Profile incomplete
9:46 AM, 16th October 2020, About 4 years ago 20
Text Size
A new Parliamentary Private Members’ Bill sponsored by Andrew Rosindell, Conservative MP for Romford, would seek to give tenants who own a dog or other domestic animal the right to have it live in their rented home, provided they demonstrated responsibility and care for the animal. This is effectively seeking to ban no pet clauses.
The official summary states the Bill is to ‘establish rights to keep dogs and other animals in domestic accommodation, to make provision about the protection of the welfare of dogs and other domestic animals and for connected purposes.’ Click here
The first reading in Parliament was on the 14th of October and the second is due 29th January 2021
Andrew Rosindell opened the debate saying:
“A home is where special moments are created—living with a family, friends or companions. Moving into a new home is a normal part of life, but what if every time you move you face the threat of being separated from someone you love? Can a house or a flat ever be a home if you are forced to abandon a family member just to move in?
“You, Mr Speaker—an animal-loving Speaker—will know better than anyone that animals truly are members of one’s family. Having owned two Staffordshire Bull Terriers—Spike and Buster—I know how close the bonds between dog and owner can be and how devastating it is to lose them.
“Dogs are more than man’s best friend: they are equal members of the family. For most people, being separated from their dog is no different from being separated from their brother or sister. Sadly, pet owners who move into rented accommodation face the reality that their family could be torn apart because most landlords in Britain have unnecessary bans or restrictions on pet ownership. For those who depend on the companionship of their dog and need their loving friend to be with them—especially those who live alone—such restrictions are nothing less than discrimination, cruel to animal and owner alike.
“My Bill would end that discrimination, giving people who own a dog or other domestic animal the right to have it live in their rented home, provided the owner demonstrated responsibility and care for the animal.
“My Bill will henceforth be known as Jasmine’s law, after a Weimaraner who is owned by the Adams family in Surrey. Jasmine lives with Maria, but her son Jordan Adams would dearly love to accommodate Jasmine at his home apartment—if only for a few days or when his mother goes on holiday. Owing to restrictions imposed on tenants, Jordan is one of the millions of people across the UK who is prevented from having his beloved pet to stay with him.
“Many pet owners are, like Jordan, devastated to find that moving out of the family home means being separated from an animal who is such an important part of their lives. The no-pet clause on rented accommodation means that someone cannot have a dog over for even a short period for fear of recriminations or even losing their home. Instead of a dog staying with a familiar person, often they must be placed in a kennel, which can be a deeply stressful and unhappy experience for the dog.
“Such discrimination must now end. Some people who move to a new home are able to find somewhere for the animal to live, with trusted friends or family, but others are tragically forced to abandon their pets altogether, unable to find anywhere to live where the pet will be accepted. Sadly, these no-pet rules are cited by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home as the second biggest factor behind people giving up their dogs, with 200 dogs a year being handed in for rehoming simply because of landlord restrictions.
“These rules have the cruellest impact on the homeless, with many relying on companion animals for support and affection while living on the street. Too often, when they are offered housing by local authorities or housing associations, this comes with a no-pet clause. If they turn down an offer of accommodation, they are told that they are making themselves intentionally homeless and refused further housing assistance. Take the tragic case of John Chadwick, a homeless man who ended his own life after the only housing option his local council provided was one that meant separation from his pets. It is surely time to end these no-pets clauses that have caused so much pain and heartache for so many people.
“Of course, many landlords have legitimate concerns, which I do not want to dismiss lightly. It is true that irresponsibly owned pets can be a cause of damage, misery and suffering to the animals themselves, to the neighbours and to those who manage and own properties. We must therefore ensure that landlords’ concerns are met and that pet owners pass the test of responsible ownership by obtaining a certificate from a vet before moving in, confirming that they have a healthy, well-behaved animal and are considered to be a responsible owner. For a dog, a responsible ownership checklist would include being vaccinated and microchipped and being responsive to basic training commands, with appropriate rules applying, of course, to other animals.”
