Curo Places Limited (202314163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314163

Curo Places Limited

20 December 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Roof repairs and insulation to the resident’s property.
2. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. The resident’s reports of concerns around the structural integrity of the building, communication and customer service.
4. The resident’s reports of subsidence caused by tree roots.
5. The resident’s reports of repairs to the stairs.
6. The resident’s rent increases.
7. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. She lives in the property with her child. Her tenancy began in 2012.
The resident raised concerns around her roof, damp, and mould with the landlord in August 2022. She raised her complaint on 5 September 2022 in relation to outstanding work to the roof. She said the roof was leaking and damaged her belongings. She also raised concerns about large cracks on the stairwell and said these were health and safety issues.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response in relation to the resident’s concerns about the stairwell and cracks on 6 September 2022. It continued to follow up with her after this. On 11 November 2022 the landlord said internally that the resident was happy with how her complaint was progressing.
The landlord said on 24 November 2022 it had received a complaint from the resident. She had raised concerns around ventilating her property as she could not open the window in her bedroom. The landlord acknowledged she needed to be able to open the window as the flat could get humid. It said that she had some patches of mould appearing also and since there was a small child living at the property, this should be a priority. It stated that there needed to be air circulating in the bedroom particularly during the winter months as she was seeing increased humidity in the flat. It said that the mould would only get worse if there was inadequate ventilation.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 27 January 2023 and said the roof repair was with a contractor, and it had chased them for a date. They would contact her for a date to attend the following week. It was upholding her complaint.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 3 February 2023. She said she was unhappy with the resolution as it did not address the time and stress she had been through. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process.
The resident provided a history of her concerns in relation to her roof, damp, and mould to the Ombudsman on 10 August 2023. She explained she raised her concerns in August 2022 and between this time and July 2023 the landlord’s contractors attended multiple times but there was no resolution. She also raised concerns around subsidence and her rent. She said she wanted the landlord to:
1. Resolve the issue by winter, and address why it had taken so long and why she had to chase constantly.
2. Explain why it had increased her rent despite knowing the condition of the property.
3. Respond to her representative’s queries about the rent if she were to swap properties.
4. Compensate her for the money she spent on replacing her child’s bedding twice, and the dehumidifier.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023. It said to resolve the complaint it suggested its contractor and surveyor attend to undertake works to the roof and inspections around the moisture. It said following completion of the agreed works to her satisfaction, it would consider compensation for the length of time it had taken and the impact the situation had on her. It said the reason it calculated this once it completed the works was to ensure it considered the full length of time. This was from when she first reported the issue to the point both parties agreed that it had completed the work, and it resolved the issue.

Post complaint

The resident told the Ombudsman on 16 November 2023 that she had received no further information or visits from the landlord. She said the issue had been ongoing for 15 months and was dreading a cold Christmas.
Communication continued between the landlord and resident around her concerns. The landlord provided the resident with a further stage 2 response on 27 June 2024. It:
1. Thanked her for her patience while it investigated her complaint and experience.
2. Explained there had been issues with the repairs as it had to change contractors during the process but had since completed the works.
3. Offered for its surveyor to reattend to assess any moisture or condensation.
4. Said it was pleased that through their subsequent visits, there were no ongoing roof issues. It said there were no active leaks and there was no build-up of condensation now that the repairs had taken place.
5. It offered the resident compensation of £680 broken down as:
  1. £500 for the time, impact, and distress.
  2. A £150 refund for a dehumidifier.
  3. £30 for 3 missed appointments.
The resident initially accepted the landlord’s compensation offer. However, she responded on 16 July 2024 and raised issues with some of the works it believed it completed.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 22 July 2024 and apologised for the ongoing nature of the issue and any frustrations it may have caused. It explained that she could make a personal injury claim for any impact to health she or her son had suffered. It explained that its compensation matrix usually capped at £500 for the time and impact on a resident but the extenuating circumstances warranted a higher offer. It offered her a revised compensation amount of £1,930 broken down as:
1. £1,500 for time and impact to her.
2. A £150 refund of dehumidifier costs.
3. £30 for 3 missed appointments.
4. A £100 contribution to decoration costs (it said it would remove this if she asked it to attend to complete the decoration works. This would then bring the compensation total to £1,830).
5. £150 for its complaint handling failings.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Scheme governs the complaints which the Ombudsman can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the following matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports of concerns around the structural integrity, communication and customer service.
2. The resident’s reports of subsidence caused by tree roots.
3. The resident’s reports of repairs to the stairs.
The resident has raised her concerns around these issues and the landlord has provided a stage 1 response. It provided its stage 1 responses on 6 September 2022, 5 September 2023, and 26 June 2024. Neither party provided the Ombudsman with any evidence that the resident escalated these complaints or that they exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, says we may not consider issues where there is no evidence that they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure in relation to those issues. In this instance, we have no evidence of a complaint handling failure.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As the resident has raised concerns directly in relation to her level of rent, this falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and may be better determined by a court.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the following matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s rent increase.

