Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202120807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120807

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

18 July 2023 (amended at review 16 October 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 resident complains about the landlord’s response to her request for an assistance dog;
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint;
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

4. The resident held a shared ownership lease with the landlord in a fourth-floor flat. The resident has restricted mobility, autism, and medical issues that affect her ability to process visual information.
5. On 2 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for permission to keep a dog in her flat. She said that it was her intention to train it to become an assistance dog. On 28 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged her request. The same day the resident completed a pet application form and submitted it to the landlord.
6. On 10 September 2021 the landlord refused her request. It said that no requests for pets were being approved, especially as she did not have access to external areas, and that there were currently a large number of unauthorised dogs on the estate that it was trying to tackle.
7. On 26 September 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, the complaint said:
   1. That her application had taken six weeks to process, and she had to chase the landlord for a response.
   2. That attempts to get an explanation for its refusal to keep an assistance dog in her flat had failed.
   3. That the landlord was acting contrary to the Equality Act for refusing permission without good reason.
   4. That she cannot go back on the charity waiting list without permission granted.
   5. The landlord advised that an assistance dog would be allowed before she purchased her flat.
   6. That the landlord’s actions had significantly disrupted her life.
   7. That as a resolution to her complaint, she wanted permission for the dog to be expedited and an explanation for the delays in processing her application.
8. On 2 November 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in receiving an outcome for her request to keep an assistance dog. It said that the officer who responded to her application was away, and it was difficult to understand why her request was declined. It said that it was unable to provide written permission for her to have an assistance dog in the future as its policy on assistance dogs may change. Further, the landlord advised it would be happy to look at this as a matter of urgency once it had received all the required documentation. It offered a total of £100 compensation, comprised of £50 for ‘service delay’ and £50 for time and trouble.
9. On 3 November 2021 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that her complaint was unresolved as permission for an assistance dog had not been granted. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered as it showed a lack of understanding of disability and its impact on her daily life. She explained that the landlord needed to provide written permission so that she could go back on the waiting list and that she had offered to provide the landlord with details about the dog and charity, but she had not been asked for them.
10. The landlord responded on 9 December 2021, requesting the resident provide it with the application forms she had sent to the landlord with her initial request.
11. On 18 December, the landlord apologised to the resident for the additional stress and discomfort’ this request would have caused her.
12. On 12 January 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It upheld the complaint. In summary, the response said:
    1. It was unable to confirm the reasons for the refusal.
    2. That it could not provide written permission for the resident to have an assistance dog in the future, but it would review her next application.
    3. In principle it agreed to allow her to have an assistance dog and that she would need to make a fresh application that would remain valid for 12 months.
    4. It accepted that the application process, the information provided, and its response timeframes were unclear.
    5. It would review its assistance dog policy and the information it provided on its processes.
    6. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience it may have caused and increased its offer of compensation to a total of £180, comprising of £70 for time and trouble, £60 for service delays, and £50 for poor complaint handling.
13. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She said that the landlord’s initial decision was incorrect, there were significant delays in the complaints process and there was no awareness of the impact on her life. She asked the landlord to compensate her for losses once she had obtained an assistance dog, which the landlord said it would consider.
14. On 18 January 2022 the resident submitted a new application for an assistance dog which the landlord approved a week later. In September 2022 the resident acquired an assistance dog and provided the landlord with a breakdown of her financial losses which she estimated was more than £36,000. The landlord responded stating that the compensation it had already offered in its final response was fair.
15. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that at her viewing (before purchasing the property) she was told that she would need to inform the landlord of her intention to get an assistance dog. She said she had taken a sabbatical from work to owner-train the dog, but instead, she had spent this time chasing the landlord for permission. She explained that the landlord had severely disrupted her plans and finances and that it had agreed to compensate her financial losses, but it had stuck with its original offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. Within her complaint to the landlord, the resident asserted that she felt discriminated against. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is better suited to a court to decide. However, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an assistance dog and the associated complaint

17. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right, and; 