I hope that landlords, local authorities and housing associations listening to this debate today will consider overhauling their current policies in favour of one along the lines laid out in the Bill, and consider more fairly the rights of millions of responsible owners across the land. Particularly at a time when so many people are isolated, being able to own a dog can be vital to a person’s wellbeing and, of course, to their mental health. If tenants can prove that they are responsible owners and that their pets are well behaved and appropriate for the accommodation, there is no reason to deny them the right to live together with their animal companion.
Microchipping is also a key element of my Bill, which will stipulate that all cats and dogs kept in rented accommodation must be microchipped. It will also be mandatory for vets to scan animals brought into their surgery, ensuring that they are with their rightful owners. This will have the added advantage of helping to find both lost and stolen dogs. I commend the amazing work of Debbie Matthews and the group that she founded, Vets Get Scanning, which has campaigned for this for over a decade and was championed by her late father, the great Sir Bruce Forsyth. Part of the approval process for a pet to be moved into accommodation would be to have their microchip scanned by a vet to ensure that they were registered on a national database.
It cannot be right that so many pet owners in this country face the harsh reality that finding a place to live might mean permanent separation from the animal they love so much. Surely, as we take back control of our laws, now is the time to ensure that this nation of animal lovers remains a world leader in animal welfare. If France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland can outlaw blanket restrictions on pets in rented accommodation, why can we not do the same here in the United Kingdom? The Government’s intention to remove no-pet clauses from their model tenancy agreement is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Jasmine’s law will replace the outdated and unfair no-pet clauses that many private and social landlords impose, setting out an alternative, streamlined system that will mean peace of mind for landlords, tenants and, of course, the animals themselves. At its core, my Bill represents the values of personal responsibility, individual rights and animal welfare, and today I seek to enshrine in law these important freedoms applicable to all responsible pet owners throughout the nation. I commend Jasmine’s law and this Bill to the House.
Previous Article
EPC clearly wrong so can Assessor be made to change it once issued?Next Article
British Ex-Pat Bank Accounts to be CLOSED
terry sullivan
13:52 PM, 17th October 2020, About 4 years ago
another pretend conservative? i wonder if he is still claiming £400 a month for food?
HardworkingLandlord
16:27 PM, 18th October 2020, About 4 years ago
I've found pets can leave behind fleas, dander and other things that can trigger allergies with following new tenants. There does not seem to be a comprehensve post tenancy pet cleaning service either - you have to hope that carpet cleaning does the trick.
Heather G.
17:04 PM, 22nd October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by James D at 16/10/2020 - 14:49
Hi James, did you write a letter and if so, would you be willing to share it here so we can use it as a base for our own letter(s)? Have you sent it to Jenrick et al too?
Some other thoughts in addition to those already given:
- 200 dogs rehomed pa but according to the Mirror in 2016 2,000 children were hospitalised having been savaged by dogs. According to the Telegraph, more than 200,000 people a year are estimated to be bitten by dogs in England. PDSA reports there are 10.9m pet cats, 9.9m pet dogs and 900K pet rabbits in the UK.
- How would a vet know if the animal is well behaved and the owner responsible? Would they have to produce a certificate of some kind and how much would that cost, how long would it be valid and would they need a new one each time they move (another stealth tenant tax)?
- What about new pet owners? How can anyone certify they are responsible or that the pet is well behaved?
- How would this give "peace of mind" to landlords?
- Regardless of how well behaved a pet is, when it gets old, it gets incontinent.
- What happens if every tenant wanted to have a cat/dog - a HMO could end up with 5, 10 or more animals in one house (think of the fights!)
- Will there be any limit on the number of pets each tenant is allowed to have in the property?
- France, Belgium, Germany & Switzerland have outlawed blanket ban, not brought into the RIGHT for a tenant to have a pet.
-The 5 week deposit means that if a tenant doesn't pay the last month's rent we only have 1 week's rent to repair the property and that certainly wouldn't cover the cost of replacing the carpets. (Not sure about the situation with zero deposit schemes).
- With the proposed S21 revocation, how would we effectively remove a tenant with a dangerous/poorly behaved animal and keep the other tenants and neighbours safe?
- What about tenants with allergies and respiratory issues - don't they have rights?
-And then there's the issue of neighbours. Who wants to live beside a veritable kennel?
