Curo Places Limited (202346498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346498

Curo Places Limited

20 March 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak, damp, and mould.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 3 May 2022. The property is a 3-bed house. The household has multiple vulnerabilities. This includes the resident’s husband who has breathing difficulties, a daughter who has additional needs, and a young baby.
The resident made a complaint to her landlord on 29 February 2024. She said the roof needed repairing “urgently.” She was unhappy that the landlord had said it had raised works to its contractors twice, but it had not. The resident said the mould was “horrific” in her daughter’s room, which impacted her due to her additional needs. She also explained her husband had breathing difficulties and used a sleep apnoea machine, and her young baby had developed a cough. She was also unhappy that the landlord had ignored her previous complaints. The resident asked it to raise the works and provide a date for when they would start. She also provided a timeline of events related to the roof leak.
On 18 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it would raise another mould clean and ensure it raised any further required works “promptly.” It said it would ensure it completed roof works to the highest standard. After it completed the works, it said it would assess compensation owed for the inconvenience, time, and impact, caused to the resident. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2024. She said she had a surveyor appointment booked for that day, but it had not attended. She said she had contacted the landlord 5 times and found that the surveyor was not working owing to sickness. She asked it for another appointment or for a different surveyor to attend the following day.
The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the lack of response from the landlord. On 12 June 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response within 5 working days. We provided further information to the landlord about the resident’s reasons for escalating the complaint. This included her concerns with a lack of response to her requests for updates and whether the roof needed repairs or a replacement.
On 14 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Apologised for the conflicting information about whether the repairs would resolve the roof leak. It also apologised for the confusion and distress caused by the miscommunication about the repairs.
2. Explained its contractors had gone out of business so it did not have a completion report for the works.
3. Confirmed that instead, its surveyor would post-inspect the works on 18 June 2024. It would check if the works had resolved the leak, and it would raise further works if needed.
4. Would arrange repairs to any internal damage after confirming it had resolved the leak.
5. Would provide training internally to improve communication with its residents. It also provided her with details of its resident engagement which she could join to provide further feedback.
6. Was “sorry to hear” that the property condition impacted the family’s health. It gave her information about making a personal injury claim to its insurers.
7. Reiterated that it would complete a “final review” of the complaint after it had completed the works. It would calculate the compensation due to her, including the time and impact caused.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She remained unhappy with the ongoing roof leak, damp, and mould in the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 7 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leaks impacted the health of the household. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
Similarly, the resident has told us and the landlord that the conditions within the property damaged her belongings. We cannot make liability decisions and assess whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Either a court or an insurer should make such decisions. However, we have considered the landlord’s policies and procedures, and any distress caused.
After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the ongoing roof leak, and damp and mould. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak, damp, and mould.

Roof repairs.

