Curo Places Limited (202324124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324124

Curo Places Limited

28 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom, third-floor flat in a converted building. The building is a mid-terrace Georgian townhouse. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities relating to her physical health. They include multiple sclerosis (MS), tinnitus, and asthma.
3. On 23 October 2022 there was “a major ingress of rainwater” into the property. The leak occurred over a weekend. The landlord arranged an emergency out-of-hours repair visit. Its repair order shows an operative found part of the roof was flooded and they felt a gulley was blocked. However, they were not willing to go on the roof in dark and wet conditions. They recommended a “2 man inspection” on the next working day. A separate repair record suggests they also made the property’s bathroom light safe and installed a temporary light.
4. The resident chased the landlord 2 days later. She asked when it would assess the “significant damage” to the property. She said, among other issues, the property was currently disconnected from the building’s fire alarm (due to the damage). She referenced damage to ceilings and flooring. She highlighted her MS and said she was worried about further rain. The next day, the landlord raised a repair order to a specialist drainage contractor. It said the building’s gutters should be cleared because an issue was causing “flooding through all (its) properties”.
5. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 26 October 2022 and 5 January 2023:
   1. The landlord’s specialist contractor accessed the roof. It found a neighbour had already cleared the gutter. Nevertheless, it completed a CCTV survey and said there were no related issues.
   2. Within days of the survey, the resident reported there was “fresh damp” on a landing ceiling after light rainfall during the night. (From the information provided, there was no indication the landlord responded to this report).
   3. Around 2 weeks after the resident’s additional report, the landlord completed a “minor pre-works inspection”. The inspection report said around 7 meters of plaster was needed to repair the landing and bathroom ceilings. The report included images of the damage.
   4. The resident chased the recommended plastering works on 6 December 2022.
   5. The works began on 15 December 2022 and were completed the same day. This was around 8 weeks after the leak occurred.
   6. Within days of the plaster work being completed, the resident raised an online query with the landlord. She said rainwater was leaking into the kitchen, a bedroom, and the roof space. She asked the landlord to make a further assessment. (The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show the landlord responded.)
   7. Subsequently, the landlord decorated the recently plastered ceilings.
6. In internal correspondence on 6 February 2023, the landlord said the roof seemed to be leaking. It also said the property needed mould treatment works when the damp was resolved. A damp survey was completed the following day. The survey report referenced areas of damp, and “free-flowing water” when it rained. It said these issues needed further investigation in the roof space. The operative felt a lead flashing or dividing wall may have failed. Around 3 months later, the landlord completed minor repairs to some guttering and flashing.
7. The resident complained on 6 July 2023. She said the landlord had not inspected the roof to identify the fault. Further, its internal repair works were now “ruined” by the ongoing external issue. In addition, there was: visible plaster damage in every room, a smell of damp in the living room, and water ingress into the bathroom, landing, and kitchen. She felt the landlord was responsible for a significant failure and it should fulfil its repair obligations. Her other key points were:
   1. Leaking water had “ruined” the resident’s carpets. She was concerned about further damage to her personal belongings.
   2. Having tinnitus made the sound of dripping or running water stressful for the resident. She was also concerned about the impact of damp on her asthma.
   3. The resident experienced fatigue associated with suffering from MS. She was being disturbed at night by the sound of leaking water. This was impacting her wellbeing.
