Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Curo Places Limited (202320936)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320936

Curo Places Limited

4 April 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:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom refit and the related loss of her belongings.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom mid-terrace house with her partner and 4 children under an assured tenancy agreement from the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord via telephone on 13 March 2023 regarding the delayed installation of her bathroom refit it surveyed 6 months earlier, her personal belongings being disposed of by its contractor, and an operative entering her home without permission.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 3 April 2023 and also identified the complaint to be about the operative’s entry affecting the resident’s dog’s behaviour, and delays hearing back from the landlord. It also identified issues with the resident’s bath and shower not being installed and sealed correctly, plus an issue with the shower door not being correctly measured. To resolve the complaint, which it upheld, the landlord’ proposed arranging for its contractor to acknowledge and investigate their operative entering the resident’s home. It also suggested that works should be completed as soon as possible, and for finishing touches to also be completed.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 5 April 2023 she was unhappy with the response and proposed remedies. The resident also suggested that the landlord did not fully address all aspects of her complaint, and she quoted the landlord’s guidelines stating that a bathroom refit would take 5 to 10 days to complete, when it had taken 6 weeks so far, causing her unnecessary stress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 August 2023 apologised for the delayed response and offered compensation of £75 for this. It also said it would provide the resident with a ‘time and impact payment’ on completing the installation. The resident replied on 29 August 2023, stating that she thought the landlord had forgotten her due to the delay. The resident also said the landlord had taken 4 months to respond at stage 2 and how distressing she found the experience. The resident also asked the landlord what compensation she would be offered.
  6. On 6 September 2023, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response. The response provided an explanation and apology for the delay, which it said was due to the size and make-up of the bathroom requiring it to remove, replaster, dry, and replace this. It also apologised for the operative entering the resident’s home and leaving her front door open, and for disposing of her belongings that it offered to refund her for. It also offered the resident an alternative contractor and £375 total compensation, broken down as £250 for the delay and effect, £50 for the unauthorised access of the contractor, and £75 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  7. The resident replied on 7 September 2023 and said she was unhappy with the compensation offered, and mentioned further concerns of having no heating in her bathroom, and the effect this had on the plaster drying during such a cold spell. The landlord reviewed its level of compensation and advised the resident on 11 September 2023 that it would increase the compensation by a further £50 for the length and effect of the refit, making a total of £425. The resident emailed the landlord the same day quoting the landlord’s compensation policy and suggested that the compensation offered was not reasonable, appropriate, or proportionate.
  8. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 13 September 2023, confirming its above offer was final and signposting the resident to the Ombudsman. She complained to us that her bathroom refit took almost 9 weeks and was left unfinished, affecting her work and causing her whole family stress. The resident said the landlord gave her incorrect information about this and did not resolve her complaint after agreeing to do so. She therefore asked for the bathroom refit to be finished, her lost belongings to be replaced as agreed by it, and a more reasonable offer of compensation to put right her poor experience and delays.

