The current pet maintenance policy in public housing in Hong Kong was introduced in 2003 by the Department of Housing after the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The goal is to improve the cleanliness of public housing. Under the policy, general housing tenants are allowed to keep small pets such as cats and birds but are not allowed to keep dogs in their place except under special circumstances, subject to approval provided by the Housing Authority. The policy has led to debates and calls for amendments.
Video Pet policy in public housing estates in Hong Kong
​​â € <â €
The origin of the pet restriction
Lease agreements signed between housing authorities and renters of public rental housing (PRH) and temporary housing establish that tenants can not keep animals, birds or livestock in their places without prior consent. The Department of Housing, which is responsible for receiving and attending complaints from tenants, adopts a tolerant approach to the maintenance of small animals that generally do not bring hygiene and environmental harm to other tenants. The department also allows the storage of dogs for persons with visual and audio disabilities. However, the Department enforces the rules only after receiving complaints.
Evolution Policy Timeline
May 2003: SARS outbreak and proposed marking scheme
After the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong in 2003, on May 5, 2003, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa later established "Clean Team" to maintain high environmental and environmental hygiene in Hong Kong. Responding to the epidemic and recommendations of the Clean Team, the Housing Department took a number of initiatives to improve the cleanliness of public housing. The Labeling Scheme for Tenancy Enforcement in Public Rental and Interim Housing Estates is one of 18 steps proposed by the Housing Department. Under the system, the offenses to be discussed are divided into three categories. According to Appendix A of the meeting memorandum, "storing animals, birds or livestock in leased premises" is classified in Category B, which would result in a 5-point allotment for the offense. The Department recommends implementing the proposed Marking Scheme on July 1, 2003.
May 29, 2003: Approval of the tagging scheme
In a Housing Housing Committee meeting on May 29, 2003, the proposed marking scheme was approved.
August 1, 2003 - October 31, 2003: Grace period
Following the endorsement of the Marking Scheme, a number of animal-care groups and dog lovers demanded the abolition of penalties related to the raising of animals in public rental housing. Hong Kong Concern Group for Pets (CGP) and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) are sound examples opposing the policy. The groups expressed their concern over the abandonment and death of animals kept by renters of current public rental housing and the possible increased risk of disease outbreaks such as rabies. They made three requests to the government, including a) the eradication of the wrong goods on "raising animals, birds and livestock" from the Marking Scheme; b) allowing dogfathers to be kept by tenants in PRH in the short term; and c) the final abolition of clauses restricting animal storage in PRH from lease agreements.
Due to the extraordinary public awareness of the issue, the Housing Department initially allowed a two-month grace period (August 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003) for enforcement of animal care under the Marking Scheme. However, upon ratification, members of the Subsidized Housing Committee decided that a new policy on animal husbandry would take effect from 1 Nov 2003. The grace period is therefore extended for one month until October 31, 2003. During the grace period, there will be no enforcement of the Marking Scheme on animal maintenance.
Sep 25, 2003: Relax with the ban
After receiving complaints against the prohibitions of various animal rights groups, the Subsidized Housing Committee decided to loosen the scope of animals affected by the ban, and to adopt a more flexible approach to households that keep dogs at the time.
From 23 to 28 August 2003, the Housing Authority conducted a public opinion survey with 4,004 PRH residents of 606,600 households using a telephone interview. 43.7% of respondents mentioned "dirty public areas" as their main reason for pets stored in PRH flats. Based on the result, the Subsidized Housing Committee decided to allow the maintenance of service dogs, small domestic pets and castrated cats as they did not apply sanitary hazards and disturbances.
For small dogs (not more than 20kg weight) currently stored in plantations, "grandfathering approach" is adopted. Under the approach, small dogs held before 1 August 2003, if registered with documentary evidence of licensing, vaccinations, micro-chipping and desexing, were allowed to be kept until the dog's natural death. However, the plantations under the Half Purchase Scheme do not benefit from relaxation of the rules on dog maintenance, since the plantation has established Owners' Own Corporations and the tenants are governed by the Mutual Covenant Act which sets restrictions on keeping dogs on the estate..