8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. This was 20 working days after the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged her health concerns and said it was unacceptable the problem had not been resolved. It upheld the complaint. It said a survey had been scheduled for 23 August 2023, and any identified issues would be addressed. It also said the landlord would compensate the resident when the repairs were complete. No information was seen to suggest the landlord’s scheduled inspection subsequently took place.
9. Within a week, the resident replied that an internal survey was inadequate and water ingress was ongoing. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She expressed concern about the extent of the repairs that were likely to be required. She said she would consider a move. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 13 September 2023. It awarded the resident £25 in compensation. This was to address the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s inability to resolve her concerns at stage 1.
10. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a brief stage 2 response. This was around 31 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It awarded the resident (another) £25 in compensation to recognise the response was delayed. It said a surveyor would assess the leak on 5 October 2023. It reiterated the resident would be compensated when the repairs were complete. Subsequently, the resident told the landlord she would approach the Ombudsman. She said it should arrange scaffolding, complete an external roof inspection, and try to mitigate the water ingress.
11. The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 23 October 2023 and 24 April 2024:
    1. In internal correspondence, the landlord said a roofing contractor would provide a quote with a view to completing the repairs quickly.
    2. A corresponding works order was not raised for several weeks because a key member of the landlord’s staff was on sick leave.
    3. The resident completed the Ombudsman’s complaint form. She said water “poured” through the bathroom ceiling in moderate rainfall. Further, there was an unpleasant smell of “wet rot” and she was unable to host guests. She was particularly upset her father could not visit due to his severe asthma. She said she was living her life around “the weather forecast, dealing with buckets and towels”. She felt the property was a “dilapidated hazard”.
    4. On 6 December 2023, the landlord told the resident its contractor had advised the building needed a full roof replacement.
    5. In early March 2024 the resident reported the property was incurring further damage and nothing had been done.
    6. Soon afterwards, the roofing contractor told the landlord the works were on hold because its quote was never accepted.
    7. In mid-March 2024 the landlord told the Ombudsman the resident’s complaint was “open and ongoing”. In addition, the required repairs had been established but they were subject to a formal consultation process. This was because there were leaseholders in the building (landlords are obliged to consult leaseholders about major works because leaseholders have to contribute towards the costs).
    8. In late March 2024, the landlord’s internal correspondence said the repairs were classed as major works and the property was in a listed building. It said the works were an “incredibly large complex project”, which should be allocated to the landlord’s asset team.
    9. In late April 2024 a third-party completed a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) survey on the landlord’s behalf. It said an intermittent roof leak was affecting all rooms. In addition, there was a moderate risk from ongoing damp and mould growth. It also confirmed there was a slight fire risk. This was due to the lack of a heat detector in the kitchen.
12. The resident updated the Ombudsman on 7 June 2024. She told us the leaks, damp, and mould were ongoing. In addition, the roof repairs had not begun. She said she was using buckets to collect rainwater in the bathroom and multiple other rooms were impacted. The resident also said she was now more open to a move. This was on the basis it would help her escape from a “toxic situation”.

