Curo Places Limited (202502361)

Decision
Case ID	202502361
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Curo Places Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The property is a ground floor flat. On 29 January 2025, the resident reported an issue with a lack of repairs from the landlord and that a leak appeared to have reoccurred. The resident reported that she suffered from neurological and spinal conditions.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak and associated damage.
2. Repair requests.
3. Reports of damp, mould, and property damage.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated damage.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s repair requests.
There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould, and property damage.
There was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord acknowledged the delay in repairing the leak, apologised, and made an offer of redress which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it failed to demonstrate any learning to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring.
The landlord acknowledged a delay in replacing a door, apologised and made an offer of compensation. However, the compensation did not consider the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.
The landlord appropriately surveyed resident’s reports of damp and mould and carried recommended actions. It carried out a reasonable investigation into the resident’s reports of associated property damage.
The landlord effectively used its complaint handling procedure to put things right for the resident and tracked agreed actions.

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 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to reports of the resident’s repair request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Case review The landlord must carry out a review of its handling of the repairs works to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. This review should consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs and maintenance.	No later than 27 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy because: She had been chasing repairs for 18 months. Her kitchen was rotting and mouldy from a previous leak. As a result, she had to store kitchen essentials and food in her second bedroom. The leak reoccurred but had not been addressed and caused damp and mould issues and cracks in the walls. The leak caused damage to her floors and carpet. Her back door required replacement and she found it difficult to open because of her disability. As a resolution the resident wanted the repairs complete and compensation for the time and impact.
9 May 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for the outstanding issues in the resident’s property. As a resolution, it said it would: Raise a work order to replace her back door. Survey the property to identify all work required. Ensure it communicates updates of the repairs going forward. Review the complaint and consider compensation on completion of the works.
11 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord failed to acknowledge that the cause of the leaks was the roofing and the guttering. She said she had no faith that the landlord would keep her informed of works going forward and asked for the complaint to be escalated.
26 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It confirmed that it had surveyed the property on 25 May 2025 and acknowledged that extensive work was required to bring the property to an acceptable standard. It said that it identified structural issues causing water ingress. It was investigating further with its assets team and had organised scaffolding for further investigations. It could arrange a damp and mould treatment to remove any immediate health risk. It said that it would rectify damage in her property and requested evidence of damaged items in the form of photos and images for consideration of re-imbursement of damaged items. It apologised for the delay in the door replacement and had raised a work order to replace it. It would consider compensation when the issues had been resolved.
Referral to the Ombudsman 16 October 2025	The resident remained unhappy remained unhappy with the landlord’s repairs delays. She said that there had been severe leaks from the roof and guttering causing damp and mould. She advised that the landlord had not done anything about the issues in her kitchen. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to repair the roof.
25 November 2025	The landlord provided a follow to its stage 2 response to consider compensation. The landlord: Confirmed that it had since replaced the roof and the rear door of the property. Raised further follow on works for replacement of kitchen units, bathroom and kitchen ventilation fans, external drainage works, and gutter clearance and repairs. It said that external cracks in the property will be assessed for remedial works or insurance referral. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and offered £500 compensation for the impact on the resident. It offered a further £50 for missed repair appointments.

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	Reports of a leak and associated damage.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

This investigation covers the period immediately before the residents complaint up to its final refreshed stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 25. Events outside this timeframe are referenced for context only.

