We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202419776)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419776

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

27 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:
    1. The resident’s housing application and in particular, the withdrawal of a property offer that the resident believes was due to his request to grow and use cannabis for medicinal use, along with his request for adaptations.

Background

  1. The resident is a housing applicant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association and operates its own allocations policy as well as participating in the local authority’s allocations scheme which is a choice-based lettings scheme. The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that the property was advertised through the choice-based lettings scheme. The landlord’s review of the resident’s eligibility was through its allocations policy.
  2. According to the resident’s housing application the landlord was aware that he has fibromyalgia, low mood, and anxiety when he applied for the property in February 2024.
  3. On 15 April 2024, the resident was shortlisted for a semi-detached property. The landlord requested further information including medical information and received GP letters for the resident dated 24 April 2023, 14 November 2023 and 8 March 2024. The letters explained that the resident used cannabis for personal use that he grew at home to treat his fibromyalgia. The GP stated that the resident would require an accessible shower or wet room. This was due to the difficulty the resident would have in getting in and out of the bath which was described as painful and potentially dangerous.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 April 2024 to advise that it was not going to proceed with his application for the property. It said that this was due to the resident requiring a property that did not expose him to noise impact from others, and that could be adapted to meet his needs. It said that the property was in a busy high-density scheme, and the property would allow noise transference. It noted that the resident said that he uses cannabis for medical purposes and this involved growing the plants within his home and that it would be unable to give permission for this activity.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 April 2024. He said that his use of cannabis had been authorised since 2009 by the police, social workers, and his GP. He disputed that the property was in a busy location. He said he had not requested the adaptations but was only querying whether they would be allowed. He felt that the landlord had victimised him against the Equality Act 2010. He said he could use his mother’s house to grow the cannabis and that his use of cannabis would not disturb his neighbours as he did not smoke it but turned it to oil and put drops under his tongue.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 15 May 2024. It said:
    1. It had spoken to the resident on 3 occasions between 8 to 13 May 2024 to discuss the complaint.
    2. It had to abide by the allocations policy based on housing need. It provided reasons for its decision to not proceed with the housing application as it felt it did not meet the resident’s needs for a property in a remote area, ideally detached, with a level access shower and to allow the resident to grow cannabis for personal use.
    3. It had since received a further GP letter on 2 May 2024 that said that the resident no longer required a level access shower as an essential requirement. It had received a new housing application from the resident on 10 May 2024.
    4. It needed to match an applicant to a property that suited their needs and explained that it would be unable to adapt the property to install a level access shower due to the property being a 2-bedroom upstairs/downstairs family property.
    5. It had correctly declined the resident based on medical evidence and the concern regarding illegal activity. Due to the additional time taken to clarify its position, the landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 19 May 2024.
  8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 June 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that the property could not be allocated to the resident under its allocations policy. This related to the standards of behaviour required under a tenancy agreement. It said it could not knowingly allow unlawful activity to take place in its property. The resident had not supplied a Home Office licence that authorised his use of cannabis. It said that it could not grant permission for sound proofing or the installation of a level access shower. It said that the decision made was correct. It offered to help the resident to update his application requirements to reflect his statement that he would not grow cannabis in the property.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, and he referred his complaint to us on 20 August 2024. As a remedy, the resident wants the landlord to update its policies and procedures to not exclude applicants who use cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. The resident advised us that he felt that the landlord had discriminated against him due to his disability and on religious grounds under the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – the courts can only do this. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
  2. The resident described to us the need for the political landscape to change regarding the use of cannabis for medical purposes citing the cost of legitimate medical prescriptions. The Ombudsman would be unable to consider the politics of how medicinal cannabis prescriptions are supplied to individuals and the merits of this would be outside of our remit.
  3. The landlord has confirmed to us that it uses the local authority choice-based lettings scheme to shortlist applicants for its properties. Once an applicant is shortlisted from the scheme, it uses its own allocations policy to assess an applicant’s eligibility. The Ombudsman would not be able to consider the operation of a choice-based lettings scheme under the local authority’s allocations’ policy. This would fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has therefore focussed this investigation on the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s eligibility through its own policy.
  4. The period considered for this investigation is from April 2024 to the landlord’s final complaint response of 25 June 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application and in particular, the withdrawal of a property offer that the resident believes was due to his request to grow and use cannabis for medicinal use, along with his request for adaptations