Second Quarter 2010: An intensive effort to control dog maintenance
At the end of 2009, the Subsidized Housing Committee decided to strengthen the action on unauthorized dog maintenance on PRH estates in the second quarter of 2010. Several approaches, including a) the revalidation of Provisional Permit Regulations; b) flexibly mobilize the Special Team to detect unauthorized dog maintenance; c) adopt tighter controls from visitors who bring dogs to domestic blocks by security guards; and d) encourage tenants to report unauthorized dog maintenance in PRH through radio broadcasts and posters.
The intensive effort resulted in a one-fold expenditure for intensive publicity, educational programs and installation of ten Closed Digital Closed Circuit Closed Phone (MDCCTV) sets for $ 2.5 million. The monthly fee for an additional Special Team is $ 183,000.
Start 2012: AFCD modification on the dog application form
On March 29, 2010, the Audit Commission issued a report on "Animal Pet Control". The Commission recommends in a report that the Department of Housing should cooperate with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation (AFCD) to address the issue of unauthorized dog maintenance in public housing flats. The Housing Director agrees with the audit recommendation, and the Director of the AFCD agrees to offer support to the Housing Director. Therefore, AFCD modify and complete the application form dogs to be used from the beginning of 2012. After the modification, the relevant license information of the dog and the owner concerned can be transferred to the Department of Housing for investigation and enforcement action.
10 Nov 2015: Establishment of the subcommittee on issues related to animal welfare and animal cruelty
On Nov. 10, 2015, the Food Safety and Environmental Safety Panel in the Legislative Council agreed to establish a Subcommittee on Problems Related to Animal Welfare and Cruelty to Animals. The Subcommittee recommends that the Panel should formulate animal-friendly policies to better protect animal welfare, including reviewing policies on the maintenance of animals by public housing tenants. Some caring groups are invited to attend Subcommittee meetings to express their views on animal preservation in PRH. Different members of the Legislative Council also stated in the Subcommittee their concern over the ban.
Jan 11, 2016: Authorize sized companion dog
In 2015, "???????????????" (no renamed English available) (now renamed Give Dogs A Home ??????) initiated a series of actions, such as signing autographs and setting up a gathering booth to demand further easing from the ban on dog maintenance in plantation PRH. Since Sept. 25, 2015, the group met representatives of the Housing Authority several times to discuss the possibility of allowing more tenants in the PRH to keep the dog.
On January 11, 2016, the Housing Authority announced to allow tenants with a strong special need to keep a companion dog. Medical evidence is required.
Jun 26, 2017: Subcommittee on issues related to animal welfare and animal cruelty addressing animal care at PRH Estates
On June 26, 2017, the Subcommittee to Study the Problems Relating to Animal Rights of the Legislative Council convened a meeting to discuss the animal-friendly policy in Hong Kong. Participants included officials from the Department of Housing, the Food and Health Bureau and the Transport Ministry attended the meeting, as well as representatives from 19 animal interest groups.
Members of the Legislative Council Claudia Mo and Raymond Chan Chi-chuen from People Power jointly filed a motion to urge the government to ease a pet dog ban on public housing to reduce the number of abandoned dogs, and the movement was endorsed by the union's Subcommittee unanimously.
Meanwhile, Legislative Council member Roy Kwong Chun-yu of the Democratic Party said that if the government hopes to implement an animal-friendly policy in Hong Kong, it should stop limiting itself by using "current regulatory restrictions" as an excuse.
Maps Pet policy in public housing estates in Hong Kong
Current rule
Marking a scheme for estate management enforcement
The current pet maintenance policy in the Public Housing Office adopted a blueprint for the Plantation Management Enforcement Scheme introduced in 2003, in which housing rental housing (PRH) and tenants of the Interim Housing (IH) will be penalized for misbehavior affecting plantation management. As mentioned earlier, effective from 1 November 2003, if the lessee keeps animals, birds or livestock in a rented location without the written approval of the Housing Authority, he will be awarded 5 penalty points without warning. When PRH/IH households have collected 16 points within two years, the license/license will be subject to termination.
