Ongo Homes Limited (202108801)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108801

Ongo Homes Limited

30 March 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 to keep a dog in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is a two bedroom flat on the second floor of the building and has access to a balcony. The resident and her partner are joint tenants. The assured shorthold tenancy agreement commenced in November 2020. The starter tenancy is in place until May 2022. The resident’s partner suffers from mental health conditions.
  2. The sample tenancy agreement terms and conditions provided by the landlord states:
    1. ‘You must not keep any pet at the property without our written permission. We will not unreasonably withhold permission but may set out conditions. The permission can be varied or withdrawn at any time if your pet causes or presents a risk of causing a nuisance or injury (including to other animals), damages any property or is mistreated by you or anyone living with you or visiting you in accordance with our current Pet Policy’ (4.12).
    2. ‘You will not be allowed to keep pets (other than fish in a fish tank or a small caged animal) in a flat that does not have a door with direct access outside (examples of flats which do not meet these criteria are flats with communal entrances or high rise flats). Exemptions may be made for assistance animals (for example hearing dogs or guide dogs) but this will depend on all of the circumstances’ (4.16).
  3. The pet policy (June 2020) states:
    1. ‘In line with your tenancy agreement, tenants must request permission from us before buying or obtaining any type of pet’ (4.1.1).
    2. ‘Registered assistance animals do not require permission. However, tenants are still responsible for the behaviour and welfare of the animal, and they must give us the animal’s details’ (4.1.2).
    3. ‘If a tenant is found to be keeping a pet or pets without our permission, they must obtain permission from their housing officer. Where permission is refused, the tenant must re-home the pet within a time limit agreed with their housing officer. We will support the tenant by signposting to relevant agencies who can assist’ (4.1.3).
    4. Applications (for permission) will be considered on an individual basis and take into account factors such as the suitability of the property, the type, size and number of animals and availability of garden or proximity to other exercise and toileting area (4.1.5).
    5. Permission will not be granted for dogs or cats in flats or sheltered accommodation unless the property has its own door with direct access outside to the ground floor (4.3.4).
  4. Extraneous issues regarding the resident’s circumstances (ie ASB reports) are not within the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Ombudsman has considered if the landlord’s responded reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s request to keep a pet at the property.

