GUIDANCE will be developed for landlords and tenants on keeping pets in rental properties, after States Members overwhelmingly backed an amended proposition. Deputy Catherine Curtis’s original proposal, which would have made imposing blanket bans illegal, was successfully amended by Deputy David Warr after 24 Members voted for the change and 17 voted against.
Politicians then voted to approve the amended proposition, which was called “better than nothing at all” and “something which gives the appearance of doing something but is actually doing nothing” by 29 votes to ten following an hour-and-a-half debate on Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy Curtis was originally asking for the Housing Minister to bring forward legal changes before 31 March 2025 to ensure that tenants can keep pets unless the landlord provides a “reasonable reason for not permitting this”.
These proposed changes would have affected around half of Islanders, with the latest census showing that 33% of households are private rentals and roughly 13% are social-housing rentals.
In the States, she explained how she had met the Jersey Landlords Association to inform them of her proposition and get their feedback – and the JLA had since sent a letter to all Members setting out their concerns.
Deputy Curtis said: “My understanding is that good landlords consider each case on its merit and don’t apply blanket bans. I’m in agreement with the items they list as potential adequate protections for landlords.
“We are all in agreement, the only contested point is whether it is guidance or legislation. Unfortunately, guidance will not be sufficient. Like every other group of people, landlords include good and bad.
“Guidance will have no impact on bad landlords, and what is under consideration here is the rights of people to live in their homes, the rights they wish to live, so legislation is necessary.
“All this proposition does is to remove blanket bans. Landlords will still be able to choose their preferred tenant, will still be able to refuse pets for a valid reason, and will be able to claim funds from the tenant to put right any damage.”
She added at the end of the debate: “This is a matter which affects many people. Not taking this matter seriously is a slap in the face for many Islanders.
“Guidance will not be sufficient to prevent blanket bans on pets, which is discriminatory against good tenants. It is very disappointing that the majority of Members could not support this, but not surprising.”
She said it was nonetheless “better than nothing at all”.
Deputy Warr – a landlord – amended her words so that the proposition asked the minister to provide “guidance” to landlords about the issue, which he deemed a “less onerous approach”. He argued: “We’re drowning in red tape; we need to stop this obsession with creating new laws when other alternatives are available.
“Most issues do not need legislation, and this is a case in point. It is an inappropriate response to issues raised in the proposition at this time.
“Private landlords are already walking away due to the increasing burden of red tape being placed upon them. This leaves greater demand for properties that remain, will potentially push up rents, and homelessness is a very real consequence.”
Housing Minister Sam Mézec previously expressed support for the principle of Deputy Curtis’s proposition, and measures targeting pets in rental properties could be included in his package of measures being brought forward to update the Residential Tenancy Law.
In this week’s debate, he reiterated that the addition of several clauses to the law would be “extremely easy”, and proposals on this issue in the UK Renters’ Rights Bill, which was recently debated in Parliament, provided a framework that could be drawn from.
He said: “We have three options. Do something. Do nothing. Or do something which gives the appearance of doing something but is actually doing nothing.
“This amendment asks for us to do the latter rather than allow a straight debate between the two tangible options. It is an inefficient surrogate for the do-nothing option. It asks me to expend time and energy on something that will have no legal effect and will in all likelihood be ignored by those who ought to pay the most attention to it.”
He continued: “Guidance that is non-binding will provide neither tenants nor landlords with tangible rights or responsibilities and provide no framework for resolving disputes.”
