, according to its policies in place at the time, usually pay compensation when it had resolved the issue complained about. It would factor in the length of time, frequency, a resident’s personal circumstances, and the severity of the impact on them.
8. It took around 17 months from the landlord receiving the initial report in early February 2023 to complete a repair it believed was effective. We accept that some issues, such as leaks, can be more challenging than others to diagnose and resolve, and can take multiple attempts. So, the fact the landlord completed several repairs within the period concerned is not itself an indication of a failing. However, we also expect landlords to be proactive in their investigations and to complete repairs within a reasonable time. As the landlord acknowledged, this did not always happen in its handling of this case, so it was appropriate to award compensation for the impact. We have considered this in more detail below.
9. Records show the landlord generally aimed to complete the roof repairs within 90 days of the report. The timescale was not unreasonable, at least initially, for the nature and complexity of the work because it required scaffolding. Even so, we still expect repairs are completed without unnecessary delay. The first repair was completed in May 2024 within the allocated time. There were though delays in the initial inspection of a month, which was considerably outside the timescale it aimed to respond to roof leaks (by the end of the next working day). There was also then a 3-month delay between the landlord’s inspection following the second report, in mid-July 2023, and it raising the repairs. This was due to the landlord querying the extent of the repairs its operative had recommended and, while it was entitled to do this, it took too long. During this stage the resident was though reasonably kept updated about what was happening. The landlord also made use of an interpreting service to speak to the resident, which showed regard of its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
10. An external contractor completed the second repair in October 2023 but what this was exactly is not confirmed in the records shared. The landlord completed a post inspection to check the work, which was good practice. This found it was poorly finished and it had instructed the contractor to put things right. There is no record of the contractor reattending. The landlord explained the delays from this point in the stage 2 response as being due to being unable to arrange an appointment with them. So, it cannot be said that the landlord met its repair timescale on this occasion.
11. In the situation the landlord described, we would expect it to have considered other ways to complete the work, such as employing a different contractor, and that it was keeping the resident updated. Nothing in the records shows that the landlord was looking for a solution until after the resident reported the leak was unresolved, sometime in late November 2023. We have seen no updates recorded during this time, which is likely the reason he chased the landlord for one. The scaffolding had been removed at this time which suggests it was not planning to do further work immediately. The records also show that the resident was expressing concern about the safety of the bedroom ceiling. While there is no evidence that it was found to be unsafe by a surveyor who had recently inspected for internal repairs, the landlord should have given reassurance, but we have not seen that it did. It is evident its actions caused the resident distress, time and trouble during this period.
12. On 19 February 2024, the landlord completed the third repair which it had again needed scaffolding to complete. This was 4 months after the last attempt, which was inappropriate because there is no evidence of unavoidable delays which prevented it from attempting the repair sooner. The landlord then found at the post inspection that some ridge tiles had been dislodged through its earlier work, which its report said was common for the construction of the roof. Given the history, we would expect the landlord to have acted quickly and kept the resident updated. The available records show that it failed to do both.
13. The roofing contractor completed the fourth repair within its 90-day timescale at the end of May 2024. This was however, according to the contractor, an interim repair because it needed to source a tile which was more difficult because it was an uncommon material. However, it only communicated this to the landlord after the works failed a post inspection. The final repair was completed and post inspected by 8 July 2024, nearly 2 months over the original timescale. Again, there is little recorded about what the repair involved or what the landlord did to satisfy itself that this would likely be effective. That the leak returned less than 6 months after the repair is a concern, particularly as the records lack sufficient detail to establish with confidence what works were completed and the rationale for them. It also took the landlord around 7 months from the report for it to begin works. We recognise this was a complex repair, and there is some evidence the resident was updated, it is not apparent that it has taken all steps to attempt to complete a lasting and effective repair within a reasonable timescale.
14. The delays in the roof repairs also impacted the time it took to complete internal repairs, which was around 12 months after the resident’s report in July 2023. One of the reasons the resident gave for saying the compensation was not sufficient, in his emails challenging the stage 1 outcome, was that the property was uninhabitable. While the landlord did not address this point, which we will return to later, nothing in the records show the landlord deemed the property or any part of it unliveable. Or that the resident reported believing this to be the case before his escalation request. The repair logs state that the bedroom ceiling required redecoration, which shows the damage was cosmetic. The bathroom ceiling was replaced and, while this would have caused some temporary disruption, nothing in the records states this work rendered the house unliveable.
15. As the landlord advised, the maximum compensation its policy allows for impacts from its service failings is £500. It does though have discretion to award compensation for the service failings itself, as it did in this case. While we are broadly satisfied the overall amount it awarded was reasonable at the time, the records show that the resident has been caused further distress, time and trouble after the complaints process ended. We have linked this to its poor record-keeping and inability to show it has done everything it can to progress repairs without delay. We have ordered it to pay further compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for impacts that have been experienced over a long time (£600-£1000). We have also ordered it to provide evidence showing when the chimney repair was completed.

