Curo Places Limited (202118805)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118805

Curo Places Limited

30 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The accuracy of the landlord’s advertisement for the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 2 October 2020.
The resident lives in a two bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has stated it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It is noted that the resident informed the landlord during the complaints process, that she suffered with severe anxiety and depression.
At the time of this complaint the landlord had a three-stage complaint process, but it has been noted that since 2022 the landlord now has a two-stage process.
For this complaint, the landlord’s complaint process was a three-stage process consisting of:
1. Resolution 1st (3 days); the complaint is owned by the colleague initially taking the complaint.
2. Level 2 (5 days), goes to the Customer Resolution (CR) team if not resolved at Resolution 1st.
3. Management Review (5 days), this is the final stage, and the complaint goes to a Head of Service (HoS) or manager if the CR team cannot reach resolution.
Section 5.11 of the complaints policy states if contact cannot be established with a customer within 14 days to confirm the proposed resolution, the complaint should be closed and notes added
The majority of the landlord’s properties are advertised under the local council’s choice based lettings scheme however, it does advertise a small number of its homes directly via Rightmove.
The property was advertised through a choice-based lettings scheme advert and allocated during the covid pandemic. The landlord operated a revised lettings procedure during this time. Under this procedure, the landlord conducted viewings of advertised properties virtually and all sign ups were done digitally.
A restrictive covenant was signed by the resident on 25 September 2020. One of the covenant’s listed stated ‘You must only use the space at the front of the property as a garden or where appropriate as a parking space or drive’
Section 5.5 of the landlord’s lettings policy states a direct let will be considered if residents meet the following criteria:
1. Is under-occupying, is the victim of a hate crime or domestic violence and is at risk of serious harm.
2. Occupies a property with specific facilities or support services and no longer needs them.
3. Has a medical need for a transfer to a lower floor and wishes to remain at the same development.
4. Has asked to move, and we believe that a move would resolve a serious management issue such as a neighbour dispute.
5. Has to be moved either permanently or temporarily to enable emergency, major repairs or re-development to their home.
The landlord has informed this service that the resident is no longer living in the property having given notice in September 2022

