Teresa Costello (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am raising this issue today for the first time in this House but it is not my first time to raise it as a public representative. During my time on South Dublin County Council, I highlighted my concerns in regard to this issue. I was prompted to raise the issue as I was contacted many times by people who were deeply torn when they received an offer of housing as it was under the condition that they could not bring their pet. One of my last motions as a councillor proposed that South Dublin County Council engage with AHBs regarding no-pet policies when allocating housing. Pets are an integral part of the family and people should not be faced with the decision to surrender them or refuse an offer.

I was advised at the time that the council had previously engaged with approved housing bodies regarding no-pet policies. This policy is in place often at the request of a management company in a multi-unit development. Some of the reasons that pets are refused include inadequate space to hold a pet, the possibility of a pet becoming a noise nuisance to neighbours and damage to the property. Exceptions to this can be made in the case of tenants with a disability that requires an assistance or guide dog. I was told that the council will always advise prospective tenants whether pets are permitted in a property to enable applicants to make an informed decision.

The issue is not whether tenants are being notified of the no-pet policies; it is that they have to make the decision at all. Owning a pet is a natural part of the life cycle for many people. Over half of Irish households have pets, with 28% owning only a dog and 12% a cat. A pet provides companionship and emotional support and is a valued family member. We saw this during the pandemic as one in five pet owners acquired a pet during the pandemic. Over 85% of pet owners report the positive effect on their mental health and well-being, underscoring the significant role that pets play in emotional support. For those living alone, children with special needs, the elderly and families in general, pets provide comfort, connection and structure.

Despite this, only 7% of rental properties listed on Daft allow pets, making it exceedingly difficult for pet owners to find suitable housing. Dogs Trust reported a 112% increase in the number of people needing to give up their dogs due to housing restrictions over the past five years and, in 2024 alone, it received an average of 431 calls and emails daily from individuals facing this dilemma. While there is a need for certain restrictions, it is imperative that we revise and review policies to develop guidelines that balance the needs of tenants with the welfare of the community.There must be fair, clear, concise and consistent rules across local authorities and housing bodies. With that being said, there should be room for reasonable flexibility and exceptions, particularly for responsible pet owners with suitable housing. Above all, we must ensure individuals are not forced to choose between their pets and a home. It certainly should not be a management company that is calling the shots on this. Pets are not just mere animals; they are parts of a family who provide companionship, love and support. By reconsidering restrictive pet policies, we can create a more inclusive housing system that recognises the importance of pets in the lives of many tenants.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator for bringing before the Seanad this important matter regarding pet policy in approved housing body accommodation, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy James Browne.

Approved housing bodies are independent, not-for-profit organisations providing affordable rented housing for people who cannot provide housing from their own means, and for particular groups such as older people or homeless people. AHBs also include housing co-operatives, which are housing organisations controlled by their members or tenants who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. We are not aware of any sector-wide policy that precludes AHB tenants from keeping pets and a number of AHBs have published pet policy documents, which provide guidance for tenants seeking to keep pets. The residential tenancies Acts from 2004 to 2022 regulate the landlord-tenant relationship in the residential rental sector and set out the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. The Acts apply to every dwelling that is the subject of a tenancy, with a limited number of exceptions. Dwellings covered by the Acts include the private rental sector, the cost-rental sector, the approved housing body sector and student accommodation, including tenancies and licences in student-specific accommodation. The Acts make no reference to animals and it would be inappropriate for them to prescribe matters relating to the keeping of pets. As such, there is nothing in legislation that prevents AHB tenants from keeping pets. That is a very important point for the Senator.

Although the value to individual tenants of keeping pets is recognised, it is also important to acknowledge the challenges that may exist for both other tenants and individual landlords or property owners. Not all residents, particularly in multi-unit developments, would be comfortable with the presence of pets, and their needs should also be considered. However, as independent property owners, it is a matter for the sector and the individual AHBs themselves to formulate their own house rules on this policy. Tenants of AHBs are encouraged to engage with the relevant AHBs and the AHB representative association, the Irish Council for Social Housing, regarding pet policies. It would not be appropriate for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to set out tenancy policies of individual AHBs and their property rules.

Teresa Costello (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his response. I understand the Minister's position on this. I am coming at it from the point of view whereby I have had people bringing the cutest little dogs into my clinic while crying at the thought of having to decide whether they should give up this little dog that has provided them with love and kindness for seven or eight years or take a roof over their head. What really sickened me in the response I got was that it was a management company calling the shots. If it was coming from the AHB directly, I would probably have a bit more respect for the stance. It caught in my throat when the finger was pointed that way. They would be better placed to be more answerable to the AHB on matters such as that. I appreciate there is nothing in legislation preventing tenants from keeping pets, so I will have a look into that further. I have noticed on the South Dublin County Council website a huge number of houses and properties available under the choice based letting scheme, which is welcome, but unfortunately, a lot of them referred to a no-pet policy, which made my heart sink a bit. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I appreciate it.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again thank the Senator. Sometimes you would not realise who you will be talking to personally about a thing like this. I am a big follower of dogs, in particular. I really like dogs and I like meeting dogs. I thank the Senator for raising this very important issue.

I am replying on behalf of the Minister, Deputy James Browne, as I mentioned. It is important for the views of all stakeholders to be considered. While the distress that pet owners find themselves in when searching for appropriate accommodation for themselves and their pets in both private and social housing settings is understood, the needs and concerns of landlords and other tenants must also be considered. As there already exists strong legislation to protect tenants and property owners, it would not be appropriate for the Minister to direct individual property owners as to what a tenancy policy should be. I suggest open and productive dialogue between the property owners, the tenants and their representative associations, regardless of the tenure type, on this issue. I believe that a reasonable and fair compromise can be found that will support pet ownership and meet the needs of other stakeholders, neighbours and landlords.

We have to work with individual cases in individual situations. The majority of people love animals - they love their pets. Of course, we have to weigh that against the whole issue that it is hard for a person to say, in the current climate, that they cannot take an available house because they cannot take their pet. People would be thinking the person was negligent towards themselves and their family if they were more worried about the pet. Only people who do not have a fondness for animals might not understand it, but other people would.

I again thank the Senator for raising this very important issue.