The Housing Authority grants a general permit to keep small domestic pets as long as they do not cause disruption or health hazards. No registration required. Small pets include cats, birds, hamsters, rabbits, aquatic life, etc. Cats kept in public housing should also be castrated. Wildlife, exotic animals and domesticated animals are strictly prohibited.
The Housing Subsidy Housing Committee supported the ban on dog maintenance in public housing on September 25, 2003. In general, the Housing Authority will not approve applications for dog maintenance, except under special circumstances. The Housing Authority may apply discretion and give conditional approval to:
- Physically disabled tenants who must take care of the guide dog and;
- Tenants who need to keep a companion dog for mental support (provision of medical evidence from a medical practitioner is required).
- The tenant whose little dog has been kept in a rented location prior to the implementation of the Marking Scheme (ie the Provisional License Rule).
Temporary permissions rule
Temporary Permit Rules are adopted to deal with dogs kept in public housing prior to the implementation of the Marking Scheme. The Regulation stipulates that a one-time permit will be granted to tenants who apply to continue to keep small dogs (ie less than 20 kilograms weight) that have been stored in the leased premises before August 1, 2003. The licensed tenants must abide by the rules to keep the dog. If two incidents are proven to violate the rules, the permissions will be withdrawn.
No further relaxation of the ban
In 2011, then Hon Albert Chan Wai-yip asked questions to the Transportation and Housing Bureau regarding whether the Housing Authority would consider letting looser restrictions on dog maintenance in the appropriate public housing. According to the answer given by Ms Eva Cheng, the Secretary of Transportation and Housing, the Housing Department has consulted with approximately 140 Management Advisory Committee (EMACs) about the strictly prohibiting policy of unauthorized dogs at the end of 2010 and all EMAC indicate support for continuing policy on banning unauthorized dog maintenance. The Housing Authority does not wish to further loosen control on dog maintenance by tenants because it believes it would be contrary to the provision of a clean and hygienic environment in public housing.
Household statistics that keep dogs in public rental homes and temporary houses
According to the Housing Authority, between 2003 and 2016, the number of registered dogs in public housing fell from 13,000 to about 1,600.
Statistical implementation schema scheme
Prior to the implementation of the Labeling Scheme, from 2000 to 2002, the number of warnings regarding animal care issued was 976. Since the implementation of the Scheme, according to the Housing Authority, from 2003 to 2015, there have been 4,512 points allocated cases due to the raising of animals, birds or cattle in in a leased location without prior written consent.
Controversy
Under the "Labeling Scheme", "small domestic pets" are tolerated, as long as they do not cause harm and health problems. Therefore, the controversy about pet policy in public housing focuses on dog maintenance.
The main controversy of this policy is the action of the Department of Housing to track dogs that are not allowed. In May 2015 , many public housing companies simultaneously give notice to tenants to remind them not to keep dogs without written permission.
At the end of May 2015 , it was widely reported by the media that Housing Department staff used unreasonable ways to detect unauthorized dogs in public housing. They deliberately hit different household gates and played barking records of dogs to lure dogs in homes for barking, and thus, to detect and punish unlawful households. In July 2015 , public housing tenants attempted suicide by slitting their wrists because the Housing Authority staff continued to pressure him to remove his dog, causing great psychological pressure on him.
Responding to the Housing Department tactics, two social networking groups "Dog Rights Watch Group" and "??????????? (no English name available)" jointly organized the candlelight in Legislative Council Square at Admiralty on September 20, 2015. Organizers submitted a petition letter to the Department of Housing and the Department of Transport, requesting a delay in tracking dogs in public housing and dialogue with them. Member of the Legislative Council Claudia Mo, as well as representatives of the Wildlife Concern Group of the Community Party, the Society for Nonprofit Drugs, Animal Animals, the Forest Pig Concern Group, and "?????????" (no English name available) also attended the candle flame of the night to pressure the government.
