Member

The amendment, therefore, simply looks to include guiding principles on what constitutes unreasonable refusal in response to a tenant’s request to keep a pet in privately rented property. It builds on the experience of countries such as Canada, France and Sweden, where similar legislation has been implemented with success. These countries have stricter regulations that exceed the protections outlined in our current Bill, including clear criteria for what constitutes unreasonable refusal. I understand that we cannot feasibly detail every reason for refusing a pet request; however, a middle ground between the current situation, which offers no guidance at all, and an attempt to cater for every possible scenario is entirely practical and proportionate. The clear guiding principles in this amendment, enabling tenants to understand their rights and landlords their obligations, achieves that.