  1. According to the landlord’s internal email of 23 April 2024, the resident had been shortlisted for the property on 15 April 2024. The landlord completed some pre-tenancy checks on 17 April 2024 when it asked for some additional information from the resident. The resident provided GP letters that described the resident’s personal use of cannabis for medicinal purposes that would require ventilation within the property, so this did not impact on his neighbours. It also said the resident needed a level access shower and ideally a detached property due to outbursts that could affect neighbours previously leading to complaints which had been verified in the landlord’s checks.
  2. In the landlord’s internal email of 23 April 2024, it stated it had concerns regarding the suitability of the property for the resident. It said it had not confirmed that it could allow cannabis plants to be grown and used within their property. The landlord said that the resident was also querying soundproofing due to previous issues with neighbours that was a cause for concern. It confirmed it had received information from the resident’s former landlord. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 25 April 2024 to explain that it did not feel that the property offered would meet the resident’s specific needs and would be unable to proceed with his application.
  3. The resident explained to us that he felt that the landlord had not fully understood his use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, even though he advised that his use of this was for a medical condition. He told us that the landlord did not give him enough opportunity to discuss his use of cannabis and his particular needs before it made its decision. In his email to the landlord of 29 April 2024, he said he felt victimised under the Equality Act 2010. He also said he would be willing to not grow the cannabis at the property as he could do this at his mother’s address so that this would not impact the property.
  4. The landlord’s further internal email of 29 April 2024 said that the landlord would be unable to allow drugs to be grown in its properties and that residents within a small scheme would not welcome a strong smell of cannabis. It would therefore ‘skip’ the resident’s application, and its records indicate that it left a voicemail for the resident. The landlord’s records do not detail whether the voicemail was to explain its decision indicating that its record keeping could be improved upon.
  5. According to the landlord’s allocations policy, an applicant can be non-qualifying if they or a member of their household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour, serious enough to make them unsuitable as a resident. This includes antisocial behaviour, criminal behaviour and committing criminal offences in or near the home. It will consider vulnerability or support needs that may explain the behaviour. It will do pre-tenancy assessments to ensure that a property is suitable based on “eligibility, fairness, affordability and tenancy sustainability”.
  6. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord did not fully follow its policy to consider vulnerability or support needs that may have helped to explain the resident’s behaviour before making its decision to refuse the resident’s housing application for the property. It would have been fair for the landlord to discuss its concerns with the resident first to ensure it understood the resident’s specific circumstances and whether he would be suitable as a tenant. This was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord has told us that it sought legal advice during the internal complaints process regarding the laws on the production of cannabis. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek advice about this so that it had a better understanding of what was legal or illegal. The landlord may benefit from additional training for its staff so that they understand this and we have recommended some staff training on this issue. The Cannabis Industry Council has recently produced guidance on the use of prescription cannabis in buildings for tenants and landlords (August 2024) that the landlord may wish to consider.
  8. The resident said in his complaint that he felt the landlord was victimising him under the Equality Act 2010. He said that he would agree not to grow the cannabis in the property. He said that he did not smoke the cannabis but turned it into oil and put drops under his tongue. No evidence has been seen that the resident had a proper prescription to use medicinal cannabis. He provided GP letters that explained that he used cannabis to treat his fibromyalgia, however this was not a medical prescription to legally use cannabis. Using illegal drugs in his home and in the vicinity of his home would be a breach of his tenancy agreement if he was a tenant of the landlord. The landlord had therefore used this as part of the reason not to proceed with an offer of accommodation. This was the landlord’s decision to make in line with its allocations policy.
  9. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the smoking, use, possession and “dealing” (buying or selling) in cannabis (specifically THC) is unlawful in the UK except for prescribed medical use. This exception is enacted by the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2015 which were amended by the Misuse of Drugs (Amendments) (Cannabis and Licence Fees) (England, Wales, and Scotland) Regulations 2018, to apply to cannabis on 1 November 2018.
  10. To use medical cannabis in England, it must be prescribed by a doctor listed on a Specialist Register, a list of select NHS doctors maintained by the General Medical Council. It only applied to certain products. It is illegal to consume smokable forms of cannabis even under this limited medical legalisation. However, the resident advised us that he does not smoke the cannabis and felt that the landlord misunderstood this. He also said that the Police, GP, and local authority had authorised his use of cannabis from 2009.
  11. A “CanCard” is a card issued by a non-statutory organisation. The CanCard website states the card is:
    1. A “medical ID” card, “recognised by the police”.
    2. An “indication to any third-party that (the holder is) consuming cannabis for medical reasons”.
    3. Does not mean that the card holder is “legal”.