Roof repairs and insulation to the resident’s property.

The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the roof repairs to the resident’s property. It said in its stage 2 response of October 2023 that once it completed the repairs, it would consider the level of compensation offered to the resident. It provided its compensation offer in a further response in June 2024 as it believed it had resolved her concerns. The resident however told it that some issues remained outstanding.
It apologised and offered an increased amount of £1,500 for the time and impact to her for its failings around all her concerns. It found that there was a delay of over 2 years, communication issues, and missed appointments. As such the Ombudsman’s role in this instance is not to discuss and redetermine the failings already found, but to decide whether the redress adequately reflected the detriment faced by the resident and if the landlord considered all its failings appropriately.
The landlord also acknowledged that it had gone beyond the scope of its compensation policy. Its policy allowed for payments of up to £500 for time and impact to residents, and it went beyond this. This was a reasonable and positive action taken by the landlord to try to address its failings. However, there were further failings which the landlord did not consider, and this was in relation to the damage to the resident’s belongings.
The resident told the landlord during her complaint on 5 September 2022 that the leak from the roof had damaged her belongings. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord ever addressed this concern with her. Although it referred her to its insurer, this was in relation to making a personal injury claim. We would also have expected the landlord to refer the resident to its insurer for any damage to her possessions because of its inaction. The failure to do so was inappropriate. This also forms part of the landlord’s complaint handling failings discussed later in the report.
The local authority had also emailed the landlord on 30 November 2022. Within the email, it provided a copy of the resident’s concerns which she had raised with it. Part of the concerns she raised was that the property was cold. She raised her concerns around the temperature of the property several times with the landlord, for example on 15 February 2023, 1 April 2023, and 16 November 2023. The landlord arranged works to fix the roof and insulation. It also arranged works around her radiators and provided some assistance for heating costs on one occasion. These were all reasonable actions to take.
However, it did not demonstrate that it considered whether the situation posed any potential risks to the household, and this was unreasonable. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), considers excess cold to be a potential category 1 hazard. As such the landlord should have completed a risk assessment. This would have allowed it to determine whether the temperatures in the property reached such a level that it considered it unsafe for the household. It also may have allowed it to consider any temporary measures it could put in place to aid with the temperature, such as temporary heaters. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays, issues with its communication, and missed appointments. Whilst appropriate that it did so, it failed to demonstrate that it considered whether the property remained habitable for the household. This was despite the resident raising concerns around the coldness of the property. It did not show that it completed a risk assessment around this. It also did not refer her to its insurer in relation to the damage to her property. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s 2022 compensation policy explained the situations in which it would offer compensation to a resident. For example, where a failure of the service caused distress or inconvenience. Its 2024 policy states that it will consider a resident’s individual circumstances in assessing the impact. It recognises that if the resident is vulnerable or has young children the impact on them could be worse. It also says that compensation will be appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate to the failure of the service. It says it will consider the length and frequency of situation, its severity, and its impact on the customer.
The landlord explained to the resident that due to the extenuating circumstances, it offered more compensation than its policy allowed. The landlord’s compensation offer is also in line with our remedies guidance, for complaints where a landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident. However, due to the further failings identified in this report, and its policy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation. This is because it is appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate to compensate the resident for the failures identified, in line with its policy.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property.

