Hi Lee. That's a good question. When the draft consultation came out regarding pets, I spoke to Jacquie Campbell about the flaws of the proposed pets policy. For example, it asked that prospective cat owners provide the CoL with full details of the cat before they decided if permission would be granted to keep the said cat. However, how can one actually have all those details unless they already have a cat! I suggested that a pet consultation group be set by residents to decide the policy for themselves. I was told this would be considered, but, to date, have heard nothing.
It is also very important that residents be made aware that every council housing borough surrounding us have implemented pet policies in line with recommendations and advice from leading animal charities, including an animal committee. They all support a policy that allows both dogs and cats, with, obviously advice on sensible administration of this. However, the CoL, although they claim to have followed this advice, have clearly failed to do so. This Estate has been home to many cats over the years anyway. Even one retired estate officer had one for about 20 years. I am still hoping that the pet group will be set up so that residents can decide for themselves what they want. So, considering the history, I don't think that worrying about being allowed a cat is an issue.
I also found it very interesting that Roman House, a former property of the CoL that was sold off to a builder to convert to individual flats, have allowed a pro dogs policy. I am wondering what the new policy for pets will be for the previous YMCA, when they are converted to luxury flats, having been sold off by the CoL again. It appears that every housing authority surrounding us have a friendly pets policy, yet the CoL claim they acted on such advice before 'implementing' theirs!
I appreciate the link, that outlines the proposed Pet Policy, which I read with both interest and alarm. This is deeply flawed. It states that they will allow assistance dogs for physically disabled people, but not for those with psychological issues, based on because dogs for physically disabled people are specifically trained, but those for psychological people are not. Obviously, a dog would need to be trained to deal with the individual disability of their prospective owner, but, as a dog expert pointed out to me once what are you supposed to train a dog to do for someone with a psychological illness? Their purpose is to comfort, and soothe their owner, something which comes naturally. Also, all dogs, whether they are specifically trained or not, are still dogs, and have the same needs, and behave in similar ways.
Today I contacted the Equality Commission, and they tell me this proposed policy would be seen as illegal. Clearly, it has not been thought out properly, and, sadly, shows a lot of ignorance. As I won a court order to be allowed my dog about 20 years ago, where does this leave me? Am afraid the COL cannot ignore the rights of people like myself, with our disabilities.
I also note it is claimed that residents supported a policy for 'indoor' cats! I don't think so. They voted to have cats, and many of the cats on the Estate have access to outdoors, and have done so for years. But, now the COL would like residents to 'grass' on residents whose cats are seen outside, by the use of cameras etc. What is going on????
This not a proposed policy, it was for decision and was fully approved.
Thank you for the information. With your permission, I will post it to my estate related website.
Well, if they have approved it then they could find themselves in a bit of bother. The Law is clear on discrimination concerning disabilities. And, no, I don't mind you posting it.
See last page. 2015-07-14 Pet Policy.pdf
I have read it all carefully. I think I need to follow the advice of the Equality Commission!
Ha. Ha! Next time I'm out with my Lulu, I shall claim she is invisible!
The estate office have kindly put this on display on all the bulletin boards, tells you how to look after your pet dog which you will be be evicted for having, you can pick a copy up at the estate office and stare at the photo, how kind of them. Some would say a sadistic act rubbing salt in the wound, some may not.