> The process I am told is they are billed then taken to court if the money is not immediately forthcoming, all court costs are paid by the tenants.

If they have it, of course :)

Polly as a landlord I had one of these court orders in my way but to pay £1 over how ever many years is what I got and they will get as they can't afford the damage conditions in a lot of cases

> When a landlord takes back a house they have to spend a fortune getting the house back into that condition so to attract a new tenant.

Private landlords request a deposit before anybody can move in this covers any damage that may occur and they can and do charge tenants if the deposit does not cover the costs. The HA situation I covered earlier. So the landlord HA or private does not have to find money to make good any damage or wear and tear.

Many HA tenants will make improvements to their properties, but often I am told private renters do not. Before offering to ask the question here re the numbers I did check all this out, regarding HA tenants and private tenants.

> they are billed then taken to court

Getting a court order against someone is one thing - actually getting any money out of them is quite a different matter :)

> Polly as a landlord I had one of these court orders in my way but to pay £1 over how ever many years is what I got and they will get as they can't afford the damage conditions in a lot of cases

Did you not get a deposit? A friend has just paid a deposit of two months rent which in my area is £1500 per month, before moving in.

> Did you not get a deposit? A friend has just paid a deposit of two months rent which in my area is £1500 per month, before moving in.

My sister's tenants non payment of their last three months of rent took care of the deposit.  Fortunately damage to her property was minimal (no pets :)) otherwise I doubt any monies would have been too forthcoming.

Do Housing Association tenants pay a deposit ?

> They are using their time which is a resource we pay for.

They are not using their time I am using mine and as I said I am not being paid. The wages of HA staff are paid for by rent coming in from tenants. Only Local Councils who own properties have money from tax payers. HA's have to borrow money the same as you do for a mortgage. It has to be paid back and rents cover this.

Sorry folks but this is not the topic I was hoping to get help for, (so money could be saved, as I was willing to help for FREE), it has gone way off topic and become a renting debate.

These rules are being promoted for private landlords too and it is the RSPCA promoting them. I can ask for a copy of the campaign they are running if anyone is interested, since it would affect HA/LA and private renters.

Yes one months full rent.

> it has gone way off topic and become a renting debate.

Yes - sorry, Polly :) Interesting topic tho' :)

> Wow! Scary, and it was only defeated by a small margin, where were the dog geneticists and the AKC?

It was dog breeders AKC etc who raised awareness and got it defeated.

> these rules are being pushed by the RSPCA for all landlords including private landlords as they are working with the two governing associations for landlords with a view to implementing the two dogs only per property and they must be spayed or neutered and micro-chipped rule.

There you go just what I said thin end of the wedge, anti breeding PETA infiltrating policies.

they would consider a hobby breeder who shows or works their dogs might want to own. They are not asking for the rights or wrongs of such a situation.

Ok most people who show/work their dogs and wish to continue with their lines have a litter every few years.

So as long as the enthusiast can reign in their desires reasonably IMO you can still get by with 4 dogs many indulge in more because you can and want to, but reasonably you could do it with 4.

1. Foundation dog/bitch
2-3yr gap

2. Pup from dog 1
2-3yr gap

3. Pup from foundation or son/daughter or even brought in from elsewhere
2-4yr gap

4. Pup from 1, 2 or 3 
2-4yr gap.

When foundation passes then another pup can be bred.

Perfectly do-able on a small scale like this or even less if limits are brought in, as other pups from litters of the above can be shared ownership and you can also continue your lines with the new puppy owners, eventually taking in one of those pups to continue with of not from your own kept dogs.

Of course as already said, what about returned pups/dogs for whatever reason to cater for you could drop down to 2 or 3 dogs but it would mean a looooong gap between a new pup to show or train for working, or the foundation dog/bitch being homed.

It's not easy, far better to just have a private home away from neighbours and you can do whatever you want, all I can say is not to get into the thoughts of breeding your own lines if you are to live somewhere where numbers are capped or just pass the baton to others.

So to re ask the question.

Suppose you were suddenly left with no other adult supplying extra income and your finances were such you as a show breeder or working dog breeder suddenly found you had no choice but to apply for a HA property, and they had a rule which said two dogs only, how would you feel about parting with any other dogs above the two allowed?

If on the other hand they say well ok the rule is two dogs but because you are a responsible caring owner and would be desperately upset to lose yet another thing which gives you quality of life, we are prepared to let you have more than two dogs and we would be prepared to let you breed an occasional litter to maintain your line, how many dogs would you hope to keep?

Often people in HA properties are not there for life, as circumstances change they will move on to better things.