Assessment and findings

13. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.

Policies, procedures and other relevant information

14. The landlord did not provide a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.  As a result, we considered its statutory repairing obligations. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), it is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, drains, and guttering. After being notified about a repair issue, the landlord is obliged to carry-out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
15. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It relevant complaints policy, effective December 2022, shows it aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
16. At our request, the resident provided details of her weekly rent payments between 2022 and 2024. Her email shows the weekly rent was £138.61 in 2022, £145.82 in 2023, and £155.36 in 2024. Based on these figures, the Ombudsman calculated the resident’s average weekly rent at £146.60. Having multiplied this figure by 4, we estimated her average monthly rent was £586.40.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

17. The evidence points to several significant failures by the landlord. For example, the resident reported “fresh damp” on the landing ceiling on 29 October 2022. This was 3 days after the landlord’s specialist contractor ruled out an issue with the guttering. The landlord’s works order to the drainage contractor shows it was aware of an issue that was causing “flooding throughout all properties” in the building. On that basis, the resident’s new report should have reasonably prompted a wider investigation (of the building’s roof) by the landlord.
18. However, though the resident later made a specific request for a roof inspection, the landlord did not seek a specialist opinion about the roof’s condition for around 12 months. This showed an inappropriate lack of urgency and the landlord’s approach was not consistent with the severity of the situation (particularly given its previous comments to the drainage contractor about the number of homes that were affected). Subsequently, the landlord did not begin to address the roof repairs until around March 2024. At this stage, it approved the roofing contractor’s quote, involved its major works team, and launched a formal consultation with the building’s leaseholders.
19. Nevertheless, the resident’s recent update to the Ombudsman confirms the repairs remain outstanding to date. In general, we consider 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs. As a result, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay (in fixing the root cause of the water ingress) of around 18 months from 29 October 2022. This calculation was based on the timing of our assessment. Overall, the evidence points to an inappropriate lack of resolution-focus by the landlord. This is because, contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes, it failed to progress the necessary repairs accordingly to put things right for the resident.
20. The overall duration of the delay is unfair to the resident. The situation was especially unfair given: the extent of the damage, the leak’s impact on her vulnerabilities and welfare, and the landlord’s lack of mitigation works. For example, the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities from an early stage in the timeline. It was also aware mould treatment works were required in early February 2023. Nevertheless, there was no evidence to show it attempted to complete any mould treatment works before the HHSRS inspection in April 2024.
21. The landlord’s failure to act in the presence of a known hazard was highly inappropriate. The HHSRS inspection report confirmed damp and mould growth in the property presented a “moderate risk”. The above timings suggest the resident was unnecessarily exposed to potential hazards for around 15 months. During this time the resident raised specific concerns about the impact of the hazards because of her vulnerabilities. The HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. The above information shows the landlord’s approach was contrary to the HHSRS.
22. Similarly, in September 2023, the resident asked the landlord if it was possible to “shield” the affected areas. This was to stop further rainwater entering the property. No information was seen to show the landlord engaged with her suggestion. It should have at least considered whether the water ingress could be mitigated using reasonable measures such as temporary repairs. Overall, the landlord’s lack of mitigation works was concerning, unfair and inappropriate. It suggests the landlord failed to consider the situation from a risk and safety perspective.
23. Another issue involved damaged items. The resident’s complaint said leaking water had “ruined” her carpets. Given the content of her complaint, it was clear she held the landlord responsible for the reported damage. Nevertheless, in its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident to contact her own insurer. In her recent update to the Ombudsman, the resident told us she does not have contents insurance. She also said the above advice was the landlord’s only response to the matter.
24. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to their health or personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer them to its insurance team or process. Alternatively, a landlord can investigate reports of damaged items through its own complaints process. This usually involves inspecting the damaged items. In this case, the landlord failed to adopt either of these approaches. This was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord should be capable of responding to damage claims accordingly. Overall, the evidence points to another serious failure involving the resident’s damaged items.
25. In summary, the evidence points to 3 significant failures by the landlord. A lack of resolution-focus/failure to progress repairs accordingly, a lack of mitigating works to reduce risk and improve safety, and a failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns around damaged personal items. Given the circumstances, each of these issues was a serious failure in itself. It is accepted the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It has also committed to compensating her. However, the repairs are still outstanding and no related compensation has been awarded to date.
26. Given around 9 months have passed since the landlord’s stage 2 response, this situation is concerning. It also points to complaint handling failures. Ultimately, the landlord has not addressed the root cause of the water ingress. The wording of its complaint responses suggests it failed to recognise the full extent of its failures. Overall, the evidence confirms there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
27. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the property was significantly reduced during the above identified 18 month delay period. In addition, given the rooms that were affected, she had limited respite from the situation. Her correspondence to the landlord suggests concerns about her health, damaged personal belongings, and the property’s safety were a source of considerable anxiety for the resident. The evidence confirms she chased for the landlord for updates throughout the timeline.
28. Given the above, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident proportionate compensation to put things right. Our award will reflect the evidence we have seen. In line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, our calculation will include separate elements to reflect her loss of amenity as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The loss of amenity aspect is based on the principle that the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given her reduced enjoyment of the property.
29. Though it is not a rent refund, the Ombudsman’s loss of amenity calculation will be broadly equivalent to a 45% rent reduction for the full duration of the above identified 18 month delay period. This approach is proportionate given the circumstances. It reflects various factors including: the extent of the repair issues, the number of rooms affected, the prolonged impact to the resident, and her vulnerabilities. The evidence suggests the situation was exacerbated by her health conditions.

