Unity Housing Association Limited (202114884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114884

Unity Housing Association Limited

4 October 2022

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 response to the resident’s request for his mother’s therapy (support) dog to stay overnight at the property. 

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a two-bedroom 1st floor apartment with a communal hallway and gardens. He has no vulnerabilities recorded, but his mother who lives elsewhere has various health issues and a therapy dog.
3. The landlord called the resident in December 2020 and said that there had been reports of a dog fouling in the communal gardens. A letter (that the resident said he did not receive) was sent to advise that the previous informal arrangement to allow the dog to visit the resident’s property was rescinded. Following further reports of the dog at the property, the landlord wrote to the resident in February 2021 quoting the tenancy agreement and said the dog must be removed. The resident said he was taking legal advice and that the neighbour who reported the dog was malicious and he wanted their stalking (filming the resident) recorded. 
4. The resident submitted a form to request permission to keep the dog, along with medical evidence for his mother, on 7 April 2021. Permission was declined on 13 May 2021 (again the resident stated he did not receive this letter, but a phone call the next day notified him of the decision) as there was no direct access to a garden, and the reasons for his mother’s ownership of the dog were not related to the tenancy. On 2 June 2021 the landlord advised verbally that the dog could visit but not stay overnight and the resident was responsible for ensuring that no tenancy conditions were breached. The resident has stated that the letter dated 22 June 2021 confirming this, was not received until 15 July 2021.
5. The resident said that he had advanced his solicitors £2,000 and that he could not clear his rent arrears because of this. He submitted a complaint on 28 July 2021 regarding the delay in permission being granted, and that he wanted the dog to be able to stay on the occasions that his mother stayed at the property. The next day the landlord told the resident the dog could stay overnight on occasion if required. The stage one response sent 15 August 2021 confirmed this, after which the resident appealed further that the delay had affected his wellbeing.
6. The stage two response on 7 September 2021 offered £50 compensation for the delay in the time taken to review the permission. A stage three review was requested but the landlord did not investigate further as it said there had been no new information submitted. The resident said he would clear the rent arrears when he received £1,500 deposit back from solicitors, but this was not done.
7. The resident wants the current rent arrears waived due to the delay in the landlord agreeing the request, after initially refusing permission for the dog to stay at the property. The landlord says it will proceed with a Notice Seeking Possession that has been obtained if the repayment agreement is not kept.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. This investigation considers whether the landlord acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s reports about his application for his mother’s dog to be permitted to stay at the property. As explained in the letter from this Service dated 20 December 2021, it does not consider if there has been discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or the waiving of rent arrears, as these are matters for the courts. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Assessment

9. The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement effective 2016, says at section 5.E.1 that residents must obtain the landlord’s permission to keep any animal in the property. Section 5.E.3 says that residents must make sure no animal brought to property fouls the land or property and if it does, it must be cleared up immediately.
10. The ‘Application for Permission to keep a Pet’ form which was left with the resident when the landlord visited on 15 March 2021 says ‘If you do not have access to your own garden, you will not be able to keep a dog unless you have exceptional circumstances (for example, you need an assistance dog)’. 
11. The landlord has referred to a ten working day turnaround time to respond to residents’ correspondence, which would reasonably include the pet application. The Compensation Policy effective May 2020 says that up to £50 will be paid where a service user has experienced reasonable inconvenience on one occasion as a result of the landlord’s failure to act.
12. In this instance, it took the landlord 25 working days to decide on the permission for the dog to be at the property, between the form being submitted on 7 April 2021 and the permission being declined on 13 May 2021. The resident asked for the matter to be reconsidered the same day, and the landlord advised on 2 June 2021 that the dog was permitted to visit, but the resident must adhere to the tenancy agreement. This was just outside of the ten working day timescale. The resident then advised on 19 July 2021 that he intended to complain about the delay in the decision, and the outcome. The landlord considered the matter and on 29 July 2021, 8 working days later, revised its decision further to agree the dog could stay when the resident’s mother was at the property.
13. There was no obligation on the landlord to agree permission for the dog to visit the property, only to consider it.  The tenancy agreement clearly says dogs cannot be kept without permission, and although this had previously been agreed informally, there is no evidence to suggest that this was ever agreed as a permanent arrangement. The application form stated that permission would not be granted in the resident’s circumstances and therefore there was a reasonable expectation that permission would be declined. In fact, the landlord used its discretion and allowed the dog to visit, under certain conditions, later expanding that to include overnight stays. Whilst there was some delay in the initial decision being made, the landlord has offered compensation of £50 which is fair in all of the circumstances.  
14. The landlord showed empathy in reconsidering the issue on two occasions after initially rescinding permission for the dog to visit following reports of dog fouling. This indicates that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s specific situation and was willing to work with him, whilst being mindful of its other residents.  After the resident was made aware of the concerns raised by neighbours about the dog fouling in communal areas, he informed the landlord about a previous incident when the neighbour he believed responsible for the report had abused him and his husband. The landlord asked the resident if the matter had been reported to the police and advised him to do so if necessary. This was an appropriate response by the landlord, albeit the resident has not commented on whether he did raise this with the police.  If there are any anti-social behaviour (ASB) concerns that the resident wishes to report to the landlord, the Ombudsman would expect this to be handled in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
15.  Accordingly, the landlord has acknowledged some delay in coming to a decision about the resident’s mother’s dog, which it said would not fall within its own rules about support dogs, as she is not the tenant at the property. It has offered a sum of compensation in line with its policy, which is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is noted that there were some issues with wrong dates quoted by the landlord in its responses, and letters which the resident says were received late, but these issues, whilst frustrating for the resident, do not affect the outcome overall.
16. It is understood that the resident consulted a solicitor and paid a deposit of £2,000 to act in respect of the permission to keep a pet. However, it was his choice to do so. It is also noted that the resident later said he expected to be refunded £1,500 from the solicitor which he intended to pay towards his rent arrears. The resident remained liable for rent payments throughout the period of the complaint and the decision to recover rent is not one that the Ombudsman would become involved with, as covered above.
17. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this has been a difficult time for the resident, while his mother is unwell, and concerning a much-loved pet, who provides support to the resident’s mother. However, this Service has seen no evidence that rent arrears, which were in evidence prior to the complaint issue arising, were caused by any action by the landlord and that any further compensation beyond that previously offered, is due.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord pay the sum of £50 already offered, if it has not done so already.