Reports of a leak and associated damage

It is not disputed that there were service failings. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for identified failures and when it completed major works it offered compensation. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
A landlord must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. It is sometimes the case that a landlord cannot keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
On 21 December 2023, the resident reported a leak at the rear of her property and on 22 December 2023, the landlord repaired guttering to the rear of the property. On 4 January 2024, the resident reported that the walls behind her kitchen units were cracking. On 8 January 2024, the landlord removed the kitchen units and replastered the wall. These were appropriate repairs for the landlord to take within reasonable timescales.
On 19 November 2024, the landlord received a report of a leak into the resident’s property when it rained. It surveyed the property on 31 December 2024 and raised a follow-on work order to refix a ridge tile on 7 January 2025. The landlord’s records are not clear if this follow-on work took place.
On 29 January 2025, the resident reported to the landlord’s tenancy support team that a leak had returned. She said that her kitchen was in a shambles, saying that half of her kitchen was in the living room and second bedroom. The landlord provided the resident with the repairs contact number and forwarded the resident’s email to its repairs team. There is no evidence that the landlord logged this repair. This was a failing that caused delay to the resident.
On 17 April 2025, as part of her complaint the resident reported that the landlord had not repaired a leak that she reported in December 2024. She said that the landlord removed kitchen units and replastered the wall. As a result, she had been left without use of kitchen units and used temporary storage in her second bedroom.
The landlord’s customer commitment booklet states that complex repairs, which require a technical surveyor, will be appointed following the surveyor’s inspection or assessment. The landlord surveyed the property on 22 May 2025. It noted that the overall property condition needed to be considered and recommended further investigation. While these were reasonable steps for the landlord to take, the evidence shows that it failed to inform the resident of its intentions until after the resident chased an update on 6 June 2025. This caused frustration to the resident.
On 11 June it placed an order for scaffolding to be erected for a joint survey with a technical surveyor to agree scope of works, and on 24 June 2025, it advised the resident that it would survey the property that day. However, there was an internal miscommunication and this appointment did not happen because scaffolding had not been arranged.
The evidence indicates that the scaffolding was partially erected on 1 August 2025 and then completed on 2 September 2025. While delays are sometimes beyond the landlord’s control, the evidence shows that the resident continued to express frustration with the landlord’s communication. This was highlighted by an internal email of the landlord on 5 August 2025 which stated, “The customer is not receiving updates on what’s happening, and things seem to be escalating quite quickly with the customer getting infuriated by the lack of communication and the lack of progress.”
The landlord surveyed the roof on 17 September 2025 and on 25 September 2025, it confirmed to the resident that a replacement roof had been approved. It said it would instruct a contractor to carry out the kitchen repairs when the roof had been repaired. This was complete on 28 October 2025. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s timescale for complex repairs of 120 days.
On 25 November 2025, the landlord acknowledged the impact the delay in carrying out the works had on the resident. It offered £500 for the delay and impact on the resident. This offer incorporated delay in replacing a door, which has been assessed below. It further committed to completing the kitchen repairs.
It is acknowledged that the landlord carried out major repairs to address the cause of the leak and in such cases some degree of inconvenience to the resident is to be expected. It would be expected that the landlord takes action to minimise the inconvenience through effective communication and any practical interim measures. In this case the landlord failed to ensure efficient sequencing of works, cohesion of adequate levels of oversight. This contributed to the delays, and the resultant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the delay and offering compensation to the resident. We find that as a whole, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance. However, because the landlord failed to commit to learning from the failings to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring, reasonable redress is not a finding we can make.
The evidence indicates that after the compensation offer on 25 November 2025, the landlord arranged for a contractor to quote for replacing the kitchen units on 13 January 2026. It would not be reasonable for us to assess the landlord’s actions beyond 25 November 2025, when it offered redress and committed to putting any outstanding matters right. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions beyond 25 November 2025, she has the option of raising a further complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord accepted that there was a failing when responding to the residents reports of door repairs needed. The resident reported water ingress and she struggled locking it. On 19 January 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s door. The repair records found that the door had draught excluders and a weather bar recently installed, it locked without problems and was in good condition. It agreed however to include it for consideration of a replacement need through its replacement programme.
The resident reported on 29 January 2025, that her back door was leaking and when she raised a complaint said that a contractor had measured the door but the landlord cancelled the order. She reported that she was disabled and had to press her full body weight to the door to lock or unlock the door.
Based on the evidence, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the residents vulnerabilities after she reported that she struggled with her rear door because of her disability. The landlord failed to make further enquiries into her disability until 16 September 2025 when the resident reported neurological and spinal conditions. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have made further enquiries and it would have been reasonable to assess within the Equalities Act 2010 to establish if it could carry out an interim repair or other adjustments regarding the door to make it more accessible for the resident.
In its complaint response it apologised for the delay in replacing the door. It found that it had ended its relationship with the contractor and did not have a new contractor in place. It said that it would attend to the issue as soon as possible. The evidence shows that it raised an order with a new contractor to replace the door on 26 June 2025 and completed the replacement door on 15 August 2025.
The landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the door and failing to communicate its delays. The landlord offered total of £500 for the delay in dealing with the leak issues examined above, associated damage, and the replacement door, including a further £50 for failing to communicate an appointment to measure the door. It would have been appropriate to breakdown the compensation separately.
We find that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident when it considered the delay in carrying out the repair, it failed to adequately consider the impact of its delay because of her reported vulnerability or potential adjustments it might have made.