Summary of events

  1. On 29 – 31 March 2021 the landlord established that the resident had a dog in the property and advised her that this was against the tenancy agreement.
    1. The resident had a small rescue dog ‘based on medical advice for managing autism, anxiety and depression’ (for her partner).
    2. The property was a first floor flat with no direct access to outside through the front door. It had a balcony. The front door only gave direct access to the communal area.
    3. The resident said that the housing officer said that it was fine, but the landlord considered that the resident had actually been advised that she would need to contact the relevant team to ask about permission for keeping the dog.
    4. The landlord said that it checked the original letting documents and it did not state that the resident had a dog and it contained restrictions about such pets.
  2. On 31 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and declined retrospective permission for the resident to have a dog. It cited the tenancy agreement terms, including the exemptions of pet restrictions (4.12 and 4.16, as set out in the background section of this report). It said that the resident accepted the property knowing that pets were not allowed and did not ask for permission to have the dog. It gave the resident until 30 April 2021 to rehome the dog and said that it would visit for a follow up appointment after this.
  3. The resident and landlord discussed the issue further along with wider ASB related concerns. The landlord said that the resident would have been advised before signing the tenancy agreement about the terms and she did not declare the need for a pet during the pre-tenancy checks, the only declaration was that the resident’s partner had autism.
  4. The resident was sent a breach of tenancy letter on 19 May 2021 which explained that the resident breached her tenancy (by having the dog) and the landlord would serve notice as a result. It also recommend that the resident sign a good neighbour agreement for other ASB related breaches. The resident said that she would appeal the permission decision (via the complaint process). The landlord advised that unless there was something that it had overlooked or that she had other information to provide (to show that it was an assistance dog) then it was unlikely to change its decision.
  5. In May 2021 the resident complained about the landlord’s decision.
    1. The resident explained that she was originally told that she would be able to keep the dog if it was ok with the housing officer.
    2. The dog helped her partner who was indoors all day and was a danger to himself if unsupported. The dog assisted in getting him to leave the property. The resident could not be home all of the time, so the dog really helped her partner on a day to day basis.
    3. She was concerned that her partner would make further attempts to take his own life as he could not deal with day to day situations unsupported. 
    4. The resident said that there were medical professionals willing to write letters to support the ownership of the dog for her partner’s medical conditions.
  6. On 27 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint.
    1. It acknowledged the resident’s concern that rehoming the dog would have an impact on her partner’s wellbeing and medical professionals were willing to write to support this. The landlord said that it emailed the resident to ask for supporting documentation and discussed the process over the telephone.
    2. No such support was provided to the landlord.
    3. In line with its policy, it would only make adjustments in the resident’s kind of property for assistance dogs.
    4. It explained the criteria: dogs registered with an appropriate organisation or charity, usually insured and have been trained for the sole purpose of assisting their owners.
    5. It said that the resident’s dog did not fit this criteria based on the information that she provided.
    6. There was no record of permission being granted before the tenancy, it would have provided the relevant details at the time and worked with the resident to assist with her partner’s wellbeing.
  7. On 9 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint after the dispute continued.
    1. The landlord cited the tenancy agreement signed in November 2020 and explained that this stated that the resident was not allowed to keep pets (other than a fish tank or small caged animal) in a flat which does not have a door with direct access outside.
    2. It said that the resident’s property did not meet the criteria and it was advertised as a ‘no pet’ property prior to the resident signing the tenancy.
    3. It detailed the landlord’s actions once it became aware of the pet. This included advising the resident to contact the landlord for clarification on whether retrospective permission could be given (it was not). Then it wrote to the resident on 31 March 2021 and set out the exemption under its policy regarding assistance dogs and how these were defined. It also said that the terms of the resident’s tenancy did not allow for a dog.
    4. A member of the tenancy enforcement team would be in touch to discuss an action plan.
    5. It offered its relevant support services to assist with resident wellbeing and asked the resident to let it know if she wanted to take this offer up.
  8. After the complaint process the landlord said that the resident had until 11 August 2021 to rehome the dog. It noted that it had offered the resident support through its community team and that there was a self referral to projects for people with mental health conditions. The landlord’s notes state that the resident’s partner was not interested in the support services and wanted to maintain their tenancy with the dog. The starter tenancy was extended until May 2022.
  9. The landlord and resident discussed the dog again; the resident wanted to keep the dog and the landlord explained that refusal to rehome the dog would bring the tenancy to an end. The landlord discussed engaging with the resident to find an alternative property, rather than legal action, and leaving the landlord’s property amicably so that they may return at a future date. The landlord explained that it would review the situation every 6 week to ensure that she was on track to finding alternative accommodation (August 2021).
  10. In September 2021 the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman and explained that the dog helps her partner with his mental health and she would like to be moved to a property that would allow her to keep a dog or to be able to keep the dog (and not get evicted for this). She stated that her partner has various health concerns (ADHD, anxiety and depression).

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request to keep a dog at the property because it relied on the terms of its relevant policy and the tenancy agreement terms in making its decision.
  2. It gave the resident information about the grounds that it was relying on, such as the lay out of the property (not having direct access to outside ground floor).
  3. The landlord also explained the circumstances in which it would make an adjustment for the mental health needs of residents, such as the criteria for an assistance dog.
  4. The resident did not provide evidence to the landlord in support of the medical health ground for the assistance dog or evidence to show that the dog satisfied the criteria for an assistance dog; she only referred to the willingness of medical professionals to write in support of this. However, there is no evidence that any such supporting information has been provided to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s response has not been unreasonable.
  5. The landlord’s response was evidently disappointing, but it explained to the resident the reason why it made its decision. It is unclear if the resident has since engaged further in seeking the appropriate medical evidence which she referenced in her communication or if she has taken steps to establish the dog as an assistance dog. The landlord may consider and respond accordingly if so.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by landlord’s response to the resident’s request to keep a dog in the property.

Reasons

  1. The resident was provided with the relevant details of the landlord’s terms which it relied on when making its decision. The resident was provided with the details of the exemptions to the rules, such as the criteria for the assistance dog. The resident did not send the landlord the medical evidence about the dog’s assistance with her partner’s wellbeing nor did she give the landlord details about how the dog met the relevant criteria to be an assistance dog.