Recommendations and opinions by different stakeholders
Group attention
The following interest groups are pioneers in advomacating the right to keep pets on PRH estates (see table below).
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (???????)
The agency provides that public housing is the source of 20% of abandoned dogs in all SPCA cases by 2015. Therefore, the deputy director of his welfare, Dr. Fiona Woodhouse, said there is an urgent need to re-examine strict rules related to dog maintenance in public housing. The Housing Authority should change the rules of pet keeping to reflect a positive approach for public housing households to have the option to keep dogs.
Society for Abandoned Animals Ltd (??????????)
SAA is worried that while keeping dogs is not allowed in PRH, some people still secretly keep dogs. To avoid the more serious consequences caused by dog ​​maintenance, such as dog keepers not bringing their dogs to do the necessary rabies vaccinations, it might be better to let the dog maintain and set rules for the rules. In the last 14 years, the population has experienced an increase in demand for pet dogs because dogs form an important part of the family and help reduce the pressure. They recommended the government to refer to the dog maintenance regulations in some private housing. For example, in some private housing, if two households complain naturally, the dogs who take care of the households will no longer be allowed to keep their dogs.
Mongrel Club ( ? ??)
The founder of the Mongrel Club, Rebecca Ngan, points out that more families are raising pets but public housing policies of government can not cope with changing social needs. He suggested the government reserve several blocks where keeping dogs allowed in new public housing housing and setting limits for the number of dogs that can be stored. Also, the group advises the government to strengthen education for dog guards, schools and communities, so as to minimize the inconvenience caused by keeping the dog to the environment, and maintaining respect for the animals among the community. He also urged the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation to expand its work towards animal welfare and promote peaceful coexistence between humans and animals.
Cat Society (?????)
Community advise cat owners in PRH estates to not bring their cats to the public area, so to avoid problems such as loss of a cat and a scary cat.
Alliance for Earth, Life , Liberty & amp; Advocacy (AELLA) Asia
The group believes that the appropriate authorities of the government should exercise control over dog maintenance rather than imposing a comprehensive ban on dog maintenance in PRH. They also recommended the government to allow pets to be kept in new PRH homes.
Animal- Friendly Alliance (?????????)
Kevin Cheuk, Chairman of the Animal-Friendly Alliance, recommended the government to allow dog maintenance on PRH plantations and new plantations under the Home Ownership Scheme to alleviate pet neglect and increase the possibility of raising dogs in PRH estates. He also proposed the idea of ​​"Dr. Dog in PRH". The group also suggested mandatory education for dog guards at PRH estates. The recommended test period for this recommended policy is three years.
Hong Kong Animal Saver
The group found that most abandoned cats and dogs came from private housing or public housing where animal care was not allowed. Therefore the group requires the government to adopt a more open attitude toward livestock raising.
Lovers of Seal Dogs (?????)
Representative of the Makar Dogs Lovers Group, Gabee Mak (???) criticized the government for being too conservative and sensitive of ordinary citizens to changes in animal policy, including pet policy in public housing. In new public housing, the Housing Authority should designate several blocks in which dog maintenance is allowed.
Dog Dog Lovers also find that it is the government that should bear the responsibility to support, advertise, educate, promote and monitor when adopting animal-friendly policies. First, the group proposed that the government consider establishing a "dog-guarding education system and licensing", to educate potential dog-keepers how to maintain a dog without causing harm to the public. Secondly, the group recommends the government to strictly enforce Rabies Ordinance (Cap.421) s.23, which stipulates that dogs in public should be tied up or controlled for the benefit of cynophobia. At present, the negative perception of pet maintenance is caused by the selfish behavior of a small number of pet owners in public housing.
?????
??? (No English name available), representative of ??, thinks that the error on hygienic issues is on pet owners, not on pets; even if the irresponsible person does not take care of the pet, it will keep the environment dirty.
Give Dogs A Home (??????)
In July 1st in 2015, ??????????????? (the old name "Give Dogs A Home") calls the public to pay more attention to the dog's living space in Hong Kong. They advocate that the ban on dog maintenance will lead to dog waiver issues, and expect the government to evaluate current policies.
In June 2017, Give The Dog House conducted a survey to investigate whether people support dog maintenance on PRH estates. 45% of the respondents live in PRH plantations while 14% live in housing under the Housing Scheme. The group claims that only 10 interviewees did not support tenant PRHs who kept dogs, which means that more than 99% of respondents support dog maintenance in PRH. The group finds its root cause lies in the government's unresponsiveness to the recommendations made by the public. They advise different government departments, such as the Department of Housing, Agriculture, Fisheries and the Department of Conservation and the Department of Recreation and Culture Services, to work together instead of working alone when applying animal-friendly policies.
Member of the legislative council
Ms. Claudia Mo
In a Subcommittee Meeting on Problems Relating to Animal Welfare and Cruelty to Animals from the Legislative Council on 26 June 2017, Mo suggested that the Housing Authority should further reduce the prohibition of dog maintenance in PRH.
Sir. Nathan Law Kwun-chung
In the same meeting on 26 June 2017, Law stated that the bureaucracy caused Hong Kong to be abandoned behind the international trend of promoting animal rights. Regarding dog maintenance, the law requires the Department of Housing to disclose a) the number of unauthorized dog breeding cases in recent years; b) the number of disruption cases caused by small pets (cats, hamsters, rabbits, etc.) and dogs; c) the number of applications keeping the "companion dog" and the number of applications approved; d) the number of dogs in PRHs with "temporary permit"; and e) the number of service dogs approved in PRH estates. The law also asks the Department to report on their progress following up on public advice, and asks for clarification on the way used by Department staff when checking for unauthorized dog maintenance.
Raymond Chan Chi-chuen
Chan advised the government to change their survey to tenants of PRH estates to collect the opinions of tenants to keep various types of dogs, such as eye dogs, adopted dogs, etc.
Sir. Roy Kwong Chun-yu
Kwong stated that the government should not use "rules" as an excuse not to adopt an animal-friendly policy. He also called on the public to pay attention to the Animal Protection Act, proposed by Kwong in the Legislative Council in June 2017, so to further promote animal rights in Hong Kong.
Public
Tenants on plantation PHR
In 2003, the Housing Authority conducted a survey and asked 4,004 tenants for their opinion on whether keeping pets should be allowed in the plantation PRH. The results showed that 69.2% of the PRH tenants found that pet maintenance should not be allowed in the PRH flats.
In the Housing Housing Survey 2011, 2015 and 2016, PRH explained that the tenants were asked their opinion on whether they found the Marking Scheme effective in banning unauthorized dog storage in place.
Public public
In contrast, in a survey conducted by Give Dogs A Home (??????) in 2017, more than 99% of the interviewed respondents supported the dog's maintenance in PRH estates.
A commentator indicates that a public housing rental contract includes a clause "II (19). Does not store animals, birds or livestock from the description of the place or its parts without the written consent of the Owner." Therefore, the tenants already know that keeping unauthorized dogs is not allowed before they do so. This is a breach of contract for breaking the rules.
On July 17, 2017, the Housing Director issued a written response to the urgent urge of the new government to commit to studying the further relaxation of the dog-keeping policy in PRH proposed by the Subcommittee to Study the Problems Relating to the Animal Rights of the Legislative Council on 27 June 2017. The Department replied that the PRH plantations built by the Housing Authority are the design of multi-storey and densely populated buildings. Therefore when considering keeping dogs on this plantation, the possibility of triggering noise and hygienic disturbances should be considered. Several levels of relaxation, such as allowing tenants to guard dog guides and companion dogs, allow the policy to be one that respects both tenants demanding a hygienic, quiet and safe environment in general and those with special medical needs for dog care. The Department states that the overall interests and aspirations of all good tenants and management must take precedence over the establishment of animal maintenance policies. Therefore the Housing Authority will maintain the existing dog maintenance policy in the plantation PRH at this stage.
