Cross Keys Homes Limited (202535394)

Background

1. The resident suffers from chronic pain and has mobility and mental health issues which the landlord is aware of. During preparations for a kitchen replacement with adaptations in 2025, the contractor raised concerns about completing the work whilst the resident used medically prescribed cannabis.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement and reasonable adjustments.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s kitchen replacement and reasonable adjustments.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord offered reasonable adjustments to accommodate the resident’s use of cannabis for medical purposes. It acted appropriately in asking the resident not to smoke cannabis whilst its contractors were carrying out the kitchen replacement.
6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

7. The resident has referred to how the living conditions impacted his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience and whether it adequately considered the household vulnerabilities.
8. The resident has raised complaint issues which we do not have evidence of exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised complaints about door closers, handrails, a boiler leak, mould in the bathroom, a hole in the light fitting or access for a gas check.
9. We have seen correspondence about these issues but no indication that they have completed the complaints process. The resident has also indicated he would like us to investigate concerns around the landlord giving permission for the local authority to complete the kitchen replacement. This is a materially different issue to the one which completed the landlord’s complaint process, and we will only be able to investigate events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these matters.
10. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can consider if a landlord considered its duties under the Equality Act and followed its own related policies and procedures. The resident felt it was treating him unfairly because of his disability and prescribed medication. He was not satisfied with the reasonable adjustments offered.

Assessment

11. The tenancy agreement says residents must not use controlled drugs in their home or in the locality of their home. It also confirms anyone working for the landlord has the right to work in a smoke free environment and if residents do not refrain from smoking it has the right to terminate the appointment. Its aids and adaptations policy offers reasonable adjustments like time preferences, clear paths and empathetic interactions. Its reasonable adjustments policy says it will consider how practical it is for it to make the reasonable adjustment requested. Its no access and refusal of works policy says that, where residents can’t stay in the property for medical reasons whilst it completes work, it will discuss a temporary move.
12. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, use and possession of cannabis 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.
13. It is illegal to consume smokable forms of cannabis even under this medical legalisation. Guidance from the Cannabis Industry Council (CIC) indicates that cannabis administered via vaporisation differs from smoking as it does not involve combustion and produces fewer harmful by-products. Studies cited by the CIC suggest second-hand exposure from vaporisation is below detectable levels. The guidance also supports that reasonable adjustments may include permitting prescribed cannabis use within the home when used safely.
14. In August 2025 the contractor raised concerns about the resident smoking cannabis in the property during the planned kitchen refurbishment and adaptation. The landlord agreed to pause the start date until it had agreed an approach with the resident. It confirmed to the resident it was postponing the kitchen renewal due to the contractor’s concerns which included smoking in the property. It asked to visit and discuss this. This was a reasonable approach and in line with its aids and adaptations policy and duty of care to its contractor.
15. The landlord emailed the resident in September 2025 after visiting. It confirmed that the resident had offered to smoke out of the living room window and keep the door shut but could not agree to smoke cannabis at set times as his use was pain driven and not predictable. It explained the contractor had a zero tolerance on drug use and smoking in the property where its operatives were working. It asked the resident to consider ‘working windows’ for the contractor so he could smoke at set times in the flat. This was an empathetic approach to recognise the resident’s use for pain relief.
16. After the resident complained in October 2025, the landlord pursued further options with the contractor and asked to confirm what their policies included and any suggestions from similar situations they may have encountered before. This was reasonable and resolution focussed. The contractor confirmed they would not, under any condition, send operatives into a residence where they had knowledge of drug use, especially given the side effects of passive smoking. They said they were considering prescribed cannabis use and reviewing their policies. It was appropriate for the landlord to await a further update from the contractor whilst they reviewed this.
17. In the landlord’s October 2025 stage 1 response, it offered to allow the resident to smoke cannabis outside or arrange a temporary move when a suitable property became available. This was an appropriate consideration of practical reasonable adjustments. This would have adhered to the contractor’s zero tolerance policy and allowed the resident to have legal use of his medication through vaping.
18. In October 2025 the resident raised concerns that he would not be able to use his medication for 10 days whilst it replaced the kitchen. The landlord confirmed it had asked him to refrain from using his medication in the property whilst the contractors were there but agreed he could use it in the property at other times. This was a reasonable adjustment in line with the CIC’s guidance. The resident advised a suggested temporary move to a property a mile away was unsuitable due to the location and other reasons which he did not specify. The resident said he did not want to talk to the landlord or the contractor about the kitchen replacement.
19. In November 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 response and made the same offer of reasonable adjustments as its stage 1. There had been no further update from the contractor about a review of its policies, and this was a reasonable offer without any new information.
20. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its legal and policy obligations, balancing its duties to the resident and contractor. It relied on tenancy terms requiring a smoke‑free environment and appropriately concluded it could not permit the resident to smoke cannabis. It also took an empathetic approach by pausing works, engaging with the resident, and offering reasonable adjustments. It appropriately considered the contractor’s zero‑tolerance stance as part of its duty of care, and its proposed adjustments were fair and proportionate. The resident’s decision not to engage further limited its resolution options.

21. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
22. The landlord sent its complaint responses in line with these timeframes. It was reasonable for the landlord to send a stage 2 response after the resident had said he did not want to speak to it any further about the kitchen as he had already escalated the complaint. Its responses were in line with our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord demonstrated good practice in knowledge and information management. It showed a clear audit trail of its actions and communications, which supported transparency and continuity throughout the case. By actively seeking clarification where needed, it ensured its decisions were evidence‑based and appropriately balanced in a complex situation.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication in this case was positive and reflects good practice. It maintained clear and timely contact with the resident and demonstrated empathy in its tone and approach. Importantly, it offered to visit the resident to discuss concerns directly, which showed a willingness to understand the situation in detail and work collaboratively toward a solution.