Rehoming to homeowners only.

[MrsFigg]

How do Catsey members feel about rescues who have a policy of not rehoming to people who do not own their own homes?

I totally understand that all potential homes should be vetted and that if the would be adopters are tenents they should be able to provide evidence of their council/landlords permission to keep pets but I think that ruling out adoption to people who live in rented accomodation is very unfair and may mean that needy cats and kittens miss out on excellent homes.

Not everyone who rents is out of work, irresponsible or has an unstable home life. We choose to rent as we do not want the worry of having a huge mortgage.
In the current climate there aren't many of us who can say what out lives will bring one year or ten years down the line but at least I do not need to worry about us losing our jobs and having our home reposessed, needing to find new homes for our pets, something I know I would be scared of if we were buying our home.

I believe people who rent have as much right to share their lives with companion animals as any homeowner and should not be discriminated against by rescue charities if they fulfill the other criteria for adopting an animal.

I'd like to add that I am not posting this because of something that has happened to me personally, rather that the thought that people in my situation may be prevented from enjoying pet ownership upsets me.

[angieh]

I totally agree with you MrsFigg. It seems an unnecessary restriction, if, as you say, there is evidence that the landlord allows tenants to keep pets - however, in this area it seems that many landlords do not allow it.

[MrsFigg]

I realize that some private landlords do not allow pets but most councils do, many positively encourage responsible pet ownership, hold fun dog shows, do low cost neutering schemes etc.

I think that more and more people are going to choose to rent in the future and they should be allowed pets and not be made to feel like second class citizens.

[Elaine]

I think many rescues have some rediculous policies and that each potential home should be judged on it's own merits.

[dandysmom]

I totally agree too, MrsFigg! If the people and the accommodations pass the home inspection test and pet ownership is OKd by the landlord, then it it is out-and--out arrant discrimination! My parents chose to rent our home, if that had been in effect I could not have had my childhood cat nor my first cat as an adult. I own my home so it's not a problem, or I should say won't be, when Leia passes and I go to the shelter for another companion.

If the people really want to provide a loving home and are refused by the shelter they will probably get a kitten from a back yard breeder ,,,not good, as it encourages indiscriminate breeding! End of rant!!

[calismum]

Seems pretty discriminatory to me. Judge the peoples ability to care for life not their tennancy status.

[Kim]

Seems pretty discriminatory to me. Judge the peoples ability to care for life not their tennancy status.

Absolutely agree - as long as te landlord is okay with the tenant keeping pets.

[Kay]

As with most things I believe each case should be taken individually. Obviously there has to be some guidelines but they should be just guidelines and not cast iron rules set in stone.

[MrsFigg]

As with most things I believe each case should be taken individually. Obviously there has to be some guidelines but they should be just guidelines and not cast iron rules set in stone.

I agree, judge each potential home on it's merits. The rescue in question though states on it's website ' if you are not a homeowner do not waste our time and yours by applying for a cat'.

[alexgirl73]

To be perfectly honest, I had no idea any rescue DID this !!! Strikes me as very bizarre.

[MrsFigg]

I didn't realize either, it shocked me that's why I started the debate to discover if it was me that was out of touch. The policy of this rescue was brought to my attention as they have a prominent piece in Your Cat magazine this month.

[FayRose]

They certainly used to. I was turned down for this reason some 17 years ago. :mad:
I am still in rented accomodation and have been all my adult life and I'm now almost 57 :oops: I have always worked and never claimed any benefit other than child allowance that was paid as a matter of course back in those days.
Even though I assured the rescue I was allowed animals and could supply a letter from my landlord, they quite happily stated the reason they declined people who rented was because they could be 'unstable' and move around a lot, NOT because they were concerned about a landlords permission. :shock:

[MrsFigg]

That'll be why we've rented the same house for the past 9 years and my Grandparents rented the same house for over 50 years.:roll:
I remember when we did move that the cats were no trouble at all, settled right in, moving the aquaria and making sure the garden was secure for the dogs was much more of a concern.

[pcspik]

I think that it is unfair. A lot of people (particularly inner city workers) cannot afford a mortgage or house prices in their area are too high for them to afford a decent house in a decent area, especially if they are on minimum wage. For some people, they would rather rent and be able to afford an animal than buy an property and not have an animal. Besides, owning a house has it's responsibilities - for example if the boiler goes then it is the owner's responsibility to replace it rather than the council (and boilers cost a lot).

Also people who have been convicted of animal abuse have been home owners: having a home does not always equal a good owner. If you do say home owners only, then you alienate a lot of people who due to various circumstances who cannot have their own home. That means consequently fewer people available to adopt an animal, and fewer animals overall being adopted.