On 18 November 2023, the resident first reported mould in the rear bedroom where her daughter slept. The landlord arranged multiple roof inspections and works in response:
1. On 21 November 2023, it arranged a roof inspection for 28 November 2023. It found the roof was damaged and needed new tiles, felt and battens at the rear. It could not check further than 4 tiles up as it needed scaffolding to inspect the rest of the roof. However, it noted that the whole roof may need this work.
2. On 4 December 2023, it arranged a second roof inspection for 24 January 2024. It completed this a day later than planned, on 25 January 2024. This was to remove the lowest 4 courses of roof tiles, install insulation, re-felt and re-tile the area, and clear the guttering.
3. On 25 January 2024, it raised these works. However, it is unclear when, but it later cancelled the job.
4. On 31 January 2024, it raised works to check the roof insulation on 20 February 2024. The repair notes state the “whole roof” needed re-felting as this had “perished” due to lots of rips.
5. On 5 February 2024, it raised works to remove the lowest 3 rows of roof tiles, renew the felt, insulation, and soffits, and replace the tiles. It cancelled this job as it was too big for its in-house operatives.
6. On 7 February 2024, it raised the same works to its contractors. On 19 March 2024, it approved the works quote from its contractors.
7. On 5 April 2024, it confirmed that it would erect scaffolding at the property on 25 April 2024. It also agreed for a further surveyor inspection on 29 April 2024 to check the works would resolve the issues. It did not attend this appointment.
8. On 30 April 2024, it rearranged the surveyor inspection for 7 May 2024. It found the roof was in “good” condition and only found 1 tear in the felt. It believed the works quoted were adequate.
9. The resident said its contractors completed the works on 14 May 2024.
10. On 30 May 2024, it tried to post-inspect the works completed but it said the resident could not provide access on the day. It rearranged this for 18 June 2024.
Following the inspection on 28 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update of how it would resolve the roof leak. She said that its operatives had said the roof needed replacing. The mould also worsened throughout November 2023 to June 2024 (when the complaints process ended). We will refer to this later in the report.
It is concerning that seemingly the landlord only booked the second inspection and updated the resident after she made contact. It should have proactively managed the repairs to prevent causing her time and trouble in following up the repairs.
Additionally, given the worsening conditions, it was not appropriate to wait 2 months to reinspect the roof. This would have understandably caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The landlords damp, mould, and condensation policy states it will complete repairs “as quickly and efficiently as possible.” However, its delayed response to reinspect the property does not show that it followed its policy.
Landlords can decide on the best way to complete a lasting and effective repair. However, we expect landlords to evidence why certain decisions have been made, through inspection reports. It is evident that the November 2023 inspection found issues with the first 4 rows of tiles, but the landlord needed scaffolding to check the rest of the roof. It noted potential concerns with the whole roof.
However, in January 2024, the landlord inspected the roof again and raised works to repair only the first 4 rows of tiles. The evidence does not suggest that scaffolding was erected in the intervening months. As such, the landlord did not inspect the roof in its entirety. It is therefore unclear why the landlord considered that repairing the first 4 rows of tiles would resolve the issues that had been reported.
Additionally, the landlord then raised works on 7 February 2024 to repair only the first 3 rows. It is unclear what prompted its decision to lessen the amount of works. At the time of raising the works, it had also scheduled an inspection of the loft insulation. Given this later found the roof to be in poor condition, it is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence that it considered the appropriateness of the pending repairs.
During a call on 11 March 2024, the landlord confirmed it was still waiting for a quote from its contractors to repair the first 3 rows of the roof tiles. The resident was unhappy with this. She explained that previous operatives had told her the whole roof needed replacing. She asked the landlord to complete a new survey given her concerns that this would not fix the roof leaks. It took a further 3 requests before the landlord agreed to do so. It should have agreed this sooner given the conflicting advice the resident had already received.
On 26 March 2024, the landlord confirmed it would complete the reinspection once it had erected scaffolding. It explained this was because it did not inspect roofs from ladders due to health and safety. The resident was understandably distressed receiving this information, given it had only inspected from ladders previously. She raised concerns that it had “wasted” 5 months as she felt the quote could not be thorough or accurate without installing scaffolding first. This was an understandable concern which would have caused further confusion and distress during an already challenging time. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided a meaningful response to address her concerns.
After a further inspection on 7 May 2024, the landlord found only 1 tear in the felt and noted the roof was in “good” condition. This conflicted with the findings of its 2 earlier inspections which found the felt had “perished” with lots of rips and the whole roof needed works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek a second opinion from another surveyor or manager given the differing findings and the resident’s understandable concerns. It is a failing that there is no evidence to show that it did so.
Following this, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s planned works. On 13 May 2024, she asked it to review the images and findings of the earlier inspections and consider a full roof replacement. The resident said that it completed works to the lowest 3 courses of the roof on 14 May 2024. However, there is no evidence provided by the landlord to confirm this.
Between 21 May 2024 and 30 May 2024, the resident explained her concerns with the works completed on 7 occasions. She felt the works had not resolved the leaks and reported ongoing damp and mould. She asked why the landlord had not replaced the roof given the findings of its previous inspections.
The landlord agreed to check whether it could bring forward its cyclical maintenance to replace the roof. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to also arrange a more thorough roof inspection at the same time. If it had, it could have explored whether it needed to complete any interim repairs. The landlord is responsible for repairing the roof. It therefore should have explained that it would complete any required repairs until the roof was beyond repair.
On 6 June 2024, the landlord told the resident that its home improvements team would contact her directly to discuss this option. On 13 June 2024, it updated her that this was not possible. This was because the roof was not at the end of its lifespan to replace this. Instead, it reassured her that its post-inspection would identify if it needed to complete any further works. While this was not the outcome preferred by the resident, it was appropriate for it to explore other options to resolve her concerns.
It is unfortunate that the landlord’s contractors went out of business shortly after completing the roof works. Due to this, it is understandable that it could not obtain a completion or post-inspection report. It was therefore appropriate for it to complete its own post-inspection of the works, which it attempted to do on 30 May 2024. However, the resident could not provide access for this. It therefore rearranged this for 18 June 2024.
Within internal emails about rearranging the post-inspection, the landlord’s comments were not what we would expect to see. It noted that it would “pass” works if the resident was happy to as “even if” problems occurred later, its contractor would be liable to fix it. These comments do not reflect that it satisfied itself as to whether it had completed an effective repair or not. This was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it reiterated that it would inspect the works on 18 June 2024. It would then raise any further works if required. During the inspection, it found issues with damp on a bedroom wall. However, it stated that the works had “fixed” the issues. It is unclear how it came to this conclusion given it had found ongoing issues over a month after completing the roof repairs. Additionally, it noted the resident had agreed it had “fixed” the issues. We cannot assess this point due to the lack of records from a verbal conversation.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the issues with the roof leak, damp, and mould remained ongoing after the repairs in May 2024. The landlord later renewed the whole roof in September 2024. We are not assessing the events after the complaints process ended. However, the resident continued to experience further distress and inconvenience by not resolving the issues sooner.