> These rules are being promoted for private landlords too and it is the RSPCA promoting them. I can ask for a copy of the campaign they are running if anyone is interested, since it would affect HA/LA and private renters.

Yes please Polly :)
I have rented for most of my adult life and now live in an area where NO private landlords allow any pets at all. The only people who can own dogs here are council/HA tenants and home owners.

I'll likely never own my own home, and will never inherit one, so it will affect me even if I choose to own non-breeding dogs. I would like to know where I stand and do anything I can to support genuine, responsible dog breeders & owners. If there was some way to differentiate between show/working owners/breeders and BYBs then that is a huge plus in my book.

> If there was some way to differentiate between show/working owners/breeders and BYBs then that is a huge plus in my book.

This is partly why the HA asked they want to know what the differences are between responsible owners and breeders and bybs. They had to remove some of the 15 dogs from a tenant, the breed was a small breed but in the wrong place and the numbers were huge, the tenant said they had to maintain fifteen dogs to maintain their show lines.
They feel if they can separate the responsible owners/breeders and those who would be genuinely upset at losing another part of their life due to a drop in their circumstances and the bybs they could allow a small scale hobby breeder to maintain their show or work lines.

I'll ask for another copy and post it to you if I can get another copy. PM me your details.

Perfectly do-able on a small scale like this or even less if limits are brought in

So what's your answer to my earlier scenario -where not all pups in the litter get sold and then you have an adult returned that you cannot find a new home for? NOBODY should breed unless they are ABLE to add extra dogs in unforeseen circumstances.

Well, that is the killer question isn't it? Who could bare to let one, two, three of their dogs go because they are in a bit of bad luck right now.

In all honesty Polly, if it were me and knowing the policy I would first ask family or friends to help me out and have one or two dogs if I had over the amount, that way I could still see them (whatever the policy were) if I were really brave and practical I would pass some on to others in my breed knowing I could not now take care of them.

If none of that were available or I couldn't bare to part with them (which yes would be the real me :-D ) In an ideal world I would hope that there were a policy if I met all the other criteria for a HA home, of being allowed to keep my dogs as they are already here, (maybe at extra cost) but no would not expect to breed whilst there or add other dogs if I had over the amount, to me that would not be fair, my line would have to continue another way as mentioned in previous posts. Or continue afterwards, if the HA home were only temporary.

But would that be fair that some due to circumstances could have more than the allocated amount of dogs?

No, it's not it should be one rule for all.

But, if you had the power to pick and choose and maybe your input will make that happen, of course no-one should be parted from their dogs, but no they should not add to them or if already a tenant be allowed to add more.

> it is the RSPCA promoting them.

I still don't understand why HA would be fact finding to counter it.  If they don't think they want to adopt this policy who can make them?

So what's your answer to my earlier scenario -where not all pups in the litter get sold and then you have an adult returned that you cannot find a new home for? NOBODY should breed unless they are ABLE to add extra dogs in unforeseen circumstances

Which is why I say this: It's not easy, far better to just have a private home away from neighbours and you can do whatever you want, all I can say is not to get into the thoughts of breeding your own lines if you are to live somewhere where numbers are capped or just pass the baton to others.

As of course there are so many scenarios where it wouldn't work out and it needs thinking about thoroughly, but I think responsible breeders do think about all these things and cater for all needs. What about all our pups/dogs we have for holiday cover, sickness, moves etc, most of us continue to also help out our puppy owners and others in our breed, it all has to be catered for too.

> They feel if they can separate the responsible owners/breeders and those who would be genuinely upset at losing another part of their life due to a drop in their circumstances and the bybs they could allow a small scale hobby breeder to maintain their show or work lines.
>

Looks fraught with difficulty to me.  What is the devoted dog owner who just likes collecting lots of dogs going to think when someone breeding is allowed to keep their pack but they are not and what if the BYB gets wind of the rule and enters one dog in their local show once a year?

That is why there should be no arbitrary rules, and problem tenants should be dealt with on an individual basis based on the nuisance/damage or whatever that is the problem.

Not replying to anyone in particular,

And of course the R$PCA will be there to pick up the pieces and rehome all these displaced dogs !!! ..................I don't think so !

> And of course the R$PCA will be there to pick up the pieces and rehome all these displaced dogs !!! ..................

Perhaps it is precisely to avoid all those occasions when they have had to deal with dogs from homes that have ended up with far more than they can cope with or their circumstances have allowed, that the RSPCA have these notions :)

and that is the same logiv that wants all pets neutered due to stray or homelss pets caused by irrepsonsible owners/breeders.

