Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202400437)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400437

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

26 August 2025


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 handling of the resident’s request for a cat flap in his door.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 21 June 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a ground floor flat.
  2. Following a request from the resident to install a cat flap in his front door, the landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2024 to explain that it had refused permission and set out its reasoning.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s refusal on 7 February 2024 saying that he was happy to pay for the installation himself and that buying cat litter cost a fortune. He contacted the landlord again on 9 February 2024 in which he said he was paying £21.90 a month for cat litter. He offered to pay to have the door put back if he ever moved out.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 February 2024. It confirmed that while it had reviewed the original request, its decision to refuse permission still stood. It said the cat flap would adversely affect the energy rating of the property and that there would be a cost to the landlord as it would have to replace the door when the property became vacant.
  5. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 20 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2024. It reiterated the points it had previously made. With regards to the resident’s assertion that he would pay to have the door replaced if he moved out, the landlord said it had a responsibility under fire safety regulations to ensure all doors met the necessary standards.
  6. In referring the complaint to us in the first instance, the resident said he wanted the landlord to agree to install the cat flap. The resident has informed us that he now has a cat flap and wants the landlord to agree for him to keep it.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident sent his request to make an alteration to his front door by installing a cat flap, the landlord appropriately considered it in line with its Tenant’s Own Improvement and Alterations policy.
  2. It responded on 5 February 2024 and explained the grounds upon which it would refuse permission to install a cat flap. This included where the request would mean an alteration to a fire door, any front door, a composite, or PVC door or where a flap would involve cutting through the brickwork or structure of the property. It was helpful of the landlord to set this out to the resident to help explain how it had come to its decision.
  3. The landlord helpfully explained the reasons why it would refuse and then explained to the resident that based on those reasons it would be unable to allow the request. The landlord acted in line with its policy and provided a sufficient explanation to the resident.
  4. Furthermore, it explained that it had a duty when considering such requests to consider the health and safety of its resident’s. It helpfully explained that installing the cat flap would adversely affect the energy efficiency of the property. While this would have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord was entitled to consider the long term impact of installing the cat flap on the energy efficiency of the property.
  5. It also helpfully explained that by installing the cat flap it would allow draughts into the property. It also explained the loss in heat retention could lead to an increase in condensation and therefore cause issues with damp and mould. The landlord’s policy on resident’s own alterations sets out that it would not unreasonably withhold permission for an alteration but that it had an obligation to maintain its assets. Given that it believed the alteration may contribute to damp and mould and therefore have a detrimental impact on the property, it was reasonable of it to refuse permission.
  6. The landlord reiterated its reasoning in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to the resident. It further explained to the resident that it would also need to consider the cost of replacing the door should the resident end the tenancy. The landlord does not have finite resources, and it was therefore reasonable of it to refuse the request partly based on the future cost implications.
  7. The resident, in his stage 2 escalation request, said he would be willing to pay for a new door and to keep the old door in storage until he moved out of the property. The landlord said it could not allow this. It appropriately linked its reasoning to its responsibilities under the Fire Safety (England) Regulations and provided a sufficient explanation to the resident.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord’s policy in relation to resident’s own improvements and alterations set out that it had an obligation to meet all statutory and regulatory requirements. It was therefore reasonable of it to refuse permission on the grounds that it would no longer be able to meet those requirements if the door had a cat flap.
  9. In his complaint the resident said the reason he wanted the cat flap was due to the cost of the cat litter. Whilst we understand this will have been a concern for the resident, the landlord has clearly explained in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses why their health and safety duties prevented them from authorising the fitting of a cat flap.
  10. Overall, in refusing the resident’s request the landlord acted in line with the terms of its improvement and alterations policy, and it communicated its reasoning to the resident clearly throughout.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a cat flap.