Summary of Events 

On 4 May 2021 the landlord received a call from the resident stating she was informed that when moving into the property there was a good size communal garden as she had a young child but was unable to view the property prior to sign up due to a Covid lockdown. The resident also stated there were builders digging up the entire communal garden to install an access ramp and asked the landlord to look into this.
On the same day the resident made a complaint to the landlord stating she had recently moved into the property and was told upon bidding for the property there was a communal garden, but the garden was a small patch of grass the length of three cars and width of one car. The resident stated this grass was being removed for an accessible ramp for wheelchair users. The resident stated she was not made aware these works were being carried out, there was nowhere for children to play and nowhere for hanging washing out.
On 6 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to request an update on her complaint.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had received an unprecedented number of enquiries which has resulted in delays in its investigations and responses. It stated the complaint would be allocated to a customer resolution advisor and they would be in contact in due course. No further timescales were provided to the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 May 2021 and stated it had investigated the resident’s complaint with the builders, the independent surveyor and its technical team. The landlord informed the resident that as it did not own the land where the ramp was already situated, it had to move it to a part of the land it did own in line with the planning approval on the site to allow for an adapted property to have adequate access. This meant that the landscaped area by the car park had to be reduced. The landlord apologised that this was not communicated to the resident prior to the works starting and the inconvenience it caused. It offered the resident a £30 voucher of her choice as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord in the email it sent to the resident did not make it clear if this response or offer of compensation was its stage one response to the resident.
On 14 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated more of the grass was being removed. The resident stated she had been in contact with the Council who had advised her to explain the situation to the landlord and for the landlord to assist with an internal transfer.
The landlord responded on 18 May 2021 and confirmed the resident’s comments had been passed to the lettings team and was waiting for a response from that team. In the meantime, it advised if the resident wished to move, she would need to complete an application with home choice (the local Council’s choice based lettings scheme), as all applications had to go through that process. The landlord said it was unable to allocate as part of an internal transfer, as all properties had to go through the Council’s home choice process.
On 1 July 2021 a customer resolution advisor emailed the resident to introduce themselves and explain they would be investigating the resident’s complaint. The emailed stated the landlord would be in touch with the resident but provided no further timescales to her.
The landlord carried out internal enquiries into the resident’s complaint and established that the property was advertised as per the property information provided by the developer and would refer to all the green space within the walled communal area of the flats as a communal garden. It noted the change was made for wheelchair access after previously being incorrectly built by the developer.
On 13 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated:
1. The patch of grass before the ramp was installed was small but was now almost non-existent.
2. Before bidding on the property, she made sure there was a communal garden at least for her daughter. Due to covid she was not able to view the property and could only go by what was shown from photos, which was hard to judge by. When collecting the keys and seeing the garden she was devastated and felt had been lied to by being told there was a garden.
3. She is a sufferer of severe anxiety and depression, controlled through medication and close support from her doctors. An issue with having those illnesses was that she struggled to leave home a lot of the time and relied heavily on garden space to play with her daughter and be outside, but stay close to home. The resident stated she could not do that in this property.
4. She had spoken with citizens advice, job centre, Homechoice and the Council who advised there was assistance available from the landlord to assist a move for her to a more suitable property. Despite several emails to the landlord, she had been told there was no hope of being able to move into a suitable property.
5. She wanted her email to be logged as her official complaint for being unsuitably housed stating it was the landlord’s duty of care to make sure its residents with children were housed suitably. Due to her mental health, the fact she had a child that could not play in safe circumstances, was enough to support a move for her.
The landlord responded the same day and stated:
1. With regards to the area of grass that had been repurposed, it had spoken to the lettings team who explained that the adverts were based on the property information provided by the developer and were not adverts that the landlord writes.
2. The advert referred to all green space within the walled communal area of the flats.
3. The change for wheelchair access was due to it being incorrectly built by the developer.
4. The virtual viewings was something it had not done before, prior to the pandemic and had since learnt not to include the term ‘communal gardens’ in its adverts to prevent this from reoccurring in the future.
5. It agreed that the communal garden in this case is not what should have been expected and apologised for this.
6. The wheelchair ramp that had been built was the responsibility of the building developer and was not something the landlord could control.
7. It would focus on getting the resident help and support in moving to a more suitable home. It had contacted its tenancy management team and asked them for their advice on what steps it could take next and said it would be in touch with the resident once it had received a response.
The resident responded the same day and stated that she understood the circumstances surrounding the ramp and it was a shame she was not informed beforehand as she could have saved a lot of time and hassle by declining the property and leaving it to someone more suitable. She was happy to hear that the landlord could help her find somewhere a lot more suitable.
On 14 July 2021 the landlord internally discussed the possibility of offering a direct let property to the resident but an offer of a direct let would not include a new build property as its process did not allow for that. It was suggested an officer from the landlord would have to complete the direct let application with the resident. It was asked if the resident had an actual need for a garden that could make a difference on banding and a direct let.
On the same day an officer of the landlord provided an assessment of the situation and stated:
1. Technically, there was a communal space in the area outlined for the flats, it consisted of a grassed area by the car parking, among other shrubbed beds.
2. It was unable to advertise as just communal ‘space’ on the Homesearch sites and it was not fair to advertise as communal garden as it misleads or creates misunderstanding that those spaces are for children to play as would be interpreted.
3. There was a big difference to a block of flats with no communal space/garden and those with, in terms of how pleasant an environment it creates, hence it would ideally distinguish between them when advertising for bidders to make their choices.
4. The alteration had happened to a strip of shrubs that could not be attributed to being a garden for the children to play in, none of the communal garden could. There had been no unreasonable change to the communal environment which justified this part of the issues.
5. If after viewing and accepting the property, the household no longer suited the property, they could re-register with the Council to bid on moving elsewhere if a medical need was required as part of the reasoning.
