Mentally ill woman faces eviction over dog
A woman facing eviction from her housing association flat because she keeps a dog risks becoming ‘severely depressed’ without him, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Dee Thomas-Ashley suffers from mental health problems, and says her dog Alfie, is essential to her recovery. But her landlord, Drum Housing Association, is threatening to evict her from her flat in Waterlooville, arguing dogs are banned from its properties.
Representing Ms Thomas-Ashley at the Court of Appeal, Joshua Dubin asked judges to overturn a ruling made by Southampton County Court, and rule that the housing association’s refusal to allow Alfie to stay in the flat was unlawful.
Ms Thomas-Ashley’s doctor had given evidence that Alfie was an essential part of her rehabilitation, and losing him could leave her in a severe depressive state.
In a witness statement, the tenant said: ‘Alfie is my reason to get up every morning.’
But Philip Glen, representing Drum, said the dog prohibition clause in the tenancy agreement had always been clear to Ms Thomas-Ashley, and that she had lived for a year in the flat without Alfie.
The chancellor of the High Court, Sir Andrew Morritt, Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Baker will make their rulings at a later date.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (69)
Peter | 22/02/2010 10:22 am
This case typifies the problem when people breach the terms and condition of their tenancy on the grounds of 'mental illness'. Is it acceptable legally?
There are issues for consideration; a) Did the tenant discuss this matter with the HA before getting a dog? b) Did a case conference take place with SS, the doctor and the HA that the dog will help in part towards the rehabilitation programme? c) If the dog was proposed by the doctor was she /he aware that people living in rented accommodation may have restriction on pet ownership and therefore irresponsible for such suggestion without proper consultation?d) What about the dog, does living with someone with mental health issues is a suitable home for the poor animal?
It will interesting what the Court of Appeal decision will be.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 22/02/2010 10:34 am
Drum Should be ashamed of themselves, people and dogs bond together, to do this to someone with mental health issues is cruel and thoughtless. Drum need to take a long hard look at themselves, Owner occupiers can keep whatever anomals the law permits ( i.e not Crocodiles) it is discrimination against tenants to take this action. Hopefully the Judges are true Englishmen and therefore animal lovers and refuse to uphold the eviction
Shame on You DRUM!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Bichard | 22/02/2010 10:36 am
The tenant knew when she signed the tenancy agreement that she wasn’t allowed to have a dog. If she wanted a dog due to her mental health issues she should have looked for alternative accommodation that would be suitable to keep a dog. If the decision is over turned and she is allowed to keep a dog in this property then this will open the flood gates to everyone else who wants to keep a dog. The excuse will be they have metal health issues. These types of properties are designated not to have dogs for a reason and surely we have a duty towards other residents to enforce the tenancy agreement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 22/02/2010 11:43 am
If the tenancy clearly stated 'no dogs', then the tenant is breaching the tenancy terms. However if the dog is accepted as vital for the tenant to fight or cope with mental illness - you can hardly blame someone for trying to keep her sanity. to avoid problems with other tenants, instead of eviction surely the Housing Association should help this tenant by transfering her to another property or to another landlord where she can keep the dog, assuming the dog is not a dangerous species. Where is the sense of evicting a mentally ill person who is only trying to cope with her mental condition?...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 22/02/2010 11:52 am
Mark - the point is that it isn't an owner occupier and the tenant knew she wasn't allowed a dog. I'm not saying this isn't a horrid case but the fact is that if you break the "rules" there are consequences.
Some HAs have bans on dogs for good reasons: ASB, fouling, unsuitable accomodation etc.
I hope a solution is found which works for all parties but this is a precidence that cant be set sadly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SIMON STOKES | 22/02/2010 12:06 pm
"""Mark | Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:34 GMT
Drum Should be ashamed of themselves, people and dogs bond together, to do this to someone with mental health issues is cruel and thoughtless. Drum need to take a long hard look at themselves, Owner occupiers can keep whatever anomals the law permits ( i.e not Crocodiles) it is discrimination against tenants to take this action. Hopefully the Judges are true Englishmen and therefore animal lovers and refuse to uphold the eviction.
Shame on You DRUM!!!"""
What a rediculous posting, all tenants know exactly what they are signing up for and if they dont like it then dont sign and go somewhere else. It is not discrimination nor should the landlord feel shamed, they are just upholding the legally binding tenancy agreement that applies to all their tenants equally. If she has these issues, then as the previous poster says, firstly is she capable of owning a dog and secondly, if it would help, she could move somewhere where they are allowed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 22/02/2010 12:18 pm
If you sign a tenancy and it says 'No Dogs' thats it. No excuse.
If she wants to keep the dog she will have to find a property where one it is allowed.
Simple.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Franklyn | 22/02/2010 12:49 pm
This is an example of how many organisations have no understanding of mental health issues and the effect it has on the suffereres life, their friends and family.
Many housing associations are unable to cope with physical disabilities let alone mental health issues, just what do the local authority have to say on this issue as they also have a responsibility.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eian Mantle | 22/02/2010 1:34 pm
So, here we have a vulnerable young woman with a dog. How big is the dog? Any anti-social behaviour from the offending animal? Did it deposit a little momento of it’s walkies on the neighbours doorstep? I note the robust and firm comments of those housing officers who have had a less than happy encounter with our canine companions as they deliver their notice’s or demand the rent, perhaps they are just cat people. Where does this fit in with the Disability Discrimination Act? Would they act in such a way for someone who developed a visual or aural impairment? Also, so far how much of their income have they spent on this possession case? Are the tenants as a whole getting any real value for money form their landlords? Perhaps this little doggie will be spared by the involvement of the TSA, let’s see if that dog has any teeth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sancho | 22/02/2010 1:52 pm
The problem with this story is that none of us know what's really going. Google can tell me that the dog is a collie-jack russell cross, that the lady in question originally took it in because her daughter was getting rid of it and that she never used to have a dog.
What we can't know, however, is how severe her mental illness is, whether the dog actually helps, under what circumstances it's kept and what steps Drum took to try and resolve the issue before trying to evict the tenant. Without that information, I think it's very hard for anyone to judge what's right and what's wrong.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment