Rehoming to homeowners only.

[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.
I am still in rented accomodation and have been all my adult life and I'm now almost 57 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.

[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.
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by alexgirl73

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/rehom...lprocedure.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]

Originally Posted by MrsFigg

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).