I am in the process of doing that. But when I contacted the housing association and asked them if i were able to get the dog accredited would he be offered the property again; they told me "they would not be able to keep the property open for him".
There policy read we will accept assitance dogs, with supporting evidence.
He has supporting evidence from mental health source and his doctor.
If indirect discrimination "a practice, polcy or rule which applies to everyone in the same way, but it has a worse effect on some people than others and puts that person at a particular disadvantaged".
Could it be argued 'my son for mental health reasons is unable to move without his dog. And that the accreditation that they seek puts him at a disadvantage as it is cost prohibitive.
Thank you for your time