Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202123680)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123680

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

22 August 2022


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 request for the resident to rehouse her pet cat.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and the property is a top floor flat. She acquired a pet cat during the covid pandemic. Her tenancy agreement states that tenants in her circumstances (i.e. sharing a communal front door) cannot keep dogs or cats.
  2. According to the landlord’s stage one response, it asked the resident to re-house her cat on 12 July 2021, within twenty-one days of the notice. On 2 August 2021 the resident appealed the landlord’s decision. She provided several reasons, including that she bought the cat to aid her mental health during a period of loneliness and isolation.
  3. Over the following weeks there was further correspondence between the resident and landlord, leading to a complaint by the resident in November 2021. She raised a wide range of reasons why the landlord’s refusal to allow her to keep the cat was unreasonable. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her request, its blanket approach to pets (which she explained was contrary to the “new model tenancy” wherein landlords are required to have more flexible pet policies), and said that other tenants of the landlord also had pets in their homes. She also explained how the cat remained inside and caused no noise or nuisance.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 1 December 2021. It acknowledged that there had been several delays in addressing the resident’s request, and that it had not notified her sooner of there being no process of appeal for a breach of tenancy (which is what it believed keeping the cat to be). The landlord offered £75 compensation for its shortcomings. Also, due to the matter being a breach of tenancy, the resident was still required to rehouse her cat.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome as she stated, amongst other things, that the landlord did not address all of her points, which included the reference to the model tenancy and her knowledge of other tenants keeping pets.
  6. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 22 December 2021. It declined to escalate the resident’s complaint because the solution she sought (keeping the cat) was tenancy breach matter, and could not be provided. It explained that the ‘model tenancy’ changes related to private rented properties, not social landlords. It explained that if the resident was aware of other tenants who were keeping pets, she should provide details and action would be taken. The £75 compensation offer still remained for the resident.
  7. Upon referring her complaint to this Service, the resident’s outstanding issue was that the landlord denied permission for her to keep her cat, and she did not consider this fair as other neighbours have pets. She also queried whether the landlord should have responded to a Freedom of Information query she had raised with it.

Assessment and findings

  1. Queries or complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data or responses to requests for information are the responsibility of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO are the more appropriate organisation to consider and resolve such issues. Because of that they will not be included in this investigation. Contact details for the ICO can be found on the internet.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that “you must not keep in or at your home: dogs or cats in flats or premises with shared entrances”.
  3. The landlord’s request for the resident to rehouse her cat was reasonable, as her tenancy agreement states she cannot keep one. Nothing in the tenancy indicates that the landlord has discretion to waive the restriction in the resident’s circumstances, regardless of the reasons for having the cat, or its nature and behaviour. If the resident wished to dispute the terms of her tenancy she would need to seek legal advice and consider legal action, as such contracts and agreements would normally be disputed in a court, where legally binding decisions can be made.
  4. The model tenancy agreement the resident referred to in her complaint to the L would not affect the landlord or resident, as it is only for private landlords. Its guidance specifically states it should not be used for social housing. The landlord appropriately addressed this in its final response, making clear why it was not relevant.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s explanation that other resident’s kept pets by explaining that it would “take action” with those residents as well, if it had the relevant information. Its response was appropriate and reasonable, because it showed that the landlord would act impartially in respect of any tenants acting contrary to their tenancy obligations. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement lists circumstances where pets can be kept, so tenants with pets are not automatically in breach of the tenancy, depending on their particular situation.
  6. The resident’s grounds for wanting a pet are wholly understandable, and her frustration at having to give it up is clear. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates there is any option for her to have a cat in her current circumstances, and so the landlord’s decision was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.