I do think that all charities (whether national or independent) should ask for a landlords letter (unless they are a council tenant) to ensure that they are allowed a pet on the premises, otherwise it causes lots of problems, both from the prospective owner's point of view and the charities (as in having more returned animals).

For me, if for example the Cats Protection banned renters (btw I have no inkling that they are doing that, just using them as an example), then I would personally probably pick something from a less discerning charity (and therefore less scrupulous in terms of caring where their animals went) or from the local newspaper, where a cat/kitten was offered. Been as I volunteer for my local branch, I would rather much prefer to adopt from there, particularly as I want an FIV positive kitty, which are harder to rehome anyway. My income is not enough to afford a mortgage (well the only other area I can afford is an extremely rough one, which has high crime rates and they shoot cats for fun. One of my cats came from there originally, and she was in a shocking state and come from a multi cat household. Only if I could afford 24 hr security would I live there), so I forsee myself being where I am (I live in a rented flat) for a long time. I am happy with that, and I care for my cats properly (several of my neighbours have commented on how well my female looks as she is the only one that sits on the windowsill), so why should I be denied because of some ill thought out policy?

[MrsFigg]

Thank you pcspik.

[pcspik]

I realize that some private landlords do not allow pets but most councils do, many positively encourage responsible pet ownership, hold fun dog shows, do low cost neutering schemes etc.

I think that more and more people are going to choose to rent in the future and they should be allowed pets and not be made to feel like second class citizens.

Our local council has a partnership with the Dogs Trust where any council tenant or anyone on a low income can get their dogs neutered and microchipped for £30. Unfortunately they dont do anything with cats though..

In many EU countries Germany for example, it is rare to own a house and tons of people rent. With house prices set to rise in the future a lot of people are going to be alienated due to cost, and they have no choice but to rent. More and more (though there are problems in some areas) private landlords are letting you have a reasonable number of pets, so banning them is going to make rescues who already struggle to get enough people to adopt an animal, life a lot worse.

[dandysmom]

Not much of a "debate"as obviously we all seem to think it's a ridiculous policy!

[pcspik]

To be perfectly honest, I had no idea any rescue DID this !!! Strikes me as very bizarre.

I have seen in the past, in the magazine Your Cats, features about independent rescues, and some of them have said that they home to people that are home owners only. I have not seen from the major charities (Cats Protection, Battersea, RSPCA, SSPCA, Blue Cross) evidence of them denying a potential owner because of their rental status. The only time they would liable to deny someone is if they (the renter) could not get hold of a landlord's letter, particularly in a reasonable time frame.

I have found this link:-

http://www.haws-animals.org.uk/rehome/procedure/allprocedure.htm

I quote from the above link

Note that so many cats have been relinquished back to us, because of issues with people moving within privately rented accommodation and landlords refusing pets, that we have had to review our guidelines. Because we do not want any animal coming back to us in the future (when the owner may have to move to other rented accommodation where no pets are allowed, or the landlord imposes new rules), we are unable to permanently rehome into privately rented or housing association accommodation.

Which is the kind of situation we are talking about. They do say that provided you have permission etc they may allow you to foster which smacks of hypocrisy to me. (They do say if you think you are an exceptional case then contact them.)

[MrsFigg]

I'm sure that a cat would rather have 3,4 or however many years in a happy, home situation and then if all else fails be rehomed than be stuck in a rescue cattery for it's whole life.

What happens if someone who is buying their house loses their job and their home, they then are in a situation of having to rent. These days nobody knows what the future holds for them. Homes should be judged on their merits and on a reasonable estimation of the forseeable future of the living situation.

[pcspik]

What happens if someone who is buying their house loses their job and their home, they then are in a situation of having to rent. These days nobody knows what the future holds for them. Homes should be judged on their merits and on a reasonable estimation of the forseeable future of the living situation.

Exactly, and that is what has happened over the past 18 months. Our branch of the Cats Protection (and I expect it is the same with other branches too) has had cats returned from us because of that reason, a lot of factories have closed down in our area or laid a lot of people off, and people have lost their homes. They've either had to go into council homeless accommodation (which don't accept pets) temporarily or found an private rented home with a landlord that doesn't accept pets. Which means that unfortunately the cat has to come into us [the Cats Protection] to be found a nice new homes. The majority of them (but not all) have been (former) home owners, and not people in rented accommodation.