Meanwhile, the Head Management (Support and Service) Manager of the Housing Department, Mr. Ng Shu Chung (???) estimates that it is impossible to loosen restrictions on domesticated dogs in public housing. Public housing resources are limited and valuable so that both pets keep tenants and tenants without pets should be treated equally in terms of resource enjoyment.
Policy comparison
Singapore
Housing and Development Board (HDB) is responsible for general housing management in Singapore, including setting rules on pet maintenance. Currently, HDB allows a wide variety of pets to be stored in public housing: dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, chinchillas, red-eared sliders, birds, fish, hermit crabs, green tree frogs and turtles box malayan.
However, each household can only maintain one dog on the list of approved breeds (see table below). If the household fails to comply with this rule, they must pay a fine of up to SGD $ 4,000 (approximately HK $ 23,000) in maximum.
Large dog breeds are excluded in the list. According to a statement issued by the Ministry of National Development (MND), the principle of HDB is "to maintain a pleasant environment and good neighbor relations" and they "need to balance between pet-loving residents and those who may have concerns about keeping animals pet in flat HDB. "MND thinks that small dogs, in contrast to large dogs," are easier to handle and portable, especially in limited public spaces such as elevators ".
However, at the same time, HDB started the ADORE Project (ADOption and Rehoming of dogs) in June 2011 to encourage people to adopt dogs by loosening the size of dogs, from 15 kg and 50 cm in height, to 10 kg and 40 cm on the shoulders. The scheme involves collaboration with Action for Singapore Dogs (ASD), Singapore Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA Singapore) and Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD).
Under the Rules of Animals and Birds (License and Dog Control), all dogs are required to be licensed for rabies control in the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA). If dog owners allow their dogs to defecate in public places and cause environmental damage, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will take action against them.
In addition, HDB expressly prohibits cats because cats will shed feathers, defecate and urinate in public places, and they also make catering sounds. Therefore, they will cause discomfort to the environment.
Type of approved dog breed
Taiwan
Public housing in Taiwan, known as "National Housing" (????), is categorized into two types: for sale and rent. According to officials at the Taipei Municipal Urban Development Department of Taipei, in the early years, the National Housing rental agreement prohibits the maintenance of pets.
However, by 2014, pets are allowed on condition that pets are harmless and will not bark, causing odor and urination. If a pet owner is reported to have a noise interruption, failure to clean the pet urine and cause injury to other residents for 3 times, then the National Housing rental will be terminated.
Currently, Article 16 of the "Administration Administration Administration Building Administration Division" (??????????) stipulates that "Citizens with pets can not impede public sanitation, peace or security." If the national housing household violates the rules, the building management committee will provide verbal warnings and warning letters, and even bring lawsuits.
Article 23 of the "Administrative Administration Building Administration Division" states that unless a special agreement is made to prohibit the maintenance of pets by residents, Housing Housing households shall not be prohibited from pet raising.
On July 7, 2016, the Legislative Internal Administration Committee (???????) discussed the abolition of Article 23 stating that there is no community agreement that can deprive citizens of the right to take care of pets. However, due to concerns over noise and hygiene problems caused by pets, the amendments will be postponed until public opinion is collected.
United States
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for providing public rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled. It generally provides for the rule that the elderly and persons with disabilities should not be discriminated against when applying for pet care. In April 2013, HUD issued new guidelines requiring housing providers to ensure proper accommodation for "animal assistance" and "service animals" kept by needy tenants.
However HUD allows local housing authorities to set certain local rules on pet maintenance. In Santa Cruz State, the Housing Authority allows small and large pets.
