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

Aster Group Limited (202214789)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214789

Aster Group Limited

18 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to grant permission for the resident to keep his dog at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a top floor flat, within a building comprised of similar properties. The property shares a communal stairwell and entrance with the properties below. The resident’s partner lives in the property with him.
  2. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 9 May 2022 stating that it had been made aware that he was keeping a dog in the property without written permission from the landlord. It advised this was against the tenancy agreement and asked him to re-house the dog by 23 May 2022 to prevent action being taken against his tenancy.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 12 May 2022 due to the landlord’s threats of eviction because of keeping a dog at the property. He also complained about the landlord’s communication with his social worker. As a resolution, he asked for permission to keep his dog.
  4. The landlord issued a complaint response on 19 May 2022. It acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the advice given by the neighbourhood officer to rehouse his dog, as he had explained he had a dog before. The landlord confirmed that the neighbourhood officer’s decision was in line with the tenancy agreement and did not uphold this element of the complaint. It said it had reviewed the resident’s housing files and could not find any historic permission given for a dog to be kept in the property. The landlord addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with its communication with his social worker and his expressed desires to move home.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 May 2022, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s investigation of the issue in question. He also said he was unhappy with the way his partner had been spoken to by the landlord’s officers. He stated his partner had learning difficulties and accused the landlord of being discriminatory. The resident also explained they had just lost a daughter to adoption and his partner’s dog was a well-being pet that helped with his partner’s depression and anxiety.
  6. The landlord sent a final response to the resident on 14 June 2022, explaining why the complaint had not been upheld. The landlord acknowledged the resident and his partner’s circumstances but stated that the investigation at stage one was correct and in line with its policies. It stated that it could not take into consideration the point that the dog was his partner’s and that it helped her cope with her mental health problems. It further explained that it had had no intention of discriminating the resident’s partner; however, it could only speak to the resident directly as he was the tenant of the property. The landlord ordered the resident to remove the dog from the property by 28 June 2022. The resident requested a Designated Complaints Panel (DCP) hearing on 14 June 2022 as he wanted to take the complaint further.
  7. Following the hearing on 19 August 2022, the panel issued a letter with their decision on 30 August 2022. It concluded that the complaint would not be upheld, as the landlord had followed its policies and the resident’s circumstances had been fully considered.
  8. The resident referred the complaint to this Service in October 2022. He is seeking temporary permission to keep his dog at the property until he can find somewhere suitable to move to with his dog.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that pets must not be kept at the property or any garden serving the property without the landlord’s prior written permission. It also states that permission would not normally be given in flats with communal entrances except for assistance dogs and small caged animals.
  2. Following reports that the resident was keeping a dog at his flat, the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 9 May 2022. It advised him to rehouse the dog as, keeping a dog without prior permission was in breach of the tenancy agreement. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is ultimately entitled to make the decision whether to allow pets in the property, and it is usually reviewed on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual circumstances. Nevertheless, landlords are expected to investigate and consider all the circumstances of the case, to communicate effectively with residents throughout the process and to provide a clear rationale of their decision.
  3. Throughout the complaint process, the landlord has made it clear that the resident’s property, a second floor flat, is not considered appropriate for a dog, as it does not have access to a private entrance and it shares a communal stairwell. Moreover, it explained that temporary permission could not be granted to the resident as, he had rent arrears at the time of the complaint which would need to be cleared before the resident could transfer to another social housing landlord. This would extend the length of time it would take the resident to be able to move to a new property.
  4. The resident told the landlord that the dog helped with his partner’s depression and anxiety, and that, having recently lost their daughter to adoption, rehousing their dog would considerably impact their mental health. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for wanting to have a dog or the benefits that dog ownership would bring to the resident and his partner. However, it is the Ombudsman’s role to investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s request. The landlord decided the resident’s concerns about his partner’s mental health could not be taken into consideration. The landlord’s pet policy defines assistance animals as those which have been specifically trained to assist disabled people and which have been qualified by one of the organisations registered as a member of Assistance Dogs (UK) or an equivalent organisation in another country. The landlord will usually grant permission in these cases providing there is sufficient supporting documentation and the property is suitable for the assistance animal. The tenancy agreement also states that exceptions are made when the pet is an assistance dog. However, the resident has not provided any evidence to suggest that the dog is an assistance animal, and therefore, the landlord’s decision was in line with its policy.
  5. In his complaint, the resident also stated that he had been given permission to have a dog back in 2017, when he first moved into the property. The landlord reviewed the resident’s housing file and informed him that no historic permission for a dog was found. It acknowledged that it was unusual to grant permission for pets in a upper floor flat, but affirmed that it might have been because of the smaller size or type of dog, as well as the situation at the time. This was in line with the landlord’s pet policy, which sets out that previous permission for a specific pet does not mean that permission is automatically granted for future pets within the property.
  6. The resident has also claimed that the landlord was being unfair with him, as other tenants were allowed to have dogs. Given the decision to grant permission to keep pets is a discretionary one, and decided on a case-by-case basis, this Service can only assess whether the landlord’s decision in this specific case has been reasonable, correct and in line with its policies. The various reasons presented by the landlord throughout the complaint process, especially those based on the nature of the resident’s property (an upper floor flat with communal entrance) and his rent arrears, indicate the landlord’s decision took into account the resident’s specific circumstances and made a decision aligned with its policies.
  7. The resident has complained about his social worker communicating with the landlord without his permission. The landlord addressed his concerns by explaining that it works in partnership with statutory agencies and that communication with such agencies is vital. It however assured him that, when attending multiagency meetings, there is an information sharing protocol in place. Moreover, the landlord acted reasonably by asking the resident to speak to his social worker in order to establish what he would not wish them to discuss about him or his family.
  8. The resident has also reported that the landlord was discriminatory when speaking to his partner. This Service does not have access to sufficient evidence, nor the expertise, to determine whether there was a legal case of discrimination against the resident’s partner by the landlord. We can however look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination and whether its response was reasonable. The landlord explained that, as its policies do not allow to speak with another person on tenants’ behalf, it could not disclose any information to his partner. It stated that he had no intention of making her feel discriminated against and acknowledged that it had been firm when speaking to her because it wanted to make it clear that it needed to speak with the resident directly. The landlord provided a reasonable and clear explanation of what happened and apologised to the resident for the way it came across which was appropriate under the circumstances.
  9. Although this Service acknowledges the resident’s difficult circumstances and the impact that having to rehome a dog may have on him and his partner, the available evidence indicates that the landlord’s policies have been followed appropriately throughout the complaint process and that all the evidence available has been considered in a reasonable manner.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to refuse permission for the resident to keep his dog at the property.