Poor communication.

The landlord failed to provide timely updates to the resident throughout the period of the reports and the complaint. This understandably caused her significant distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble. For example, from the available evidence, the landlord:
1. Failed to respond to her 3 requests about what the appointment in January 2024 was for. It is unclear why it did not answer this sooner.
2. Explained it would check the roof insulation but only did so after the resident asked for an update following the second inspection. It is unclear whether her contact prompted this or not.
3. Did not provide updates about when the roof works would start despite her 6 requests for this between 29 January 2024 and 20 February 2024. This caused her to call the landlord on 23 February 2024 where it confirmed it had raised the job to its contractors.
4. Did not respond to her further 4 requests for the roof repair appointment between 26 February 2024 and 11 March 2024.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord proactively managed the works passed to its contractors on 7 February 2024. As such, the resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2024 to chase this herself. This prompted it to chase its contractors for a quote to start the works. The landlord should not put the onus on the resident to manage her own repairs. By not managing this appropriately, it understandably caused her distress and inconvenience.
During this time, there is no evidence that the landlord had updated the resident of the findings of its inspections or explained how it would resolve the leak. This understandably caused confusion and distress. She also would have understandably believed it was not dealing with the repairs appropriately. Especially given that prior to this, it told her there were no jobs raised and asked who told her that the roof needed works.
Additionally, within these contacts, the resident explained the impact this had on their health. This included the impact to her “disabled” daughter and that the mould had spread “horrendously.” It is a significant failing that the landlord cannot evidence that it provided any meaningful updates to her during this time. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states it will regularly update residents with its progress to ensure their wellbeing. However, its poor communication reflects that it did not consistently follow its policy.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the works raised. Instead, she chased a further 2 times before it later arranged the inspection for 29 April 2024. However, this did not go ahead as the surveyor was ill. As it had not updated her of this, she contacted the landlord on 5 occasions to ask when the surveyor would attend.
This was a further example of poor communication and mismanagement of the repairs. While landlords cannot predict unexpected staff absences, it should have systems in place to rearrange booked appointments and to notify residents. This understandably added further delays in resolving the issues.

Related repairs.

