Skip to main content
MyOIA

Case Summaries

Back to Case Summaries

Accommodation - CS112605

Case summary November 2026 | Not Justified


An undergraduate student complained about their provider's refusal to allow an Emotional Support Animal (ESA) to live with them in provider owned accommodation. The student felt the decision not to allow their cat to stay was procedurally unfair, did not consider all evidence provided and amounted to disability discrimination. The student wanted the provider to consider the cat as an auxiliary aid and noted that the provider did already allow other ESAs.

The provider carried out a risk assessment of the accommodation the student was living in, which was at the top of a high-rise unit. The provider also considered whether the student and their cat could be accommodated in ground-floor accommodation elsewhere. It also considered risks, including:

  • Food storage
  • Fire safety
  • Damage to electrical cables and appliances
  • The size of the accommodation
  • Escape and emergency evacuation

The provider concluded that the risks to the cat, the student and other residents could not be sufficiently mitigated.

The student complained to us. We thought the provider had carefully considered the request and information provided by the student about the cat’s temperament. We considered it was reasonable for the provider to distinguish between assistance animals and ESAs, particularly as assistant dogs have specific legal status and the accommodation’s rules made provision for registered assistant animals. Specifically, dogs were likely to remain with their owners due to the nature of their role, but the cat would remain within the student’s room unattended when the student attended lectures.

We did not determine whether the cat amounted to an auxiliary aid or whether allowing it would have been a reasonable adjustment, but we were satisfied that the provider had demonstrated it had carefully conducted  risk assessments following the request and reasonably refused the request on health, safety and welfare grounds.

The complaint to us was therefore Not Justified.