Assessment and findings

Bathroom refit and loss of belongings

  1. The evidence shows that there were delays in the landlord completing the resident’s bathroom refit, which it acknowledged. The landlord’s revised stage 2 response said it aimed to complete bathroom refits in around 2 weeks. Its website’s bathroom booklet said this would normally taken between 5 and 7 working days unless there were unexpected delays. The overall refit instead took 7 weeks from 21 February to 11 April 2023, according to the landlord’s handover form, and took over another week to post-inspect, according to its home improvement post inspection form. This is evidence of failure due to the refit falling outside of its timeframes.
  2. It is also noted that the resident reported her family were unable to fully use the bathroom and that there was no heating in the bathroom for at least 2 weeks during a cold spell, which subsequently affected the time it took for the plaster to dry. This was supported by the landlord’s above records of the refit. The landlord should therefore have considered this loss of heating in line with its compensation procedure, which says “where a tenant has been without heating or hot water following Curo’s failure to repair in accordance with its published timescales, a compensation payment of £4 per day for each may be paid”.
  3.  In respect of the loss of the resident’s personal items, to date the resident has said she has not received any compensation for this. There was also no mention of this in the stage 2 response, despite the resident saying she was promised this by the landlord at the time she complained to us. While this element of the complaint is difficult to quantify, and we do not have the authority or expertise to determine liability for damages in the way a court or insurer might, there is evidence in the landlord’s internal email correspondence to suggest that it would agree to refund the resident for the items lost. This is further supported by the landlord’s compensation procedure, which says “Curo will look to make good any property damage and will consider replacing damaged items or reimbursing a customer directly to do so.” Based on the evidence, the landlord should therefore have agreed to consider refunding the resident for her losses, including by giving her details so she could claim on its liability insurance.
  4. In respect of the unauthorised access of the contractor’s operative, the landlord’s customer commitment policy says “We will let you know in advance if we need to access your home, except in some emergencies”. It is noted from an internal email that the landlord did not have the signed consent of the resident to allow the operative access when the resident was not home, which was inappropriate and contrary to its policy.
  5. The landlord therefore offered the resident £300 compensation for the time the refit took and the effect of this on her and £50 for the operative’s unauthorised access to her home. This was within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.
  6. Considering the above circumstances, however, it was unreasonable and not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance that the landlord did not remedy the resident’s lost possessions or loss of heating. There was no offer of compensation, or liability insurance referral, for the lost possessions or compensation for the loss of heating, which the landlord should have considered. It was therefore responsible for service failure.
  7. The landlord has been ordered below to put things right by paying the resident £106 further compensation to recognise its above failure. This is made up of £56 to reflect her loss of bathroom heating for 2 weeks, at the rate recommended by its compensation procedure, and £50 for its failure to consider refunding or referring her to its insurers for her lost possessions. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of £50 to £100 to recognise such service failures. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous compensation offer that it has been recommended to pay the resident, if it has not done so already.
  8. The landlord has also been ordered to give the resident details to make a claim on its liability insurance for the lost possessions. As she has described its bathroom refit as leaving gaps in silicone around her bath, it has been recommended to contact her to offer to further inspect this. This is in line with our dispute resolution principle to put things right.

Complaint handling

  1. The stage 1 complaint was made to the landlord on 13 March 2023, and the landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 3 April 2023, which was 5 working days over the 10 working days deadline in accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Furthermore, the Ombudsman was not able to identify evidence of a formal acknowledgement of the complaint, which is a requirement of the Code. While there was no significant effect on the resident as a result of this, it does demonstrate non-compliance with the Code.
  2. While the stage 1 response apologised for what the resident had been through, the apology was not specific or meaningful, contrary to our remedies guidance’s requirements for apologies to be specific, full, and sincere. Further, the response did not fully address all elements of the complaint raised by the resident. Specifically, there was no reference to the resident’s lost possessions. This demonstrates a further breach of the Code.
  3. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 5 April 2023, which was acknowledged on 14 April 2023 (3 working days longer than the 3 working days required by the landlord’s complaint procedure).
  4. The initial stage 2 response was then issued on 24 August 2023, which was over 4 months after the request was made to escalate to stage 2. This was evidence of maladministration contrary to the landlord’s complaints procedure’s and the Code’s 20-working-day stage 2 response timescale.
  5. Further, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided any updates or holding letters to the resident between the acknowledgment on 14 April 2023 and the stage 2 response on 24 August 2023. This is further evidence of non-compliance with the Code. This required that the landlord should have agreed such an extension and provided the resident with updates with suitable intervals to keep her informed about the complaint.
  6. Subsequently, the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation for delays in its complaint handling was not appropriate or in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is because our guidance recommends awards of over £100 to recognise when such failures have adversely affected the resident. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £175 further compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous compensation offer, which it has been recommended to pay the resident, if it has not done so already. It has also been recommended to consider providing training to relevant staff to familiarise themselves with the requirements of its complaints procedure and the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom refit and the related loss of her belongings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay total compensation of £281 to the resident. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £425. This is made up of:
      1. £106 for the loss of belongings and heating.
      2. £175 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
    2. Give the resident details to allow her to make a claim on its liability insurance for her lost possessions.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £425 compensation it previously offered her, if it has not done so already.
    2. Contact the resident to offer a further inspection of the bathroom because she reports gaps in silicone around her resident’s bath.
    3. Consider provide training to relevant staff to familiarise themselves with the requirements of its complaints procedure and the Code, specifically the timings, agreements, and updates required at each stage of the complaint process to comply with these.