I agree that there is some irresponsible idiotic owners who take diddely squat notice of any advice that the charity gives and dont think about the future who are in rented accommodation (and I have found that they are usually young people i.e. 25 and under - though not always), but to tar every single person who is rented accommodation with the same brush is just plain irresponsibility on the charities half, and are alienating automatically a fair sector of people. In the end, potential adopters will move onto other charities in their area or get a cat out of the newspaper, instead of helping a charity out, when in reality it is the charities fault due to their inept policies.

All I can say is thankfully it is seems to a minor number of independent charities, and not the bigger ones. From my research on google, most independent charities do seem to be adopting out to rented accomodation (and they are stipulating on their website that when people come to visit to bring the letter from their landlord to say that they are allowed a cat).

[cats' staff]

As a cat owner (well as far as anyone owns cats) and renter this drives me mad. We moved 7 years ago and yes, it took ages to find a place with landlords who allowed cats but that was simply the main criteria in the search. I'm a responsible cat owner and that is my choice so my choice of home, rented or not, has to encompass their needs- if I move they WILL come along as I won't move until they can!

House prices around Cambridge are just funny

[pcspik]

As a cat owner (well as far as anyone owns cats) and renter this drives me mad. We moved 7 years ago and yes, it took ages to find a place with landlords who allowed cats but that was simply the main criteria in the search.

One of our workers at the Cats Protection moved recently and she said that quite a few of the local estate agents would allow her to keep her cats (there was one agent who would never consider it) and she actually saw 6 properties before having the one she moved into. Before I moved into my current flat I was offered another house which did allow pets (which I did not like because it was in an area which I did not want to live in, which is extremely rough). Fortunately this flat was in the area I wanted to live in (five mins on foot from where I used to live) so that is the reason why. The worker said that if people do look around and not take the first property offered then yes, you can have pets. Of course some agents wanted her to pay an extra £100 just in case her cats caused damage. However I do appreciate that some of it was due to the fact that it was for the fact she worked at Cats Protection that influenced many agents, and also just because it is true in this area, it may not be true for other areas of the country. It also harder if you are claiming Housing Benefit (which a lot of people who have pets and lost their job are finding themselves in) and have pets, as a lot of estate agents dont have a lot of properties which allow Housing Benefit tenants, and therefore there are fewer even still which allow pets. But it is not impossible, and like I said on a previous post, estate agents/private landlords are now opening up more and more to people having pets.

[Gladys]

I didn't realise that any animal resuce organisations took the only prospective animal owners should be home owners either.

From their perspective, they're trying to do their best for animals without a voice. I see that. However, they dismiss such a massive amount of animal lovers with their policy, that is to the animals detriment.

I live in a ground floor Council flat. This in no way hurts my cat.

I have a duty to feed her and give her a place to feel safe in. Oh, I know cats like to live in a clean environment (my cat does). She also needs to know she's loved.

Whether I lived in my own home, or a Council property, my duty to my cat would be the same.

Maybe the solution to this issue is to point out a cat's needs to the rescue organisation's policy makers.

[dandysmom]

Good point, Gladys; but would those with inflexible rules listen?

[Misspurrfect]

I can only add my agreement to others. Why does owning your own home mean you would be a better cat owner! I agree that evidence may have to be provided that the landlord was happy, but other than that what's the difference (assuming that the other sensible criteria is met).

[Brigoose]

I guess if it would help if you could prove each animal you have owned in the past, how long for etc I guess a vet card could prove the basics.

Surely if somebody has kept all their animals through thick and thin they wouldnt suddendly dump one.

The pattern I have seen of people being irresponsible is generally couples who are after the 'package' got the dog, car,lets get a cat, kids etc
The type who must have an internal list of their perfect life, when something goes wrong though the animals suffer.

I have known people have no interest what so ever in any animal, then they get with somebody and are trying to create a home and animals get dragged into the scene as part of the backdrop.

obviously not everyone just my own experience

I think if you are irresponsible with one animal, you shouldnt be allowed to own again

[Brigoose]

I can only add my agreement to others. Why does owning your own home mean you would be a better cat owner! I agree that evidence may have to be provided that the landlord was happy, but other than that what's the difference (assuming that the other sensible criteria is met).

Maybe they are thinking of the types who live in rented and get moved around all the time, as obviously wouldnt be fair on the animals.

But other than that I also dont see the difference, I mean homeowners can sell every couple of years also. I guess there thinking is also they are most likely to pay vets bills and not be waiting until paychecks come in etc

[dandysmom]

The senior retirement complex I moved into recently is rental; I wouldn't have even considered a place that didn't allow pets. I had to pay a $100.00 pet deposit which I didn't mind at all.