- What about someone who wants to bring their pet tarantula and another tenant is an arachnophobe? Or a reptile?
- Who is responsible if the tenant disappears and leaves the animal in the property?
- What if a neighbour complains that a dog is left locked in the house for 12 hours a day barking its head off - what recourse would a landlord have?
- Can we insist on pet insurance in case of damage or is this excluded by the Tenant Fees Ban?
- And then there's biting, chewing, barking, snarling, fleas & ticks, scratches, hair (and hair balls), smell, more wear & tear.
I have a no-pets clause as standard but have given permission for both a dog and a cat in one property.
Landlords are not callous but we have a very expensive asset which we need to protect and our options to do this seem to be shrinking at an ever-increasing rate.
James D
15:23 PM, 23rd October 2020, About 4 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Heather G. at 22/10/2020 - 17:04
Hi Heather G.
I have yet to write the letter for a couple of reasons.
1. I wrote to Battersea dogs home and was waiting for a response ( see below)
2. I have contacted RSPCA and await their feedback, and
3. I was waiting to see what response we could get from Property118, just like yours.
With that I mean about getting some fact to add to “weighty” letter. So thanks for your contributions which I will add in it. And yes happy to e mail or post here for others.
Battersea dogs home Report is very comprehensive and ( naturally) biased towards pets. This evening when you go to bed, you may wish to start and see how far you get. Closer inspection would reveal some areas that are dubious .
It leans heavily on the London’s issues with dogs not nationally.
It leans heavily on London Social Housing Crisis, with some notes on national housing crisis. PRS assists ( you would think gratefully) to the governments housing crisis , but that doesn’t mean private landlords HAVE to have their right not to allow dogs taken away from them, because of the national or local housing ( or social) housing crisis.
Many LA don’t have or collect data so theres a vast amount their which could paint a very different picture.
It found that complications from housing is the second largest reason people quoted why they were gifting their pets to BDG. Doesn't say what is eh first and what is the difference in figures between to two largest factors
Only 21% LA ban dogs in flats, and 64% HA ban dogs in flats. There s a good chunk of landlords that that would permit them. NRLA say 55% don’t allow dogs. There s a good reason why , which we all know about.
The 2017 Pet Food Manufacturing Association (PFMA) report shows that 10% of those giving up their dogs had done so because landlords didn’t allow pets. No data on the other 90% so that 10% is very low.
A recent survey ( doesn’t say by whom) of tenants in the private sector found that 20% kept a dog and/or a cat, but a further 44% might have kept a pet had the tenancy agreement permitted them to do so. If there was no speed limits on the motorway, I might drive at 100 mph, (but I probably wouldn’t). Does that mean we have to change the law?
Micro chipping may be provided free by Wandsworth council, but not necessarily every council.
A blanket ban on keeping any pet was considered by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in 2005 to be an unfair contract term in tenancy agreements, and therefore unenforceable. A fairer approach was to require tenants to ask permission to keep a pet, and to not withhold consent unreasonably.
No LA has a blanket ban on pets. If it aint broke, don’t ( spend money) on fixing it.
In any case, both landlord and tenant MUST agree, to have a pet, not just one.
Landlords have enough ( continuing ) legislation, imposed upon them ( e.g the forthcoming Electricity Inspections) and have enough powers taken away from them .
Thanks
Reply from BDG
Dear Mr Drew,
My name is Scott Fryer, I am the Senior Policy Officer at Battersea.
Thank you for your interest in our work.
Mr Rosindell was quoting information from our Pet Friendly Properties report (http://www.bdch.org.uk/files/Pet-Friendly-Properties-Report.pdf). From analysing our intake data, we found that complications from housing is the second largest reason people quoted why they were gifting their pets to us.
As you will see from our report to date our research on pet friendly housing has focused primarily on the socially rented sector.
If you have any questions about our report or pet friendly policies, I would be happy to discuss these further.