6. It was not at fault for advertising this property as having a communal garden as it did have some. The wording as advertised could be misinterpreted if not taken in conjunction with comprehensive photos and videos to show the environment which were provided along with the video call. It no longer advertised communal space as ‘garden’ to omit the instances of misunderstanding.
On 15 July 2021 a manager stated the landlord could look into whether the resident was eligible for its direct let process and arrange for an officer to go through this with the resident. It stated it could not predict how long it would take for properties matching the resident’s needs to become available, the resident would have two offers to consider, and the process did not apply to new build properties. It noted that if the resident had a need for a garden/outdoor space rather than a want this may have made a difference to her banding for the Councils housing register and the Homesearch team could advise on this.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to explain that it could talk through an application form with the resident to explore if the resident was eligible for a direct let. It stated it could not predict how long for properties matching the resident’s needs would take, the resident would have two offers to consider, and the process did not apply to new build properties.
The email also informed the resident of contacting Homesearch at the Council and explaining her requirement for a garden/outdoor space and the adverse effect of not having one as it could have had an effect on her banding and may increase her priority when bidding on properties.
The resident responded the same day to confirm she wished to proceed with the direct let application.
On 16 July 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident it would be in touch regarding the direct let application.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord to ask for clarification on new build properties not being eligible for direct let. The resident asked if that meant new builds built in the last few years or if properties that were the first to be lived in. The landlord responded to the resident and stated it understood new builds to be properties built within the last two years but advised for the resident to speak to the officer taking the application as they would have more knowledge and be able to confirm the requirements. The landlord informed the resident that to manage the resident’s expectations the properties on offer would be from its current housing stock and although not impossible it would be unlikely a new build as modern as the resident’s current property.
An internal email on 21 July 2021 raised concerns that direct let application support was being offered without the landlord first accepting that the direct let process is appropriate for the resident.
On 22 July 2021 a manager of the landlord stated that the resident could be taken through the direct let application which would then be reviewed to demonstrate it had given them a chance to be considered even if not ultimately accepted for a direct let property.
However, the manager stated that taking the resident through the forms was a lot of work and did not think they would qualify for a direct let as they were adequately housed even if they did not feel they were as a communal space, or lack of, would not be a reason for a move. It was suggested by the manager that the resident would need to look to mutual exchange once they had been there a year.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident and after discussing the direct let criteria informed her that it cannot move her via a direct let. It agreed to help with a Home swapper application so the resident could look to people who would want to mutual exchange. The landlord also advised the resident to speak with her Local Authority and doctor if the property was impacting her health as a doctor’s letter may have increased her banding on the housing register but stated it was not guaranteed.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2021 however it is not clear in the response what stage of the complaint process this was the response to. In the response the landlord said that it:
1. Was sorry to hear the resident was not eligible for a direct let. It was explained that there was a possibility the resident may not be eligible for the process, but was agreed it was worth exploring to understand whether this could be an option for her.
2. Had been advised that there were plans for a children’s play area to be developed within the multifunctional open space that already existed close to the resident’s flat. Although it did not have a date for the works to start it understood it was often the last job to be completed within the development. As the development was near completion, it expected the date to be within the very near future.
3. It apologised that this was not the outcome the resident was hoping for. Whilst it was not able to offer a new property for her to move to, it understood there was a miscommunication during the lettings process and the virtual viewing. It said the virtual viewings were something it had not done before, prior to the pandemic and had since learnt not to include the ‘communal gardens’ as per the developer’s descriptions in its adverts to prevent the issue from reoccurring in the future.
4. It offered the resident a compensatory payment of £25 as an apology for the miscommunication that she had experienced.
On 4 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and stated that as seven days had passed without a response from the resident it would close the complaint. It made the resident aware she could still have the complaint reopened and escalated if she got back in touch with further information if she felt the landlord had missed anything in its investigation. It confirmed the £25 compensation offer was still available.
The resident responded the same day to ask that the complaint was left open as she was waiting for advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau. The resident said she felt insulted with the £25 offer of compensation. The landlord responded to say it had reopened the case and would wait for further communication from the resident.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and stated a month had passed, and it had not received any further contact from the resident or Citizens Advice. It stated it would look to close the complaint in the next seven days. The resident responded the same day to say she had given permission for citizens advice and her MP to contact the landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 September 2021 and said it would wait for contact from citizens advice and the MP and would escalate the case accordingly once they had been in touch.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had escalated the complaint to the final stage of its complaint process and that the manager dealing with the complaint would be in touch shortly with the resident to begin their investigations.
The landlord issued its stage three response on 15 September 2021. It stated that:
1. Since the resident accepted the property, it had made a significant change in the way it advertised blocks of flats. The resident’s flat was advertised from the information provided by the developers and the landlord had since made the decision to not advertise properties as a garden anymore if it says ‘communal’. This was because there was not an option to make it clear on the local authority systems that it was a green space for creating a pleasant environment for the communal benefit.
2. It enclosed a map that showed the green space and children’s play area which was within very close proximity to the resident’s home.
3. The wheelchair access it believed was an error by the developers which had to be corrected. The new ramp that had been built was the responsibility of the building developer and was not something the landlord could control.
4. It had investigated the option of a direct let and the resident’s preference for a new build property. Direct let properties were from its current housing stock and extremely unlikely to be a new build and properties that became available were often few and far between. It had assessed the resident’s position and on investigation, found that the resident did not meet the criteria for consideration.
5. It offered recommendations including providing any medical support from her doctor, or health visitor in writing to the Council for evidence on her housing application and said that she could advertise her home on Home swapper or Facebook as an ‘exchange needed’.