On 16 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the radiators in a bedroom and the kitchen. She felt they were too small for the size of the rooms. The landlord inspected the radiator in the bedroom on 22 January 2024 and later replaced this on 21 March 2024. There is no evidence that it inspected the radiator in the kitchen at the time. This was a failing.
It took the landlord 96 days to replace the bedroom radiator. This was far beyond its target timescale for complex repairs, which it aims to complete within 60 days. Given that the property had extensive mould and ongoing leaks, it should reasonably have prioritised this to help mitigate the impact of these issues. That it did not do so was a failing.

Mould washes.

Following the resident’s report of mould in one bedroom in November 2023, the landlord arranged a mould clean for January 2024. During this time, she reported further mould in other rooms and worsening conditions throughout the property. She also explained the mould impacted her baby’s health. Despite this, the landlord did not bring forward the mould wash. It completed this on 22 January 2024 and only cleaned the back bedroom, as previously arranged.
By not addressing the resident’s concerns sooner, the landlord did not act in line with its ‘Dealing with damp and mould promise.’ Its promise explained it would prioritise cases with health concerns or vulnerabilities made worse by mould. It is a failing that the landlord knew of the worsening conditions and did not take steps to address these sooner.
Additionally, the landlord also did not act in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). This includes adopting “a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.” It is imperative that landlords do not leave residents with damp and mould for an extended period. If it does not deal with damp and mould at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident. It can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
The landlord has provided us with a copy of its damp and mould pack that it provides to its staff. This outlines the categories of damp and mould, and what it needs to do in response to such reports. The landlord’s records do not show the categories present throughout the time of the reports. We therefore cannot assess whether it acted in line with its guidance or not. Additionally, we cannot assess that it considered the hazards posed to the household.
Category 2 (the second most severe type) refers to “significant” mould in multiple rooms with a potential major water leak issue. In such cases, the landlord should book a mould clean as an “urgent priority.” The evidence provided suggests the conditions within the property fell within this category. Given that it took over 2 months to complete the mould wash, it is evident that it did not respond appropriately in line with its internal guidance.
We expect landlords to complete a mould wash as a timely action to ease the visible signs of mould and minimise the household’s discomfort. As the landlord had not resolved the cause of the leaks, the damp and mould continued to worsen. It should have remained in contact with her to be able to arrange further mould washes when needed. However, there is no evidence that it did so until after the resident complained. The landlord’s lack of action was therefore not appropriate.
On 8 March 2024, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. During this, she said the mould was now present within all the bedrooms. She again explained about the impact this had on their health. This included her husband who has breathing difficulties and used a breathing machine at night, her daughter who has additional needs and her baby who had developed a cough. It reviewed the pictures she had sent of the mould and completed a mould wash on 11 March 2024.
While the landlord completed this mould wash, it caused further distress by a confusion over the job details sent to the operative. The resident had to call the landlord and query whether the job was to clean the mould as the operative said he would only take pictures. This was a shortcoming. The following day, she reported that it had not cleaned the mould around the window and skirting boards in her daughter’s bedroom. It reattended on 18 March 2024 to do this.
The resident continued to report further issues related to the mould. She explained she had to replace items which had mould on them, including pillows and duvets. She sent pictures of mould on her child’s school bag and uniform. Despite this, there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed any further mould washes to the property after March 2024 – up to the date of its final complaint response. This was a failing which would have understandably caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
It is concerning that throughout this time, the resident repeatedly told the landlord that their health suffered. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the damp and mould. However, being notified of the situation should reasonably have prompted it to make further enquiries with her. It could have assessed whether it posed a health and safety risk or if it needed to offer her any further support. There is no evidence to suggest that it did so, which is a failing.
The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it recognises that mould can be distressing. It will therefore be “caring and supportive” to “prevent mental health problems.” By not considering or responding to the resident’s concerns about their health, it did not act in line with this policy.
Similarly, the landlord should have also ensured that its internal systems were up to date with relevant information with regards to any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. The landlord told us it has no records of vulnerabilities or disabilities on its system. This is a significant concern given the resident had repeatedly explained the impact of the issues on the household’s vulnerabilities.

Summary.

