Curo Places Limited (202320562)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320562

Curo Group (Albion) Limited

28 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of an investigation into structural concerns about the property.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 10 February 2014. She lives there with her partner and 3 children. One of the resident’s children has autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), another was undergoing assessment for ASD and ADHD at the time of complaint. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house. It was constructed using a steel frame.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2021 raising concerns about a bulge in the living room wall and cracks on the ceilings and walls. The landlord sent an operative to the property on 14 June 2021. The operative suggested that the landlord should have a structural surveyor inspect.
The landlord sent one of its surveyors to the property on 23 September 2021. Following this, the surveyor raised an order for a drainage survey and a structural engineer’s inspection. The drainage contactor attended on 6 October 2021 but was unable to access a manhole which was underneath the resident’s decking. The structural engineer attended on 25 November 2021. It did not identify any structural concerns and suggested that the landlord could arrange cosmetic repairs and monitor the situation. It also recommended that a drainage survey was carried out and the living room flooring lifted to inspect the uneven subfloor for defects.
On 22 August 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that it had still not begun remedial works to the property. She said the landlord’s communication about this had been poor.
The landlord arranged for a second structural engineer to inspect the property on 14 September 2022. The engineer recommended that the landlord exposed and inspected the steel frame columns as these were liable to corrosion, which would require remedial action. It said settlement of the heavy chimney in the property may have disturbed the subfloor. It recommended that the subfloor be screeded to even it out.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022. It provided contact details for its surveyor who would be taking the works forwards. It advised it was opening an insurance claim for the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2023. She said the property was ‘shifting’ and ‘falling apart’ and expressed concerns whether it was safe for her family to live there. She said the landlord had still not undertaken repairs and she had chased these repeatedly with no response. She asked the landlord to “provide a copy of your complaints procedures so we can escalate this appropriately”. The landlord logged this as a new stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2023. It said it would arrange to inspect the steel frame columns and carry out the works recommended by the structural engineer. It told the resident that it would need to move her family from the property whilst it carried out works. The landlord said that it would assess an offer of compensation once all works had been completed.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord and the structural engineer exposed and inspected the bulging wall and one of the steel columns in the property. The structural engineer found the column to be “in better condition than anticipated” and did not assess any remedial works to be necessary. However, it recommended that the other columns also be inspected to confirm they remained in good condition. The engineer determined that the wall was bulging due to the dry lining separating, rather than any structural issues. It recommended the dry lining be replaced.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 13 December 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that works to the property had still not begun and the landlord had stopped communicating with her.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It:
1. Provided a full timeline of events dating back to 2021 and acknowledged numerous failings to progress the investigation and works to the property.
2. Told the resident that it was aiming to decant her family on 5 April 2024, to a property on the same street.
3. Said it was unable to confirm how long the decant would last but would provide regular updates to her during the works.
4. Outlined the schedule of works that would be completed to the property.
5. Provided copies of the structural engineers’ reports from September 2022 and April 2023.
6. Offered the resident compensation of £20 for 2 missed repair appointments and £100 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
7. Said it would review the case and make its final offer of compensation once all works had been completed.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The landlord temporarily moved the resident’s family from the property on 5 April 2024. Its contractor began remedial works on 8 April 2024.
On 9 April 2024, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with the time taken for the landlord to arrange works and the fact it was unclear how much compensation it would be offering her.
On 17 April 2024, the structural engineer inspected the remaining steel columns in the property. It did not identify any concerns with the condition of these.
The resident’s family moved back into the property on 5 July 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2024 providing its final review of her complaint. This included a timeline of all events since it had decanted the resident. It offered her £500 compensation for its service failure and delays and a further £500 “discretionary ex-gratia” compensation.

