Curo Places Limited (202335149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335149

Curo Places Limited

16 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 reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement, which commenced on 19 December 2000. The property is a 1-bedroom, second floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records.
3. The resident told the landlord on 11 August 2022 that her neighbour had made spurious complaints about her. She also said the landlord was victimising her and had no proof to support the allegations that had been made about her by her neighbour. She noted she had previously refused to sign the acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) issued by the landlord. The resident told the landlord on 8 December 2022 that her neighbour’s washing machine was noisy and the vibration had damaged her ceiling.
4. The resident made a complaint on 11 December 2023. She said the landlord had failed to take any action to address her reports of noise nuisance caused by her neighbour’s washing machine. She also said the neighbour was aggressive towards her and the police had dismissed her complaint about her neighbour. The resident said this was because she had been issued with an ABC by the landlord.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023 and said:
   1. Whilst the resident had raised concerns which dated back to 2019, it would only investigate issues that she had raised in the last 6 months, in accordance with its complaints policy.
   2. The noise and vibration from the neighbour’s washing machine was reasonable and occurred at times of the day when people would be expected to use household appliances.
   3. Reports of ASB were investigated and action was only taken where there was sufficient evidence to progress matters. Complaints made by the resident’s neighbour would be progressed in line with this process.
   4. The resident should contact the police if she believed the police officer had dismissed her complaint about her neighbour.
   5. It had addressed the incident reported by the resident about her neighbour and was not aware the police were taking any further action.
   6. It would never advise a resident to record the actions of a neighbour.
6. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 18 December 2023. She said the landlord had failed to address her complaint and had acted unlawfully. She also noted she had provided recordings of the noise.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 February 2024 and said:
   1. The noise from the washing machine was reasonable and occurred at times of the day when residents would usually use household appliances.
   2. The resident’s neighbour was entitled to make a complaint about her.
   3. Without conclusive evidence, its ability to take action was restricted.
   4. The resident would need to contact the police if she believed they had dismissed her complaint.
   5. It did not advise residents to take video footage of their neighbours.
   6. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and would offer £30 compensation.

Post complaint events.

8. The resident gave an undertaking in court on 7 March 2024. This included agreeing not to be verbally abusive towards her neighbour.
9. The resident told this Service that her landlord had allowed her neighbour to bully and harass her. She wanted her landlord to acknowledge it mishandled the situation and to offer an apology.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

10. It is noted that the resident said she had reported issues of ASB for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
11. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint in a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.’’
12. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in December 2023, up to February 2024, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

13. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take prompt action to investigate reports of ASB, support victims and work in partnership with other organisations. A range of tools are used by the landlord including mediation, ABCs and legal action. All reports of ASB are triaged to assess the nature and urgency of incidents.
14. The landlord’s ASB toolkit says it does not consider ‘‘day-to-day living noise’’ to be ASB. Residents are encouraged to talk to their neighbours if they have concerns. It also says it will be honest with residents and tell them if it is unable to take formal action.
15. The landlord does not have a good neighbourhood management agreement.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 3 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation where there has been a service failure which causes a resident distress or inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.

18. It is not this Service’s role to establish whether the reported ASB or noise nuisance occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances. On receipt of reports of alleged ASB or noise nuisance, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
19. The resident told the landlord on 27 October 2023 that her neighbour’s washing machine was noisy and the vibration from it caused cracks in her ceiling. She also said her neighbour had previously been aggressive towards her and made unfounded complaints. The resident said she refused to sign the ABC issued by the landlord and the police had closed her case given she had been issued with the ABC.
20. There is no evidence the landlord triaged the resident’s reports or responded at this point. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so and confirmed whether it would investigate her reports. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations. This Service’s spotlight review on noise complaints (published October 2022) encourages landlords to manage residents’ expectations from the outset and ensure they are provided with timely updates on how their reports of noise transfer will be handled.
21. The housing records confirm the landlord spoke to the resident on 6 December 2023, although details of the conversation were not shared with this Service. It issued the resident with diary sheets on the same day and said it would review the evidence once it was provided and discuss available options with her. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her.
22. The resident provided the landlord with 2 logs in December 2023 detailing times when her neighbour’s washing machine was on. The logs covered the period between June 2022 and December 2023. She said her neighbour used the washing machine for up to 30 minutes a day. She also noted her neighbour had filmed her in an ‘‘unwanted and provocative manner.’. She said the police had told her neighbour the landlord had given her permission to film the resident and was aware she had been issued with an ABC.
23. The landlord told the resident on 18 December 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that the noise from the washing machine was acceptable. This was because the machine was being used during the daytime and for lengths of time which were consistent with washing machine cycles. Whilst this provided clarity and was consistent with the landlord’s ASB toolkit, it did not offer the resident mediation. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not use all of the ASB tools available to it.
24. There is no evidence the landlord discussed the fitting of an anti-vibration mat underneath the washing machine with the resident’s neighbour. This Service’s spotlight review on noise nuisance encourages landlords to do this and may have helped reduce noise transfer and improve relationships between the 2 residents.
25. The landlord confirmed it would only take action if there was sufficient evidence to progress the resident’s reports of ASB. This was consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It also said it would never ask residents to record their neighbours. This provided clarity.
26. Whilst it said the incident with her neighbour had been investigated, it did not share any information with this Service on the investigation that was undertaken. The landlord noted the resident would need to contact the police if she wished to pursue her allegations about the police officer dismissing her complaint. This was appropriate as the landlord could not be held responsible for the actions of another organisation.
27. The landlord liaised with the police on 21 December 2023, who confirmed no further action was being taken against the resident’s neighbour. This demonstrated the landlord worked in partnership in accordance with its ASB policy.
28. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 15 February 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting that the appropriate steps had been taken to investigate the resident’s reports and the noise levels were considered reasonable. It also said in the absence of ‘‘tangible evidence’’ its ability to take action in relation to her reports of ASB was restricted.
29. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable in the circumstances. This was because landlords cannot take formal action against alleged perpetrators of ASB in the absence of strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour is serious and prolonged. The landlord would also be expected to show the court that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally before taking legal action.
30. This Service acknowledges mediation would not have been appropriate at this stage given the landlord had commenced legal proceedings against the resident.
31. In summary, the landlord did not triage the resident’s reports of noise nuisance or initially manage her expectations, offer mediation or liaise with her neighbour regarding fitting an anti-vibration mat underneath the washing machine. It did, however, later confirm the noise levels were reasonable and it could not take action against her neighbour without supporting evidence. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

32. The resident raised a complaint on 11 December 2023. The complaint was acknowledged on the following day and the resident advised she would receive a response within 10 working days. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy.
33. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 December 2023. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
34. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 18 December 2023. Whilst the request was acknowledged by the landlord on 20 December 2023 in accordance with its complaints policy, it did not confirm when a response would be sent to the resident. This meant the resident was unclear when she would receive a reply.
35. The landlord did not seek to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcome she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
36. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 15 February 2024. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident prior to issuing its final complaint response and advising her there would be a delay.
37. The landlord offered an apology for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and £30 compensation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance.
38. In summary, the landlord followed its complaints policy in the main. Whilst there was a delay in issuing its final complaint response, the landlord offered an apology and compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports of ASB.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings identified in this report.
42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of ASB.