  12. The CanCard hopes to be a means to ask the police and Crown Prosecution Service to apply discretion when considering what action to take about reports of using cannabis. Unlike a prescription issued by a registered specialist doctor, the CanCard does not have any legal force and does not render the use of cannabis legal. The resident also told the landlord on 8 May 2024 that he was in the process of obtaining a CanCard. He advised us that he had one previously and supplied this but would be obtaining a new one once he had moved to a new property in case of any issues arising through his use of cannabis.
  13. Regarding the resident’s requested adaptations for sound proofing and a level access shower supported by the GP letters, the landlord advised the resident that it would be unable to approve these measures. Its explanation was that the property was a 2-bedroom family house that would not be suitable for such adaptations. It said that its allocations policy is to provide accommodation that best suits a resident’s needs such as a property that was already adapted. It said in its final complaint response of 25 June 2024 that according to the advert for the property, no adaptations were permitted within the first 12 months in line with its aids and adaptations policy. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why this was the case for that specific property.
  14. According to the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy the landlord says it is committed to meeting its residents’ needs and will seek to balance the adequacy of the accommodation in relation to an individual. It will consider the nature of the particular property as its asset. It says that work such as a level access shower would be directed to the local authority for a Disabled Facility Grant with a potential contribution from the landlord. The policy does not say that there can be no adaptations within the first 12 months of a tenancy.
  15. The landlord could have given a clearer explanation of why this was not allowed in its complaint response and missed the opportunity to do this. Where a resident requests a Disabled Facility Grant in a landlord’s property, an occupational therapist normally makes a referral to a local housing authority under its housing assistance policy. It would be up to a landlord to grant permission whether an adaptation could be permitted in its own property.
  16. The Equality Act 2010 requires landlords to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people. What is reasonable depends on things like cost, practicality, and the landlord’s resources. The landlord should check any reasonable adjustments required by the resident in its communication. The evidence shows that the landlord phoned the resident on several occasions to discuss his complaint issues. During its stage 1 complaint investigation, as referenced in its response, it said it had learnt a lot from these phone calls with the resident, and it said it would share this learning with its team which was reasonable. The landlord recognised that it had taken time to clarify the resident’s position following his stage 1 complaint in its response of 15 May 2024, and it offered £50 compensation to the resident. It also apologised for this which was reasonable. It was unfortunate though that this happened after the landlord ‘skipped’ the resident’s application for the property which will have likely caused the resident worry and distress. It needed to clarify the resident’s position at the earlier point after he was shortlisted for the property, so it had all the relevant facts to make its decision.
  17. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord can award discretionary compensation where it takes an unreasonable time to resolve a situation. There are no minimum or maximum compensation levels, so the landlord was reasonable in exercising its discretion to apologise and award some compensation to reflect the additional time taken to clarify the resident’s position.
  18. The landlord offered to contact the resident to support him in updating his housing application in its final complaint response of 25 June 2024. It is not clear whether this has happened or not. The landlord’s internal emails of 16 July 2024 requested that it should contact the resident to see if his application was up to date as per its stage 2 complaint response of 25 June 2024. If it has not done so already, we have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to update his application to reflect the resident’s needs.
  19. From the evidence provided, the landlord generally acted in line with its allocations policy. It would be unable to condone or authorise the growth and use of illegal drugs in its property. It was therefore entitled to make its decision to not proceed with an offer of tenancy for the property. However, it would have been fair for the landlord to speak with the resident before making its decision to skip his application for the property and it did not do this which was inappropriate. The landlord recognised that it took time to clarify the resident’s complaint and his position by apologising and offering £50 compensation.
  20. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and compensation offer is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there has been service failure found. The Ombudsman therefore considers there to be reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application and in particular, the withdrawal of a property offer that the resident believes was due to his request to grow and use cannabis for medicinal use, along with his request for adaptations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application and in particular, the withdrawal of a property offer that the resident believes was due to his request to grow and use cannabis for medicinal use, along with his request for adaptations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident, if it has not already done so, as stated its final complaint response to check that his housing application is up-to-date and that it reflects the resident’s needs.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord in contacting the resident about his housing application, checks whether he requires any reasonable adjustments in how it communicates with him.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord organises staff training, particularly in relation to the use of drugs and what is legal and illegal in relation to the use of medicinal cannabis.