While the landlord took steps to investigate the causes of the leaks, damp, and mould, it unreasonably delayed in taking actions to resolve the issues. Based on the available evidence, it:
1. Repeated inspections which unreasonably delayed in arranging the necessary repairs.
2. Failed to evidence why it changed its scope of works. It changed this from repairing the whole roof, to only the first 4 rows and later only the first 3.
3. Did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the findings of its inspections when it had not yet erected the scaffolding.
4. Failed to respond to the resident’s concerns with the repairs completed in May 2024, which caused her to repeat this on 7 occasions.
5. Found it did not resolve the cause of the ongoing leaks during the post-inspection in June 2024. However, it noted it had “fixed” the issues, causing confusion over the quality of its records.
6. Failed to provide timely updates to the resident about the works.
7. Did not update the resident about the surveyor not being able to inspect her property in April 2024.
8. Delayed in installing a new radiator.
9. Delayed in arranging a mould clean following the resident’s first report of mould in the property.
10. Did not appropriately manage the ongoing mould reports.
11. Did not investigate or offer support with the resident’s concerns about the impact to their health.
Considering the above, the landlord should pay £1,511.83 compensation to the resident. This is in recognition of the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. This includes consideration of the above failings, its delayed response, and the mould present throughout all 3 bedrooms.
We have calculated this at 40% of the resident’s weekly rent of £130.33. We have considered this based on a period of 29 weeks, from 28 November 2023 to 14 June 2024. These dates reflect the date of the landlord’s first inspection up to the final complaint response. This is an appropriate remedy considering that the landlord could have reasonably avoided the loss of enjoyment if it responded appropriately to the reports. We do not consider this as a rent refund or rebate. Instead, rent provides an objective basis to consider the loss of enjoyment.
Given the damp and mould issues remained ongoing after the landlord’s final response, it should consider paying further compensation to put things right. If the resident remained unhappy with the decision it makes, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this.
The landlord should also pay a further £750 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a roof leak, damp, and mould. This includes consideration of its poor communication and failure to respond appropriately to the reports that the household’s health suffered. It also reflects the lack of evidence that it followed its various policies and its failure to resolve the issues within a reasonable period.
At the time of this investigation, the resident has told us that the landlord has arranged further repairs to redecorate the property. The landlord also told us that it acknowledged delays in its handling of the repairs. Given the uncertainty of whether the landlord has resolved the issues fully, it should arrange a further inspection or post-inspection of the property.

The associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the escalation request within 3 working days. It will then provide its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
Between 1 February 2024 and 28 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions to ask for a manager to call her back. She mentioned she was unhappy with its handling of the repairs and wanted to speak to someone about this.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. The Code states that residents do not need to use the word “complaint” for landlords to treat it as such. Given the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs, it should have logged this as a complaint. This is especially relevant given she contacted it about this on 6 occasions within 1 month. By not doing so, it unreasonably delayed in progressing the resident’s complaint. This was a failing.
On 28 February 2024, the resident called the landlord who told her to make a formal complaint about the issues. She then submitted a complaint through the landlord’s online portal. She included her concerns with the difficulty in making her complaint. The landlord then told her to send an email directly to its complaints email address to raise the complaint.
Given the landlord’s repeated failures in responding previously, it should have forwarded the resident’s complaint to the relevant mailbox itself. By not doing so, it understandably caused her further inconvenience, and time and trouble, in making her complaint. This was not appropriate.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord’s complaints mailbox on 29 February 2024. It provided its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint and responded in line with the timescales set out in its procedure.
On 29 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 May 2024, within the timescales set out in its procedure. However, it did not provide her with a timescale for it to respond by. Instead, it explained it would contact her when it was able to start its investigation due to delays caused by a backlog of complaints.
The Code states that landlords can extend the period to respond to a complaint by a further 10 working days if needed. However, it must provide a clear date of when it will respond, within a maximum of 30 working days at stage 2. By not doing so, the resident did not know when it would be able to consider her complaint. Given the outstanding issues in the property at the time, this understandably caused further distress to the resident.
Due to the lack of updates regarding the resident’s complaint, she asked the landlord for an update on 30 May 2024. While it apologised for the delay, it did not provide an update on when it would respond. As such, the resident experienced time and trouble in asking us for help in receiving the response. On 12 June 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its response within 5 working days. It later did so on 14 June 2024. The resident should not have to contact the landlord or us to receive a response to her escalation. Therefore, its handling of her complaint escalation was not appropriate.
After the resident made her complaint, she reported issues with a lack of heating in the property. On 13 March 2024, she asked the landlord to add her concerns with its handling of the heating repair to her complaint. However, it advised her that she would instead need to raise a new complaint about this aspect. It said this was because it did not form part of her original complaint.
The Code states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, landlords should add this into its stage 1 response. As the landlord had not yet issued its stage 1 response at the time, it should have included this issue within the complaint. If it believed the issues were not related, it should have logged a new complaint to investigate her concern. By not doing either, it did not act in line with the Code. This was a failing.
Within the resident’s complaint, she explained that the property condition impacted the health of the household. At stage 1, the landlord apologised for any inconvenience or frustration caused to her. However, it did not address her concerns about their health. It therefore missed an opportunity to investigate this to put things right for her.
The landlord considered the impact to the resident’s health within its stage 2 response. It gave her details of how to make a personal injury claim to its insurance team if she wished to. This advice was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord also explained that the resident could make such a claim at any point. However, it noted its insurer could only assess liability after it had resolved the leak. While it was appropriate to manage her expectations about this, its handling of the leak therefore impacted her access to financial redress.
While not referenced within the complaint itself, the resident reported damage to her belongings throughout the complaint period. It would have been good practice and appropriate for the landlord to explain about making a liability claim for such damages. Additionally, in line with its compensation policy, it could have also advised her to make a claim on her own contents insurance if she had this. It is a failing that it did not do so.
The landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident during the complaints process. Instead, it explained it would complete a “final review” of the complaint after it had completed the necessary repairs. It said this would include compensation for any time or impact to the resident.
The reference to a “final review” was confusing. The landlord had a 2 stage complaints policy, in line with the Code. Its policies and procedures do not refer to a “final review” stage. This created avoidable confusion to both the resident and us. It was unclear whether the complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure or not.
At the time of this investigation, the landlord has not yet completed the required works. As such, it has not offered compensation to the resident yet. The landlord’s complaints procedure states it “prefers” to offer compensation after resolving the issues. However, it can do this sooner, “depending on the circumstances.” Given the length of time that the resident experienced these issues, its decision to delay offering compensation was not appropriate.
The resident reported significant concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She also noted the costs incurred by the damages this caused. During this time, she has not received any redress for its failings. This understandably caused significant distress and inconvenience to her.
Overall, in response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
1. Failed to raise her complaint in a timely manner.
2. Delayed providing its stage 2 response. This caused her time and trouble in asking us for support.
3. Did not act in line with the Code about her heating complaint.
4. Did not consider the reported damages to her belongings.
5. Referred to a “final review” stage causing avoidable confusion and inconvenience to her.
The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. As such, it missed an opportunity to consider the impact its delayed response caused, and to put things right for her. Considering the above, the landlord should pay £350 compensation to the resident. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had an adverse impact on the resident. This reflects the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples within this. This should be from a senior staff member.
2. Pay £2,611.83 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
  1. £1,511.83 for the loss of enjoyment of the property.
  2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a roof leak, damp, and mould.
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its associated complaint handling.
3. Confirm its position regarding paying the resident further compensation for the ongoing issues after its final complaint response. It should provide this information in writing to the resident and include the reasons for its decision.
4. Contact the resident to update its internal systems with relevant information about any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. It should provide evidence of this information on its systems if the resident provides this.
5. Provide details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the resident’s damaged belongings. It should provide this in writing and offer reasonable support if requested.
6. Contact the resident to ask whether she would like it to raise a new complaint to address the heating issue in March 2024. It should also ask whether she has any new complaints that she would like it to raise.
7. Complete an inspection (or post-inspection) of the property. This should focus on the leaks, damp and mould reported, as well as any other issues identified. A member of its senior management or a surveyor should complete this. It should then write to the resident to:
  1. Confirm its findings.
  2. Provide an action plan for any required repairs, detailing appointment dates and the works required.
  3. Provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs (if needed).
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.