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

18. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
19. The resident’s leasehold agreement states that ‘No bird dog or other animal shall be kept in the Premises or in the Building or on any balcony or terrace forming part of the Premises or of which the Leaseholder has use without the Landlord’s and the Superior landlord’s prior written consent.’
20. The landlord’s ‘pet ownership procedure’ states ‘Service/Assistance dogs, such as guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for deaf people, and dogs for disabled people, must be permitted by law.’ Residents must provide evidence of an accredited assistance dog.
21. Upon the resident requesting consent from the landlord, she received an auto-acknowledgment that a response would be provided within five working days. It took the landlord over three weeks to acknowledge the resident’s request. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response on two occasions. The delays were avoidable and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
22. Her initial email request and subsequent pet application form made it clear to the landlord that she intended to obtain an assistance dog. Over two weeks later the landlord responded to her application and refused permission on the grounds that she did not have access to an external area and that there were too many unauthorised dogs on the estate. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and contrary to its own pet ownership procedure which states that assistance dogs for disabled people must be permitted by law, and that it must collect all appropriate evidence and information before permission will be granted. The landlord’s response was brief and dismissive, and there was no evidence that it had considered the resident’s need for an assistance dog. The landlord failed to ask the resident for any supporting evidence and made no effort to obtain further information to support her request. This was a serious failure from the landlord that caused significant delays in granting permission to the resident.
23. It took the landlord over one month to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was contrary to its complaints policy which states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. The landlord’s records indicated that the delays were partly caused by it having to request another application form from the resident, as it had been unable to locate her original one. This would have caused further frustration to the resident.
24. Further, that the landlord was unable to account for the reasons for its initial refusal (giving the reason that the previous staff member had left the post) indicates record keeping failures on the landlord’s part.
25. This is further evidenced by the fact the landlord needed to request documents related to the resident’s initial application from  in its email to the resident of 9 December 2021. It is not acceptable for the landlord to fail to retain adequate records, particularly when they relate to services where the landlord has legal obligations it must uphold. There is also evidence to suggest this request caused you additional distress and discomfort, which the landlord apologised for in its email to the resident of 18 December 2021.
26. The resident also experienced a further two-month delay at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. This was contrary to its complaints policy which states that it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. These delays, again, were avoidable. This added to the considerable delay in the resident obtaining permission. Further, the landlord stated that it was unable to confirm the ‘reason for its refusal or the records behind it’. This was an unsatisfactory response. The landlord should have acknowledged that its initial decision was incorrect and apologised for the way it responded.
27. The Ombudsman notes that as part of her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she was told at her viewing that she would need to inform the landlord of her intention to get an assistance dog, however, this Service has seen no evidence to reconcile this. Having said that, taking into consideration the resident’s disabilities and the landlord’s own policy, it was reasonable for the resident to believe that the process of obtaining permission would have been straightforward. This was not the case.
28. It took the landlord over six months to grant permission. It would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failures caused delays to the resident obtaining an assistance dog. The dog was acquired over 12 months after her initial request. This would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
29. These delays were considerable, and the landlord failed to act in line with its policies. The landlord did not do enough to move the resident’s application forward within a reasonable timescale. This showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s disabilities and the impact this situation was having on her life. The landlord tried to ‘put things right’ for the resident by apologising for its failures, offering compensation, and identifying learning outcomes from the complaint, however, the Ombudsman considers that the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the adverse affect caused by the failings identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that compensation between £600 and £1000 should be considered where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident. In view of this, the landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below.
30. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident requested compensation for financial losses due to taking a sabbatical from work to train the dog. The landlord said it would consider a revised offer and subsequently rejected her request. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that this decision would have been disappointing to the resident, the landlord was not responsible for the resident’s decision to take a sabbatical before permission for an assistance dog was granted, therefore this Service has not considered any financial loss to the resident as part of any orders made.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
32. its response to the resident’s request for an assistance dog;
33. the associated complaint;
34. It’s record keeping.

Orders

35. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:
36. Pay the resident a total of £1000 in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident. This will be comprised of:
    1. £600 for its failings in its response to the resident’s request for an assistance dog;
    2. £200 for its failings in complaints handling;
37. £200 for its failings in record keeping.

This above award is inclusive of the £180 previously awarded by the landlord. If this amount has already been paid, it may deduct this sum from the total to be paid to the resident.

38. Review its policy and procedure for pets and service animals, and create a separate application for residents applying to keep service animals, so it is clear what type of application the resident is making.
    1. The landlord must also provide training to its staff to ensure they understand the different types of application, and how to assess each in light of the landlord’s procedures and legal obligations
39. Review its complaint handling procedures and identify any training needs.
40. Review its record keeping practices; particularly as they relate to pet/service animal applications and inform the Ombudsman of any issues identified and/or changes made.