The landlord advised that the damp and mould in the resident’s property were because of the roofing issues. It again acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns and offered compensation to put things right. It acknowledged the delays, and communication issues. Despite this however the Ombudsman believes that there were further failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould sets out what it expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this is unreasonable.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy also says that it will effectively triage reports from residents. This is to ensure it understands the extent of their damp and mould issues together with their household vulnerabilities. This would allow it to ensure effective prioritisation to reflect the health and safety risks and that it identified them.
The resident raised her concerns in relation to the damp and mould in August 2022. It was not until November 2022, 2 months later, that the landlord demonstrated that it considered a potential impact on her infant child, and this was unreasonable. This was also not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord’s HHSRS team had also received information around the resident’s concerns from the local authority. We would have expected that the landlord promptly completed a risk assessment to determine if the property remained habitable for the household. This is especially the case as the HHSRS regards damp and mould growth as potential category 1 hazards. This means the landlord potentially left the resident exposed to category 1 hazards for a period.
The HHSRS also regards Children under 14 as more vulnerable to issues of damp and mould. The failure to demonstrate it risk assessed the situation was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged there were failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns. However, it failed to take prompt action to address those concerns. It did not show that it completed a risk assessment or consider if the property remained habitable. This left the resident exposed to a potential category 1 hazard under the HHSRS. It also failed to appropriately follow its policy. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord has explained that due to the extenuating circumstances, it offered more compensation than its policy allowed. However, due to the further failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

The complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
The resident raised her complaint on 5 September 2022. Her complaint was in relation to the roofing issues and other concerns. She however did not raise any issues in relation to damp and mould at the time. It is also unclear when the resident raised her complaint in relation to the damp and mould with the landlord. However, the evidence shows that the local authority told the landlord of the resident’s concerns around the damp and mould on 24 November 2022. As such the Ombudsman finds it reasonable that the landlord treated this as the resident’s formal complaint. It would however have been helpful if the landlord had demonstrated it acknowledged the complaint as this may have provided a definite date when she raised her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to both issues on 27 January 2023. This was a delay of over 4 months in providing its stage 1 response in relation to the roofing repairs. It was also a delay of over 1 month in relation to the damp and mould. The landlord has not demonstrated that it requested any extensions or explained the reason for the delay in its response to the resident. Its delay and lack of proper explanations or updates were unreasonable.
The resident then escalated her complaint on 3 February 2023. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 16 October 2023. This is a delay of over 7 months. It has not demonstrated that it kept the resident updated about the reasons for the delay in its response, or that it requested an extension, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord had explained in its response of 16 October 2023 that it would provide a further response in relation to compensation once it completed all the works. Due to delays in works, it did not provide its final position until July 2024. It had told the resident it would not provide its final position on the compensation until both parties agreed it had resolved the resident’s concerns. As such we consider this reasonable.
To address its complaint handling failings, it offered the resident compensation of £150. This was in relation to the failure to consider the over 7 month delay between the stage 1 and 2 responses. It however did not consider the delay between the resident’s initial complaint and its stage 1 response.
In summary, the landlord delayed in providing both its stage 1 and 2 responses. It has not shown that it communicated a reason for the delays to the resident at either stage. It offered the resident compensation of £150 to address the failings in its complaint handling. However, this was only in relation to the delay between the resident’s escalation and its stage 2 response. It does not consider the delays in its stage 1 response, or its failing to properly consider all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint such as the damage to her belongings. As such the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay the resident added compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy around the appropriateness, reasonableness, and proportionality of the failure in service to the failings identified. This is also in line with its policy around considering the length and frequency of situation, its severity, and its impact on the customer.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports of concerns around the structural integrity, communication and customer service.
2. Resident’s reports of subsidence caused by tree roots.
3. The resident’s reports of repairs to the stairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s rent increase.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
1. Roof repairs and insulation to the resident’s property.
2. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. The complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £2,450 which is inclusive of its previous offer of £1,930. The Ombudsman has broken this down as:
  1. £1,930 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. £200 for its handling of the roof repairs and insulation to the resident’s property.
  3. £200 for its handling of damp and mould to the resident’s property.
  4. An added £120 for the delays in its stage 1 response, and failure to properly consider all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint.
2. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

If the resident still wishes to claim for the damage to her belongings, provide her with its insurance details and assistance on bringing such a claim.