The landlord’s complaint handling

30. The evidence shows there were some good aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, its stage 1 response showed empathy for the resident. It accepted the landlord was responsible for “unacceptable” delays, and assured the resident her complaint would be left open. This was with a view to awarding her proportionate compensation when the repairs were complete. Subsequently, the landlord reiterated this assurance at stage 2. Overall, its broad approach suggests the landlord has a positive complaints handling culture.
31. However, any good aspects were undermined because the landlord was unable to improve the resident’s situation through its internal complaints process. In other words, though it appeared to have good intentions, the landlord was unable to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool to resolve her concerns. Typically, this points to a lack of monitoring, coordination, or follow-up by a landlord’s complaints team. In any case, the evidence points to a significant procedural failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
32. Though it affected both stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the above referenced failure was more noticeable at stage 2. For example, the stage 2 complaint was reviewed by a more senior member of the landlord’s staff. However, its stage 2 response was broadly a more succinct repetition of the landlord’s approach at stage 1. As a result, there was little added value from the senior colleague’s involvement. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have reasonably undertaken a more detailed analysis at this point.
33. For example, it was clear that the landlord’s approach (arrange an inspection and leave the complaint open) had not resolved matters at stage 1. On that basis, the landlord’s (more senior) stage 2 handler should have attempted to identify and resolve any barriers to the repairs. Significantly, the landlord failed to engage with the resident’s concerns about the lack of an external roof inspection at either stage or its procedure. Had it done so, it is reasonable to the landlord may have identified the root cause of the leak sooner.
34. In any case, the resident’s request for an external roof inspection was understandable given the circumstances. Since the matter was important to her, the resident’s related comments warranted a specific response from the landlord. For example, the landlord could have explained the rationale behind its focus on internal inspections. Ultimately, the landlord’s lack of engagement was unfair and inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude the resident felt it was not listening and this was likely distressing for her. The evidence confirms her request for a roof inspection was reasonable given the circumstances.
35. The wording of its complaint responses suggests the landlord awarded the resident a total of £50 in compensation for complaint handling failures. This was based on its inability to resolve matters at stage 1 (the Ombudsman does not consider this a failure in itself), and a delay in resolving matters at stage 2. Its approach shows the landlord considered its own complaint handling during its investigation. In addition, it attempted to redress any procedural issues accordingly. However, the timeline shows it overlooked a short delay at stage 1.
36. Since the combined delays amounted to around 3 weeks in total, the landlord’s £50 offer was broadly reasonable to address them. However, the above shows the landlord’s inappropriate lack of engagement with key complaint issues caused the resident additional distress. In addition, the landlord was unable to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool to resolve her concerns. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

38. The evidence points to 3 significant failures by the landlord. A lack of resolution-focus/failure to progress repairs accordingly, a lack of mitigating works to reduce risk and improve safety, and a failure to respond reasonably to the resident’s concerns around damaged personal items. Each of these issues was a serious failure in itself. Though the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, the repairs are still outstanding and no related compensation has been awarded to date.
39. Ultimately, the landlord was unable to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve the resident’s concerns. This points to related procedural failures. In addition, the landlord did not engage accordingly with the resident’s understandable request for an external roof inspection. Since the matter was important to her, it warranted a specific response from the landlord. Its lack of engagement likely caused her additional distress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). Since the executive will oversee the repairs to completion, the apology should also include their contact details. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
41. The appointed member of the landlord’s executive team should arrange to update the resident. The landlord’s update should include: details of its plan for mitigating (as soon as possible) any risk from the confirmed hazards referenced in the recent HHSRS survey, an estimated completion timescale for the roof and internal repairs, and an assessment of the likely disruption to the resident. If the resident decides she would rather move, based on the update, the landlord should explore the possibility of a management transfer in accordance with its policy. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
42. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,650 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £4,750 for the loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
    2. £750 for the related distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £100 the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
    4. £ 50 which the landlord previously awarded during its complaints process.
43. The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks to gather information about her damaged items. This is with a view to refunding her accordingly. If only a carpet is damaged, the landlord can consider replacing it. Since it failed to follow the appropriate procedure in the first instance, the landlord should avoid onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damages.
44. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include: the landlord’s lack of resolution focus/failure to progress the repairs, its lack of mitigating works to reduce risk, its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about damaged personal items, and its inability to use its complaints process as an effective tool to resolve her concerns. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
45. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the relevant timescales.