It defines pet pets as "pets kept in cages/aquariums such as hamsters, turtles, birds, and fish". Each public housing unit can store one cage or one aquarium. In both cases, two pets are allowed maximally. However, the allowed aquarium size varies from one place to another within the County. Small pet guards are required to remove odors and maintain sanitary conditions, and are responsible for damages caused by their pets.
For large pets such as dogs and cats, the Housing Authority limits the number to 1 in each unit and requires that the breed can not exceed 25 pounds in size in adulthood. In particular, Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers and Bull Dogs are prohibited because this breed is cruel and intimidating. In addition to smells, cleanliness and damage, large pet owners have a responsibility to avoid noise, keep their pets under control and clean up the waste. Unlike small pet owners, residents must obtain a certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian or government authority, as well as a pet license before they can apply to maintain large pets. Large pet owners also need to pay a deposit of US $ 300 (about HK $ 2,300) for potential damage caused by their pets.
If a pet owner breaches any rules, the Housing Authority will issue a notice to them, asking them to fix the violation or remove the pet. Otherwise, the Housing Authority will terminate the Public Housing lease.
However, the Housing Authority will enter the unit for review only after reasonable notice is given to the residents.
United Kingdom
At the Tendring District Council, public housing units are known as council houses, including houses, bungalows, and flats. In deciding whether to grant permission, the Board will consider the type of council house, the size of the park and open space, the type and size of pets, flat amenities, special needs of pets, etc.
Animals are allowed and not allowed
If tenants have access to their own garden, then they can keep one dog or one cat, given that they do not cause interference or disturbance to others. If they do not have a private garden, they should seek permission from the Council. If the lessee wants to keep more than one pet, the Board will determine each pet request for his own services before giving permission. Usually only one dog or two cats are allowed. But if the tenant lives in the sheltered housing scheme of the Council, then there is a blanket ban on dogs or cats.
For livestock such as horses, donkeys, goats, pigs, ducks, geese, chickens or other reptiles, written permission from the Council is required. Reptiles and spiders are not recommended, unless the tenant can prove that they can meet their special care and welfare needs.
However, one should not keep animals prohibited by the 1976 Hazardous Wildlife Act due to security concerns. Exotic animals and farm animals, such as roosters, are not normally allowed.
Pet keep requirements
According to guidelines issued by the Tendring District Council, no animal may infringe on board houses or other areas of the Council, cause disturbance or harassment to others, or damage the property of the Council.
The board requires owners to have a microscope or tattoo for their dog and cat for identification purposes. Not allowed to keep dogs or cats.
Small animals such as rats, mice, gerbils, and hamsters should be limited to a manageable amount in an appropriate environment. For example, birds that are confined should be given enough space to spread their wings completely and perch.
Under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, pet guards should ensure that their pets have the right place to live and the right foods to eat. They must be protected from pain, suffering, injury and illness. If board house tenants ignore or misuse their pets, the Council will report to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty (RSPCA).
If tenants allow pets to roam, pee or rotten in communal areas, landings and trails, they will violate the lease agreement with the Council, which will take back their right to care for pets and report to the RSPCA.
Australia
The Department of Housing and Public Works The Queensland Government permits pets in public housing (including cluster housing, town houses, attached housing, apartments, flats, units, etc.), given prior approval from the Department, in accordance with local government laws, housing and no interference with the peace, comfort and privacy of neighbors.
In general, two small birds in a cage and fish in the aquarium are allowed, but keeping snakes or reptiles requires a license from the Department and they should be placed in a secure enclosure. The dog should be castrated with the age of 7 months, while the cat at the age of 3 months.
However, if cats and dogs will become heavier than 10 kg when they grow up, they may not be allowed. Different local governments set different limits on the number and types of pets allowed. Tenants can maintain Guiding Dogs, Hearing Dogs, or Animal Assistance if they can provide relevant evidence to the rental manager.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments