Bolton at Home Limited (202211538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211538

Bolton at Home Limited

5 February 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 permit the resident to keep a pet dog in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a block of flats, with a shared communal entrance. The resident lives on an upper floor of the property. The resident’s tenancy began in November 2021.
3. On 4 July 2022, the resident submitted a ‘permission for pets’ form to the landlord, for a dog which she had been approved to adopt by an agency. She requested that permission be granted urgently due to the dog not coping well in the kennel environment it was in at that time. On the same day, the landlord responded to the request and refused permission. It stated that its policy was that it did not allow dogs in flats that are situated above the first floor.
4. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision as the tenancy agreement did not state that she was not allowed a pet, and upon signing she was not informed of the rule. In addition, she stated that the ‘Pet Guide’ on the landlord’s website did not state that tenants above the first floor could not have a pet dog. She asked the landlord to reconsider, and offered to pay a deposit for the property.
5. The landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint on 4 July 2022. The resident later added that she was frustrated, as if she had been informed of the landlord’s rule about no pets being permitted on upper floor properties, she would not have signed for the property initially. She believed she had been misled, and lied to. The resident also contacted her local MP about the complaint, as she had bonded with the dog and believed that the landlord had not carefully considered the request. On 6 July 2022, the resident expressed further dissatisfaction to the landlord, as she had seen an advert for a second-floor property which did allow pets. She later added that the pet policy on the website did not state pets were not allowed in properties above the first floor. She believed that the landlord was blaming her, instead of accepting responsibility for what had happened.
6. In the landlord’s final response on 26 August 2022, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It informed the resident that despite the pet policy, the tenancy agreement stated that permission was needed for any pets. In addition, it added that its decision was in line with its 2015 pet policy guidance. It explained that the resident should have sought permission before acquiring the pet. However, it acknowledged it could have been clearer about its rules on pets during the sign up for the property, and stated it would ensure it provides clearer information in the future. In view of this, it removed the 12 months no bidding rule as a gesture of goodwill, so that the resident could try to find a more suitable property. It also explained that the advert for the second-floor property was an administrative error, but that any prospective tenants would be informed that dogs would not be permitted.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 26 August 2022. She believed that the landlord was withholding permission unfairly, and was dissatisfied with its reasoning. She appreciated that the 12-month bidding ban was removed, but stated that due to their lack of housing needs they were not a priority on the list. In addition, she had not been successful when looking for a mutual exchange. She acknowledged that she had said no to having a pet initially, but that this did not meet she never wanted a pet and it was very important to them.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that tenants require written permission for a pet if living in a flat or maisonette, especially if the property does not have access to a private garden. The landlord’s ‘Pets Permission in Communal Blocks Guidance (2013)’ states that pets are allowed in properties that are on the ground or first floor. The landlord’s ‘Pet and Animal Guidance (2015)’ states that dogs and cats are only allowed to be in ground or first floor flats. The ‘Pet Guide’ available on the landlord’s website states that resident’s need to complete a permission request form for many types of pets, including dogs.
9. In this case, the resident submitted a permission request on 4 July 2022, for a dog which she had already been approved to adopt. The evidence shows that the landlord acted appropriately by considering the resident’s request, before declining it based on its policies.
10. This Service acknowledges that the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, as she had bonded with the dog and was committed to meeting its needs. However, the landlord acted appropriately by considering the request in line with its policies. It also acted appropriately by providing the resident with its reasoning for declining the request, the property being on an upper floor, when its policy states that dogs would only be permitted on first or ground floor properties.
11. In addition, the landlord stated that pets on an upper floor would not have access to the outdoor areas as easily, and it was concerned about the cleanliness of communal areas due to this. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide more thorough reasoning for its decision, and whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident was committed to maintaining the dog’s needs, the landlord would not have been obligated to make an exception under these circumstances. The resident stated that dogs on lower floors in the property have also been causing noise nuisance, and have been allowed access to communal areas. Whilst it would be appropriate for the landlord to investigate this separately, it does not mean that the landlord was obliged to alter its decision in this case.
12. It is noted that the resident disputed where the policy stated this, as she had not been able to locate this information in the pet guide provided on the landlord’s website. However, from the evidence provided, it appears that there was a miscommunication between both parties, as the ‘Pet Guide’ available on the website, is different to the landlord’s ‘Pet and Animal Guidance (2015)’ which is the policy it was quoting. I may be helpful for the landlord to consider adding clarity to the ‘Pet Guide’ available on its website, by including information about dogs not being permitted in properties which are above the first floor.
13. The resident did not have a pet when signing up for the property and the landlord has acknowledged that it did not explain its policies relating to pets at that time. It recognised that it could have been clearer about its rules on pets at sign up, and has shown some learning from this, stating it will be clearer with future tenants.
14. Furthermore, it recognised that this had impacted the resident and in view of this, it removed the ‘12 month no bidding’ rule as a gesture of goodwill, so that the resident was able to bid for alternative properties, which did allow pets. This is evidence of the landlord trying to be fair to the resident, and minimise the impact of the situation, whilst following its obligations and policies.
15. The landlord also acted reasonably by providing the resident with information on the process of mutual exchange. Again, this evidences the landlord trying to provide the resident with alternative options in order to assist her in finding a property which would better suit her wishes to have a pet.
16. However, the resident has stated that she believes that the landlord should rehouse her into a property where a dog would be permitted. Whilst the Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, it is not within this service’s remit to order a landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
17. In summary, the landlord had considered the resident’s request in line with its relevant policies and procedures and it had provided the resident with reasoning which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable. In addition, the landlord made exceptions so that the resident was able to bid on new properties, and appropriately provided her with information on mutual exchanges. In view of this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this case. Although it is recommended that it considers including its rule about no pets being permitted above the first floor within its ‘Pet Guide’ on its website.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to permit the resident to keep a pet dog in the property.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord amends its online ‘Pet Guide’, so that its position on no dogs being permitted in properties above the first floor is included.
20. It is recommended that the landlord provides information about its pet policies to all prospective tenants during the signing up process, regardless of whether they have a pet at that current time or not.
21. It is also recommended that the landlord communicate with the resident about her concerns of noise nuisance and disturbance from dogs in properties on lower floors in the buildings, and raise a separate complaint about this if appropriate.