Assessment and findings

The accuracy of the landlord’s advertisement for the property

The landlord has stated it advertised the property based on the description provided to it by the developers. When a developer’s description of the property is provided to the landlord, the landlord would be expected to ensure the contents of the description are accurate. This is to ensure that when the property is advertised the landlord is going to receive applications from suitable applicants but it is also to ensure applicants who wish to be considered for the property are given the correct information to consider their options.
It is acknowledged that the property was advertised during the Covid 19 restrictions meaning the resident was not able to view the property before signing for it. The landlord did try and provide additional information in the form of a video and photos to the resident however the resident stated this did not make the situation with the garden clear to her until she moved in. The landlord has acknowledged the wording of communal garden in its adverts could sometimes be misinterpreted and that the video provided a clearer example of the communal garden due to the restrictions due to Covid 19 being in place.
During the landlords investigation it did find that its property advert was not an accurate description of the property when advertised and it found failings in its communication during the lettings process and virtual viewing. Once this was established the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £25 and apologised to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award compensation if it does something it should not or fails to do something it should have. The policy does not specify compensation awards and instead is decided on a case by case basis. The offer of £25 is considered to be reasonable redress in this case. This is because the landlord acknowledged the property advert was not being specific enough about the advertised facilities, and there is no evidence that shows the resident required a garden at the time of accepting the property meaning the resident was suitably housed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused

After being notified of the resident’s request to be rehoused, the landlord informed the resident initially on 18 May 2021 to apply through Homechoice. This was the platform it advertised its properties on and was unable to allocate through a transfer process. On 13 July 2021 it informed the resident it would help and support in moving to a more suitable home and on 15 July 2021, it informed the resident she would be taken through the direct let process and asked if she would like to proceed with the application.
These were positive steps taken by the landlord however the evidence provided, shows that the direct let option was discussed with the resident without the landlord being satisfied the resident would meet the criteria for a direct let. The internal discussions had by the landlord resulted in the decision being made that the resident was not eligible and this was communicated to the resident on 27 July 2021.
From the evidence in this case, the resident did not meet the criteria under the direct lettings policy for a direct let move so there is no failure in the landlords decision about a direct let. It is understandable that the landlord wanted to explore all options for the resident. This would have included the direct let option, however given the criteria set out in its policy for a direct let there is no evidence provided why the landlord believed the resident would be eligible. It took two weeks for the landlord to discuss the criteria with the resident and ultimately inform her she was not eligible after first mentioning this as an option to the resident. This would have raised the resident’s expectations and increased her anxiety over the situation when ultimately informed she was not eligible for the direct let.
After establishing and informing the resident she would not be eligible for a direct let the landlord did make further efforts to help resolve the situation. It provided her with alternative options including mutual exchange and getting support to help with banding criteria for Homechoice. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. It showed that it explored all the options available to it to support the resident in achieving a move to an alternative property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The response issued to the resident on 28 July 2021 did not make it clear to the resident what stage of the landlords complaint process the response was. The response did not give the resident details of her escalation rights or timescales to do so. The resident after receiving the response would not be aware of what stage her complaint had been dealt with and if she had any further rights to escalate the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 August 2021 stating the complaint would be closed as it had not heard from the resident. There was no mention of this timescale in the complaint response issued by the landlord on 28 July 2021 so it was unreasonable for the landlord to close the complaint having not given the resident her escalation rights in its previous response. The landlord’s complaint policy states a complaint would be closed within 14 days if contact cannot be established with the resident to confirm a proposed resolution. In this case the resident was contacted after 7 days.
The landlord informed the resident on 9 September 2021 the complaint had been through its stage one and stage two process and would be escalated to its third stage. The stage three response was issued on 15 September 2021 and acknowledged the complaint was received by the landlord on 4 May 2021.
The landlord was clearly in communication with the resident during this time and also issued complaint responses to the resident, however its responses did not make it clear at which stage of the complaint process it was responding to.
The stage three response was issued 95 working days after the complaint was first made in May 2021. This is 82 days longer than the landlords stated complaint response times. Although the landlord was in constant contact with the resident during this time there is no evidence provided by the landlord that it kept the resident informed of any delay in the complaint process or offered any apology or explanation in the complaint responses for the delays in issuing the formal responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings and apologised to the resident. The landlord has accepted its advert was not specific enough about the communal garden. There was a communal garden but the information was misleading . It offered an appropriate amount of compensation and informed the resident of a nearby children’s play area.
The landlord did not evidence it considered its direct let policy and the residents eligibility for a direct let before discussing it with the resident and took two weeks from first raising it with the resident to inform her she was not eligible. The landlord should have considered its own policy before offering a direct let as an option to the resident to avoid falsely raising her expectations.
The landlord failed to explain to the resident at what stage her complaint was being dealt at, it exceed it its complaint response timescales at each stage of the process and failed to keep the resident informed of the response delays or an explanation for the response delays. There were significant delays in the landlords response to the resident at each stage of its complaint process. It did not keep the resident informed of these delays or her escalation rights at each stage.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord pays the resident £200. This includes the £25 already offered by the landlord. This consists of:
1. £25 for its advertising of the property as offered in its complaint response if it has not already done so.
2. £50 for its handling of the request from the resident to be rehoused.
3. £125 for its complaint handling.