Kind regards,
Scott Fryer
James D
9:35 AM, 22nd November 2020, About 3 years ago
Just thought I'd update all who are still interested. I got another reply from Battersea Dogs home. The top reason (25%) why dogs are given up is that the owner themselves are not capable of looking after them. According to their report they looked after 3000 dogs in 2019. If my maths is correct , that's 750 due to fault of the owner , whereas the 200 given up because of landlords equates to just 6.6% of the total.
I think Mr Rossedendale is looking in the wrong place and should be concentrating on the other 93%
Letter will be in construction shortly. Any contributions new or old , will be greatly received.
James D
19:29 PM, 2nd December 2020, About 3 years ago
......and i did get a reply. However, despite two letters from me, and two from my MP, im still waiting for Robert Jenerick ref 12 month rental arrears, 6 month eviction notice and JR on Buckland telling baliffs not to carry out writs on the eviction. This is what Andrew Rosindell said :
Dear James
Thank you very much for contacting me regarding my bill on pets in rented accommodation.
I appreciate the concerns that many landlords have about pets, which I have tried to address in the bill.
While I of course could only mention a few statistics in my (time-limited) speech, I can assure you that I have undertaken significantly more research than just the report by the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home while drafting this bill.
I reached out to a very large number of organisations on both sides of the arguments, including the NRLA who you mentioned in your letter.
Whatever the figures, this is clearly an issue that affects a significant number of pet owners, and I believe that any percentage of pet owners, whether it be 10% as you cited from the PFMA or higher as Battersea have stated, the figure is too high. No one should be forced to give up their pets because of having to change accommodation.
I agree with you that any new bills must not overly advantage one side, and I am not seeking to make an “anti-landlord” bill. I know that landlords such as yourself are not all wealthy, and that many have faced significant hardship during the pandemic.
I respect and value the hard work and contributions that landlords make, and I am therefore trying to develop a fair system that does not side with either tenants or landlords, but works for everyone. I am sure you understand that not every eventuality can be covered and everyone satisfied, but I do think that the current system is too heavily tilted against pet owners, and I am trying to shift that towards a more fair balance.
I understand your concerns and that you have personally had a bad experience with tenants keeping pets. Once the bill is published, it will not put forward an unconditional right to keep a pet, but requires various checks to ensure that pet owners are responsible and that pets are well-trained and suitable for the type of accommodation.
In regards to John Chadwick, I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable with me mentioning his sad story in my speech. I discussed the speech and my comments extensively with his close friend Dee, who has run a campaign on his behalf to allow pets into rented properties, and I believe that they were entirely respectful and accurate.
In terms of vet assessments, I do appreciate your point that vets cannot certify pet owners as responsible. Rather, vet assessments would be part of a process to check that a pet is healthy and well looked after, and not making a judgement on a pet owner’s character.
However, I do believe that we must put an end to these unconditional “no pet” clauses which have caused such pain and heartache to so many people.
With every good wish.
HardworkingLandlord
0:38 AM, 3rd December 2020, About 3 years ago
Reply to the comment left by James D at 02/12/2020 - 19:29
Thanks - carefully worded response but no comment on allergies or health impact on the next tenant?
James D
21:20 PM, 28th January 2021, About 3 years ago
Jenrick and Pincher are very proud today:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-standard-tenancy-agreement-to-help-renters-with-well-behaved-pets
James Noble
22:01 PM, 28th January 2021, About 3 years ago
My first reaction is to groan. But then I remember that my daughter has just bought a dog, despite knowing my views on keeping any sort of pet. My son is seriously considering buying a dog. But they own their own homes. My eldest granddaughter has just bought a dog, and her landlord happily gave her permission to keep a small pet. Maybe it's me that's out of step with everyone else? Perhaps I should embrace this new development as an opportunity to increase the popularity of renting? Maybe the Government knows what they are doing? Time will tell. James
Mick Roberts
8:49 AM, 29th January 2021, About 3 years ago
Reply to the comment left by James D at 28/01/2021 - 21:20They haven't got a clue:
To ensure landlords are protected, tenants will continue to have a legal duty to repair or cover the cost of any damage to the property
And if the tenants hasn't got the money to replace the £1000 stairs the dog has just chewed?
Ooh and we now have to use the Govt's tenancy do we? Shall we ask them how much the rent should be too.