Complaint	Damp, mould, and property damage
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not looked at and why

When the resident brought her complaint to us, she said that damp and mould in the property affected her health and the health of her children. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that the damp and mould had damaged her bedroom carpet and laminate flooring in her hallway. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp, mould, and associated property damage.

On 29 January 2025, the resident reported that her kitchen smelt of mould. The evidence shows the resident reported it to the landlord’s ASB team, however, the issue was forwarded to its repairs team which took no action. The landlord did not respond to this report until the resident raised a complaint on 17 April 2025. This was inappropriate.
In her initial complaint she reported that mould was starting to show in the paintwork and the extractor fans were not working because of damp in the electrics. The landlord inspected the property on 22 May 2025 and found no evidence of damp and mould. It raised a technical inspection to consider the overall condition of the property. This was reasonable.
On 24 June 2025, the resident reported that her skirting board and flooring had been damaged by mould. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 26 June 2025, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of mould. It said that water ingress was most likely because of structural issues. It said that it could organise a damp and mould treatment to remove the immediate health issues and would carry out follow up repairs to the extractor fans when structural issues have been addressed. This was appropriate.
On 16 September 2025, the landlord surveyed the property and again found a small patch of mould in the bedroom and historic spots on the walls on the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom ceiling. It found the likely cause was a broken downpipe. The landlord raised a work order to repair the guttering and upgrade the extractor fans after it completed the roof repair. In the interim it carried out a mould treatment on the affected area on 24 September 2025.
The landlord carried out the guttering repair along with its roof repairs which it completed on 28 October 2025. It upgraded the extractor fans on the 15 December 2025. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take.
While repairs for the damp and mould took an extended period of time, it is acknowledged that the landlord appropriately surveyed the issues and took steps to lessen the impact of damp and mould by means of a mould treatment. It is also considered that the landlord took a number of actions, including a requirement for scaffolding and ultimately a replacement roof which progressed to an enduring repair of the root cause of damp and mould.
The landlord acted reasonably when it requested images of the damaged items along with receipts or proof of purchase for consideration of re-imbursement. It further explained that if damages caused by its inactions can be evidenced it would be responsible for this damage. It said if the damage cannot be evidenced, it would consider a fair contribution. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
On 16 September 2025, the landlord surveyed the property and found that damage to the resident’s carpet was not related to damp. The landlord told the resident of its findings on 19 September 2025. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take in response to reports of property damage.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
The landlord appropriately responded to the resident within its timescales at stage 1. There was a delay of 10 working days in providing the stage 2 complaint response. It is acknowledged that the landlord provided the resident with an update on 11 June 2025, confirming it needed more time to investigate the complaint as it awaited an update from its surveyor. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
After its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord continued to track agreed actions after it completed repairs to the roof and made an offer of compensation and raised work orders to carry out remedial repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances. After the landlord provided evidence us, a further request for information was made, and the evidence indicates that the landlord continued to track its actions to resolve the complaint. This is an indication of thorough tracking of remedies it committed too. However, it is recommended that the landlord consider the option of finalise its position within its formal stage 2 including an interim offer of compensation, broken down by element. Thereafter it should keep the complaint open, track the work to completion and refresh it compensation for the timeframe of impacts beyond the issue of its stage 2 until completion.

Learning

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s offer of compensation considered its delay in carrying out repair for the leak, associated damage, and a replacement door. It would have been appropriate to break down the compensation for the leak and the replacement door to consider each failing separately. The landlord should continue to track agreed actions to completion and consider if it has reasonably put things right for the resident in appropriate timescales.