Assessment and findings

Structural concerns

After the resident raised concerns about the bulge and cracks in the living room on 29 April 2021, the landlord sent an operative on 14 June 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that it had previously attempted to attend on 25 May 2021, but the resident was not available. This was a reasonable response time for what, at this point, was deemed a responsive repair.
The operative raised concerns about the structure of the property and recommended that a structural engineer inspect. On 16 June 2021, the landlord raised a works order for one of its surveyors to inspect the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek the opinion of a surveyor before committing to the expense of hiring a structural engineer.
However, the surveyor did not inspect the property until 23 September 2021. This was an unreasonable delay considering the serious nature of the concerns and potential risk posed. The surveyor’s inspection was originally scheduled for 1 September 2021. The surveyor failed to attend this, and the landlord did not inform the resident in advance. The landlord appropriately compensated the resident for this in its stage 2 complaint response. It awarded her £10 compensation for the missed appointment, in keeping with its compensation procedure.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it was not common practice for its surveyors to compile inspection reports at this time. Instead, they recorded notes on its repair system. The surveyor who attended on 23 September 2021 failed to do this. As a result, the landlord has no record of the findings of their inspection.
It is evident that the surveyor raised a works order for a contractor to conduct a CCTV survey of the property’s drainage system on 24 September 2021. The landlord’s drainage contractor attended promptly on 7 October 2021. The contractor was unable to complete the CCTV survey due to needing access to a manhole underneath the resident’s decking. The contractor informed the landlord of this and requested an amendment to the works order so that it could expose this manhole. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a new works order for this on or around 1 November 2021. However, the order was cancelled without the contractor reattending. The reasons for this are unclear.
The surveyor also raised a works order for a structural engineer’s inspection on 18 October 2021. It is unclear why it took over 3 weeks from their inspection to raise this works order. The landlord’s health and safety policy says that it will take “a proactive approach to identifying, assessing and acting to reduce health and safety risks”. Its unreasonable delay in ordering a structural engineer’s inspection was not in keeping with this.
The structural engineer inspected the property on 25 November 2021. This was over 5 months after the landlord’s operative had first raised concerns about the structure of the property.
The landlord received the structural engineer’s report on 14 December 2021. The report did not identify any areas of structural concern. It recommended that the landlord conduct a CCTV survey of the drainage and an inspection of the living room subfloor. The landlord failed to update the resident on the contents of the report, which could have reassured her about the safety of the property. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will “investigate symptoms thoroughly by inspection, ensuring that customers are informed of progress and outcomes”. In this case it failed to do so, and the resident contacted it on multiple occasions between March and May 2022 chasing the outcome of the structural engineer’s inspection. There is no evidence the landlord provided her with this.
Nor is there any evidence that the landlord acted upon the structural engineer’s recommendations during this period. The first record of the landlord attempting to arrange an inspection of the living room subfloor is on 13 May 2022. It corresponded with the structural engineer between then and August 2022, but no inspection was completed.
The resident made her first complaint on 22 August 2022. She expressed dissatisfaction that, over a year after first reporting the issues, she had not received an update. On 31 August 2022, the landlord raised a works order to a second structural engineer to carry out an inspection of the property. Its explanation that it wished to gain an up to date assessment, with it being almost a year since the previous inspection, was reasonable. However, the landlord again missed the opportunity to inform the resident of the findings of the previous engineer’s inspection and reassure her of the safety of the property.
The second structural engineer inspected the property on 14 September 2022. The landlord received their report on 27 September 2022. The report raised concerns that the columns within the steel frame of the property may be corroded. It recommended investigation of this by exposing the columns and the base of the bulging living room wall. It also recommended that the landlord screed the living room floor to level it.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022. It provided contact details for the surveyor who would be the “point of contact for future works” and said it was in the process of opening an insurance claim for these. It also confirmed it had raised a works order to adjust her front door, which was letting in a draught and would attend on 6 October 2022.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline the findings of the second structural engineer’s inspection within its stage 1 complaint response. It is unclear if and when this had been communicated to the resident prior to this date.
The landlord failed to attend the repair appointment on 6 October 2022. This was rebooked for 11 October 2022. The landlord again offered the resident £10 compensation for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
Following its stage 1 response, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed the structural engineer’s recommendations, despite the engineer’s concerns about possible corrosion of the columns which formed the structure of the property. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response. It said that “It is regretful that from the closure of your complaint on 30/09/2022 until you contacted Curo on 07/03/2023, no action was taken to progress the work required in your home, nor did you receive any contact from the head surveyor. I am disappointed to discover that there was not more urgency to confirm whether any defective columns were present in your home.”
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2023 to express dissatisfaction at the lack of progress and updates from the landlord. The landlord logged this as a new complaint and provided its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It said that it would arrange an inspection of the steel columns and ensure that all required works were arranged. It also informed the resident that it would need to temporarily move her family to safely carry out works.
