It's the cat or the flat: Porirua pensioner's pet must go, Wellington City Council says

David from Cannons Creek

Fyi. Referring to Kapi Mana News item www.neighbourly.co.nz...

I'm glad Robyn Nielsen's problem has been resolved and she is now able to keep her beloved cat and remain in her home as reported in 21/11/17 issue of the Kapi Mana news.

Here is my letter to the Editor (which was significantly abridged due to space constraints) submitted to Kapi Mana news on the 10/11/17(published on the 14/11/17) raising some of the points that the landlord has also noted resulting in an exception being made. I'm glad common sense has prevailed on this occasion -with the right decision being made. Good on ya!

Dear Editor

In reference to last weeks KPMN story 'Pensioners choice: Cat or flat?' regarding Robyn Nielsen.

Firstly, leniency can be applied to any organisation's policy.

Secondly, a 'No pets' policy is usually to prevent potential damage/safety issues of the landlords property.

This case concerns WCC's stance on their 'No pets' policy forcing the tenant to choose between keeping her family pet or losing her flat at Moana Court.

The pensioner lives in block of flats along with other tenants, who themselves have pets and who no doubt provide some form of companionship and wellbeing to their owners, who acquired a cat most likely to aid in the healing process due to the loss of a loved one but, despite this, shouldn't elderly have more need of pets to address isolation & companionship, than the 'not so old'?

What government agency would selectively(?) allow some tenants improved wellbeing and not others?

Part of the landlords responsibility is to ensure the peace, comfort and wellbeing of their tenants - the Residential Tenancy's Act refers to this also.

Is it not in the best interests for any property manager to ensure the wellbeing of all of their tenants?

A happy tenant is good for all- neighbours, landlord & community.

There is no doubt that pets/animals have 'healing powers' for their owners - in some countries they are used to aid in prisoner rehabilitation programs that have produced successful results and they are also commonly used for people with certain anxiety based conditions.

My point is if owning a pet does not incur additional costs to the landlord (obviously the tenant would be liable if it did) then why not allow these elderly tenants to have their pets so that they have companionship, sense of purpose and responsibility - things that diminish when you are elderly and live on your own?

I recall hearing of tenants living in council flats(in this case Wellington) who have become reclusive, withdrawn due to depression who are found days, even weeks (months?) after they had passed away.

Shouldn't the WCC be concerned with that issue rather than taking action that could place further stress on the housing market?

The WCC justify their actions citing they are merely enforcing their policy but that's exactly what it is - THEIR policy one in which they have created, have complete control over, including the level of leniency in which they can administer it.

To force any tenant to give up their beloved pet for a roof over their head will surely result in diminished health, depression and possibly become withdrawn - for both cat and tenant.

What government agency would place such a decision upon any elderly tenant?

This matter is not the same as dealing with parking fines where strict adherence to law is practiced. This is a matter that involves health, wellbeing, companionship & isolation.

Such decisions should be based on the merits of each case especially by a government agency such as WCC and, especially, when dealing with elderly people where their home is at stake.

To place an elderly tenant in such a position, when they generally (may) have fewer things to look forward to in life, have limited mobility, reduced social networking access, isolation - the companionship that a pet offers is invaluable and life improving, even sustaining.

The WCC's decision is poorly made.

There is a housing crisis already why stress it further by unnecessarily forcing another tenant on to the waiting list possibly shunting another further down the list?

It is only because WCC have refused to exercise leniency in this matter that the issue has come to the public fore - giving further reason to hold steadfast in supporting their own policy.

Points:

- By allowing the tenant to keep her pet you maintain tenants wellbeing and happiness - which is good for all - the neighbours, landlord and community.

-There is no dispute that pets provide benefits to their owners ie companionship, addressing loneliness/isolation, possess healing powers for depression, anxiety etc.

- A happy and healthy tenant is good for all ie neighbours, landlord and others.

- The cat poses no additional costs for WCC yet is gives so much to the elderly tenant ie companionship, addresses isolation, gives sense of purpose, and responsibility and improved wellbeing

- Was it explained to Robyn (in writing ) on first moving into the flat that other tenants were allowed to keep their pets as the 'No pets' policy came into affect after they had tenanted the property?

For a city council/government agency to force upon any elderly person such a decision - to choose between their beloved cat and a roof over their head - during a housing crisis/shortage- is ill-advised, poorly handled, insensitive and undermines the worth of their tenants.

It appears that WCC have very graciously (and quickly) offered to work with the tenant to find an alternative home for her pet hoping that we will not notice that they have just as quickly bypassed any opportunity to discuss or consider leniency on the matter.

This decision now causing an elevated problem- removing her right to continue living peacefully and in comfort in her current home.

Is this another case of 'out of towners' making decisions directly (and negatively) impacting on local residents upsetting the equilibrium of peace and common sense in a town that is not their own?

These actions could be considered oppressive on the following points; other surrounding tenants are allowed to keep their pets, it is obstructive to the wellbeing/peace of mind of this tenant, elderly tenants have other concerns that most of us may not be concerned with ie limited mobility, freedom, reduced social networking, isolation, loneliness, companionship, purpose and responsibility.

By allowing her to keep the cat would that not alleviate the above concerns?

What this entire matter comes down to is WCC's refusal to exercise leniency on this issue and they have, in effect, forced upon an elderly person to choose between two of life's most important to necessities - a roof over ones head and their beloved companion.

And so, lastly,  I would like the WCC to confirm that, based on their decision, owning a family pet does NOT directly contribute towards the wellbeing of that person (tenant or resident), and the reasons why, citing factual references.

Yours sincerely

David Dahya