16. The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failings where there were some and did not then take any steps to put things right. The process and timescale it followed was not in line with its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code’s) 2022, which its policy was partly modelled on.
17. It was required to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. The initial response took nearly double the time it should have. It also introduced a third stage in sending a revised stage 1 response. The initial response did appropriately include details about how the resident could escalate his complaint. There were then 2 occasions (in December 2023 and March 2024) when the landlord should have escalated the complaint because the resident had visited its office to complain about the ongoing situation. So its handling of the complaint unnecessarily protracted the process, possibly by as much as 10 months.
18. Neither of the stage 1 responses gave any explanations for upholding the complaint and, instead, focused on the ways it intended to remedy the issues. While it was important in complaint handling to provide a resolution, part of this also includes acknowledging specific failings. This was not in line with its policy to address all aspects of the complaint. The lack of explanations means the landlord did not demonstrate it had genuinely sought to understand what went wrong and how it had impacted the resident.
19. While the landlord’s decision to award compensation was in line with its preferred approach, the lack of any timescales for when it aimed to complete the repairs left things open ended. It was also not in line with the Code, which required timescales for any agreed actions to be given. Importantly it did though include details about escalating the complaint. The policy also states that it may decide to award compensation sooner, and there were opportunities to consider doing this. It did not manage the resident’s expectations about the amounts it could award under its policy, which would have been reasonable.
20. The stage 2 response, sent within only 3 working days of the escalation, was more detailed. It provided explanations of what happened and better recognised how this had affected the resident. However, it overlooked one of the ways he had been impacted that he believed warranted more compensation. It did not take accountability for any failings in the complaints process. As such, the quality of the responses overall was poor.
21. The policy required the complaints case manager has oversight of any agreed actions. There is evidence that they did this and that they too kept the resident updated reasonably well up until the second complaint failed the post inspection. After this point, updates were largely given because the resident chased them. While it did take accountability for poor communication, and the impact of this, it did not show any learning.

Learning

22. We’ve asked the landlord to conduct a learning review based on the findings in this report.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The repair records were generally reasonable where the landlord’s operatives completed inspections and repairs. However, they fell short when works were allocated to a contractor because they did not show what works were completed and when, or the communication about the repairs. Not all of the surveyor’s or the post inspection reports were provided or contained enough detail to show what the landlord found. As such, the landlord could not always demonstrate it was doing everything it could to progress the repairs as quickly as it could. It could not always show what it had done to satisfy itself the repairs, particularly the later ones, would likely be effective. The landlord should consider ways to improve its record-keeping where repairs are contracted to an external provider. It should also consider how it can adopt a consistent approach to recording its findings from surveys and post inspections.

Communication

24. Initially, the communications with the resident about the repairs were good and well documented. However, they were less frequent after the second repair in October 2023. The landlord should consider ways to improve the standard and frequency of communications on complex repair cases.