Deal with those causign the issues and leve everyone else alone.

Why are the responsible to always be penalised and affected? 

Yes a deposit and the first months rent and that was it. They lived in the house for four months rent free until we got the neighbours to call us when they were out and all the contents were removed and left on the drive and the locks were changed.

It took weeks to get the house in a habitual state again and thanks goodness they didn't have pete as can't imagine how much worse it would have been if they had.

> Deal with those causign the issues and leve everyone else alone.

The problem is the role of the RSPCA is to prevent suffering so of course they are going to look at ways to do just that. 

> Why are the responsible to always be penalised and affected?

I'm not sure someone wanted to keep 15 dogs and breed from them in social housing is all that responsible really.

> I'm not sure someone wanted to keep 15 dogs and breed from them in social housing is all that responsible really.

This is what I thought and the HA agreed, in fact some of the dogs were removed.

I think the HA in question is trying to walk a fine line between the tenants and the rules they would like to impose, and to that end they are looking at all possible scenarios, from the extremes of somebody who might want to maintain a line to somebody who might be tempted to do some typical BYBreeding.

They said they would not allow breeding for money or BYb type breeding but if a breeder who was a responsible owner and had fallen on hard times and requested they be allowed more than two dogs and did not want to neuter/spay them they would consider allowing this and would try to house the breeder in suitable rural accommodation, rather than the center of a town, and would allow litters if need be.

As this HA is a responsible HA they have resident support officers who visit properties regularly to see if there is anything they can help a tenant with and tenants are also involved with this. If they allow tenants to keep a breeding line going they would expect to visit and keep an eye on things so that nothing got out of hand, i.e. too many dogs or dogs being bred for pocket money.

Many years ago when I lived in HA proprty I got a second dog only to be told by a neighbour that you were only allowed one
We still had a rent collector in those days and on his next visit I asked him. His answer was basically as you have just said, each case was assesed individually and as I already had a dog that was not causing any problems then they wouldn't take any action and probably would allow more if it remained that way

>> I'm not sure someone wanted to keep 15 dogs and breed from them in social housing is all that responsible really.

I am sure we can all think of a good few breeders whom do not reside in 'social housing' whom fit that description :) Not everyone whom 'owns' their own house has acres of land and a house large enough to properly 'house' the numbers of dogs they keep.

>They said they would not allow breeding for money or BYb type breeding

As the majority of breeders 'turn a profit' thus 'breed for money' and it is a thin line between what constitutes a BYB ("definition of a BYB - anyone whom breeds more than you do!") I wish them luck on that one!

>I think the HA in question is trying to walk a fine line between the tenants and the rules they would like to impose, and to that end they are looking at all possible scenarios, from the extremes of somebody who might want to maintain a line to somebody who might be tempted to do some typical BYBreeding.

I was listening to something the other day and they were saying that the present economic situation was forcing a huge numbers of people to move into rental properties of some description after losing their homes. I can not think of anything more upsetting than to lose your home and then to be forced to lose your dogs too.

> ..who was a responsible owner and had fallen on hard times and requested they be allowed more than two dogs and did not want to neuter/spay them they would consider allowing this and would try to house the breeder in suitable rural accommodation, rather than the center of a town,

So such breeders would gain priority over the family of 6 kids, living in a three bed flat on 15 floor of a tower block on a sink estate, and be given a rural property with a lovely big garden just because they had dogs?

That yells "Discrimination" to me :)

I think it is great that this HA is going out of it's way to set a policy and asked someone like Polly to look into it.

I am sure we will all be interested to see what they come up with. It all sounds rather complex to me!

"Not if the dogs are calm and well managed - I have 9 here now but 99% of the time you'd never know they were here,"

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread yet, but this is a very valid point. I have 6 dogs, but everyone says you would never believe it. Meanwhile, I have a neighbour one side who has two terriers, who never shut up and a neighbour next door but one who has 3 dogs who also bark far too much imo. It isn't the number of dogs surely, it's how you manage them?

exactly my point, no arbitrary rules, deal with nuisance in the usual way if it occurs.

>> I'm not sure someone wanted to keep 15 dogs and breed from them in social housing is all that responsible really.
> I am sure we can all think of a good few breeders whom do not reside in 'social housing' whom fit that description :-)

I'm sure we do :)
Regretably, some people need saving from themselves and, as this is social housing, I don't think it is a bad thing that a HA are in a position to do so.

>I can not think of anything more upsetting than to lose your home and then to be forced to lose your dogs too.