On 27 March 2023, the resident first asked the landlord to provide her with a copy of the structural engineers’ inspection reports. The resident repeated this request numerous times over the following months. The landlord failed to provide copies of the reports until 30 October 2023. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this.
The landlord and structural engineer attended the property on 20 April 2023. They exposed and inspected the steel column nearest the most severe cracking in the property. The engineer found the column to be “in better condition than anticipated from the visual inspection” with no remedial works required. However, it recommended that the remaining columns were also exposed and inspected. The landlord also ‘opened up’ the bulging living room wall. It found that the bulge was due to the dry lining detaching and recommended this was taken down and replaced.
The landlord updated the resident on the findings of this inspection the same day. This appears to be the first point at which the resident was given any reassurance that the structure of the property was safe – a full 2 years after she first raised concerns about it. The landlord advised it would need to obtain quotes and go through a procurement process for the recommended works.
The landlord’s records show that between June 2023 and September 2023 management of the resident’s works was handed over between the landlord’s surveyors on 3 separate occasions. This is likely to have caused the resident frustration from dealing with a different surveyor every few weeks and meant the works failed to progress during this period. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that after this period the resident’s case “fell through the net” and no action was taken to arrange the required works.
This led to the resident asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 13 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 1 March 2024, following contact from the Ombudsman. It appears that it was only the Ombudsman’s intervention which brought the case to the landlord’s attention and led to it acting. It raised an order for a CCTV survey of the drainage on 18 March 2024. This was completed on 10 April 2024.
Its chosen contractor for the remedial works inspected the property on 18 March 2024. It provided its quote on 20 March 2024 which the landlord accepted on 26 March 2024. This represented a delay of 11 months between the landlord receiving the second structural engineers revised report and the landlord arranging the recommended works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2024. The stage 2 response was comprehensive, thorough and addressed events going back to 2021. The landlord admitted serious failings in its handling of the case and offered appropriate apologies for these. Without this, along with its offer of £1,000 compensation, the Ombudsman would have reached a finding of severe maladministration in this case.
The Ombudsman notes that, following the resident’s decant, the landlord and structural engineer inspected all steel columns in the property on 16 April 2024 and found them not to require any remedial works. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the engineers updated report reflecting this on 22 April 2024.
In summary, there were repeated serious failures by the landlord to follow the recommendations of its structural engineers in a timely manner. It is fortunate that, in this instance, there were no structural issues with the property. However, the landlord failed to confirm this until 2 years after the resident first raised her concerns. It then continued to fail to arrange works, including the investigation of all steel columns to ensure the property was structurally sound, for a further year.
This left the resident’s family living with the distress of their home potentially being unsafe for an extended period. This distress was added to by the landlord’s poor communication, with the resident repeatedly chasing updates and the landlord failing to inform her of the outcome of inspections.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s offer of £1,000 compensation does not offer sufficient redress for its repeated failings over several years and the distress and inconvenience these caused. Due to this, a finding of maladministration is reached, and a further £500 compensation ordered.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Its complaints procedure says it will “offer a resolution” to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) at that time allowed for a 10 working day extension at either stage, providing this was discussed with the resident.
The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 22 August 2022. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 30 September 2022. This was 28 days after the resident made her complaint and not in keeping with its procedure or the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or offer any apology or redress as part of its stage 1 response.
Prior to issuing its response, the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss its proposed resolution to the complaint. It recorded that it “said as this could take months, we wouldn’t usually keep a complaint open for that long while waiting for works to be completed. Customer was reassured that if she is not happy with work that takes place she can get back in touch and all notes will be on the complaint”. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 1 complaint response stating that “please note, if our agreed resolution is not met, you can contact us to re-open this complaint”. This was a reasonable position considering the scale of works required, and the fact the landlord believed it would be pursuing an insurance claim at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2023. She expressed continued dissatisfaction about the lack of progress with the works and communication from the landlord about them. This represented a direct continuation of her complaint of 22 August 2022, and she referred to wishing to “escalate” the matter. The Code says that ““if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to re-open the resident’s previous complaint, as it had committed to, and escalate it to stage 2. Instead, the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint.
This led to the resident expressing that she felt she was ‘going round in circles’, having to begin the entire complaints process again. In a later email to the landlord, she said that “Each time we have raised the complaint again we get put back to stage 1 this is not an opposition we are willing to expect! Your records will have how many times you have made start complaint again”.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says that complaints are handled at stage 1 “by the colleague initially taking the complaint”. Stage 2 complaints are overseen by the landlord’s specialist customer resolution team. The landlord’s complaint policy explains that “stage 2 provides a more formal process for complaints that are more complex or likely to take longer to resolve”. This would reasonably apply to the resident’s complaint which concerned complex structural issue and had been ongoing for almost 2 years by this point.
The landlord logging a new stage 1 complaint unreasonably prolonged its complaints process and delayed the resident from having her complaint considered by its customer resolution team at stage 2. This subsequently obstructed her ability to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation – which requires the landlord to have provided its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 March 2023. In keeping with the 10 working days allowed by its procedure. Within this response, it stated that “once a full decision has been carried out and implemented, we can then asses an offer of compensation for the time and impact of this complaint”. This approach left the resident unaware of what redress the landlord would offer her and without any clear timescale as to when she could expect this.
The landlord’s approach in this case meant that the resident did not receive its offer of compensation until 25 October 2024 – over 18 months after its stage 1 response. By this time the resident’s complaint had already been referred to, and accepted for investigation by, this Service – partly on the basis that the landlord had still not made its offer of compensation. The landlord’s complaints policy says that its priority is “to respond quickly and positively to complaints”. There is no evidence of this in its approach in this case.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 13 December 2023. The landlord told the resident that it had a ‘backlog’ of stage 2 complaints which meant its response would be delayed. It failed to give her any indication of how long this delay was likely to be. As a result, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. We emailed the landlord on 1 March 2024 asking it to provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord acknowledged this to the resident the same day and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2024, within the 20 working days its procedure allows. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2. This was a reasonable offer considering the length of delay and time and trouble taken by the resident contacting the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s stage 2 response should represent the end of its internal complaints process and its final position on the complaint. As mentioned previously, in this case the response was comprehensive, thorough and identified the landlord’s extensive failings in handling the resident’s case.
The landlord made its offer of compensation to the resident on 25 October 2024 in the from of a ‘final review’ letter. This 16 page letter provided a lengthy account of events since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, including its handling of the resident’s decant and extensive repair works to the property.
Both the resident’s original complaint, and her escalation request, had concerned the landlord’s failure to arrange the recommended work to the property and its lack of communication with her about this. This is reflected in the complaint definition considered by this report and the assessment conducted under the previous subheading.
The landlord’s ‘final review’ inappropriately brought its handling of the decant and the works to the property themselves into the resident’s complaint, which had already completed its 2 stage complaints process. The Code says that “if residents raise additional complaints during the investigation…if the stage 1 response has already been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”.
The landlord’s inclusion of these later events denied the resident the opportunity to raise them as a separate complaint and have them considered within the landlord’s 2 stage complaints process. An order is made in relation to this below.
In summary, the landlord unduly prolonged the resident’s complaint journey by duplicating a stage 1 complaint about the same matters. It then failed to make an appropriate offer of compensation at either stage of its complaints process. This led the resident to refer her complaint to this Service for investigation without any clarity on the landlord’s final position. When providing its ‘final review’, the landlord inappropriately encompassed its handling of the resident’s decant and works to the property – which had occurred entirely after its stage 2 complaint response. This denied the resident the opportunity to have these matters considered under a separate 2 stage complaints process.
The failings identified above meant that the resident’s complaint remained within the landlord’s internal complaints process for a total of 19 months before it provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was followed by a further 7 months before it made its offer of compensation. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration due to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an investigation of structural concerns about the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,870 composed of:
  1. The £1,120 offered in its letter of 25 October 2024.
  2. A further £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the investigation of structural concerns about the property.
  3. A further £250 for the maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. Contact the resident and discuss whether she would like it to log a new stage 1 complaint regarding its handling of her temporary move and the works carried out to the property during that period.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in responding to structural safety concerns. The review should be conducted by the landlord’s asset management directorate with oversight from its governing body and member responsible for complaints. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, for the period from 2021 to present.
3. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant staff:
  1. Are aware of when to engage a structural engineer and the importance of doing so in a timely manner.
  2. Appropriately record the findings of structural engineers’ inspections on the landlord’s systems so they are accessible to the wider organisation.
  3. Communicate the outcome of structural engineers’ inspections, and any next steps, with affected residents in a timely manner.
  4. Carry out an appropriate handover, to avoid duplication and delays, when a case involving structural concerns is transferred between staff members.

Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:

The findings and learning from the review.

Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to any residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. These should be in keeping with its compensation policy.

The landlord should provide a copy of the report to this Service and its governing body within 3 months of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its complaints procedure to ensure that it makes timely offers of compensation as part of its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. This will allow residents a clear understanding of its position and enable them to make an informed decision whether they wish to escalate their complaint or refer it to this Service for investigation.