It don't see why it could not be possible to allow people to keep their pets, providing they are not a nuisance and they are not silly numbers, but allowing people to breed them is a step further up, I feel, and not at all necessary.

very condescending stooge. I know a lot of honest hard working people in HA that don't need decisions making for them.

> I know a lot of honest hard working people in HA that don't need decisions making for them.

So do I :) 
I said some people and, of course, that would not just apply to HA tenants but they are in the role and position of taking care of peoples needs.

Put some perspective on this, have any of you ever tried to rent a property in the private sector with even one dog ?
Not easy if you need to be convenient to services and often requires a very big deposit
It's good to hear of a housing association prepered to do some research and not just slap one rule for all

I don't think anyone has lost sight of the perspective......15 dogs! :)

For your consideration.
Not all of HA tenants are jobless people on benefits. In my case one of the requirements to rent from HA was to be in full time permanent employment. I do not rely on state help and I'm rather well paid. I live on my own with three dogs with no plans whatsoever to own property. None of my dogs ever caused nuisance although I may vary on 'sensitivity' of the neighbours. Sometimes a presence of a dog is enough to trigger complaints.
Oh, and I will have one more dog whenever I feel like it.

Thank you for your comments, dogjunkie, although I am not sure what has prompted them.  Nobody that I can see has said that HA tenants are jobless people or that dogs can not be kept without nuisance but I suppose it is good to remind people :)

It was the reference to 'Social Housing', infers the housing is solely for those at the bottom of the social scale.

I too have mentioned that there are plenty of people who do not wish to be Owner Occupiers, and why should they not be able to have the same rights of enjoying a dog related hobby (that includes breedign) as their Oenr occupying neighbour, who may be in identiacl property (my house is ex LA, though we were never LA tenants, but about the third Owner occupiers).

> It was the reference to 'Social Housing', infers the housing is solely for those at the bottom of the social scale.

Well, I don't know why.  Social Housing just means non profit making, there for the purpose of serving society. 
Have a look at the definition on Wikipedia :)

>I too have mentioned that there are plenty of people who do not wish to be Owner Occupiers, and why should they not be able to have the same rights of enjoying a dog related hobby

They needed but, as has been said, the HA needs to consider their other tenants where applicable which might mean neighbours, those thay may lose out by owners of large numbers of dogs taking housing that a family may require or those that will lose out by extra funds being spend on possible damage.
It is very hard to see any reason to justify a HA allowing 15 dogs or anything like it without impinging on their duties to their other clients.

>Social Housing just means non profit making, there for the purpose of serving society. 

The Wiki definition is clear that social Housing is intended for those whose income cannot meet market rental costs and is therefore subsidised.

> The Wiki definition is clear that social Housing is intended for those whose income cannot meet market rental costs and is therefore subsidised.

Yes, but that can certainly include professionals such as teachers and nurses in high rent areas, they are members of society too :) and, as someone else pointed out not all Housing Associations are subsidised by public funds sometimes the subsidy is merely the lack of profit taking.
It was certainly in my head that I was using the term as an umbrella for housing that served a social need rather than a profit making venture which is how I understand it.  It never occured to me that people had different definitions in their heads :) 

I think the description by the charity Shelter is how social housing is generally regarded. :-)

Does that imply they are jobless?  And would it matter if they were?
I'm really not sure why anyone should be offended by the term Social Housing.  Housing Associations serve a purpose for society, they don't make a profit so what else are they for?

Many people still find the idea of needing charity help shameful and somehow demeaning. Like it or not, the term 'social housing' does carry a bit of a stigma.

If it's not a charity, just a non profit making organisation, I don't see why they should feel that.

Maybe because of the kind of views expressed here that they are somehow second class citizens and should not be entitled to enjoy keeping the number of pets they feel appropriate, or are incapable of making sensible decisions, and need restrictions not applied to the general population.

> Maybe because of the kind of views expressed here that they are somehow second class citizens and should not be entitled to enjoy keeping the number of pets they feel appropriate, or are incapable of making sensible decisions, and need restrictions not applied to the general population.

Maybe what?
Did people really say that?  I don't really recall anyone saying that but it has been a long thread?

Polly, haven't had time to read through the whole thread but 2 things have come immediately to mind 1) size of property - I can't see any sense in a "blanket" regulation, as some properties are obvioulsy unsuited to any dogs at all, some to only 1 or 2 small dogs, and I can't think of any HA property I have ever seen which is suited to a breeding/showing/working dog kennel of say 15 large breed dogs, they may exist but I would think few and far between  and  2)Local Authority area rules on number of dogs in domestic porperties, some LAs have guidelines, some strict rules and others don't mind at all.