Animal Aid founder Sue Vidamour, left, with the horse taken in from a cash-strapped States tenant with 15 other animals. Holding Tia, a five year-old mare, is Vivien Ferneyhough. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 0697956)
A WOMAN on benefit was found to be keeping 15 pets at her States house - and also had a horse.
Animal Aid was called in and the woman - who had 10 cats and five rabbits - has now signed over the horse, kept at a separate property, to the charity.
Another tenant owned seven chinchillas, 14 cats, two dogs, three or four cages of cockatiels and six degus [small rodents] - and had four hamsters in separate cages in a toilet.
The charity has accused Housing of failing tenants’ animals - which the department denied - and said it could not continue spending thousands of pounds a year without support from the department.
‘Housing keeps talking of human rights, but human rights should come hand in hand with responsibility towards animals,’ said Animal Aid manager Vivien Ferneyhough.
A Housing spokesman confirmed that there was no limit on pet numbers.
‘We would intervene, however, if there was evidence that animals were suffering as a direct result of overcrowding,’ he said.
Housing would act quickly to resolve any case of cruelty when presented with evidence from either Animal Aid or the GSPCA, he said, but pointed out: ‘Animal abuse and neglect are not confined to social housing.’
GSPCA operations director Jayne Le Cras said that in her 14 years of working with Housing, the department had been ‘helpful, responsible and supportive’.
‘We’ve never experienced a problem,’ she said. ‘We support Housing and, while it doesn’t have an easy job at times, it is equally supportive of us. It is a relationship based on mutual respect.’
Mrs Vidamour said: ‘We home animals to States tenants. There are some very good ones.’
But the charity had had to deal with between 40 and 50 incidents at States houses, she added, involving mostly rabbits, cats, some dogs and the occasional exotic bird.
Sometimes it took the animals in or paid for treatment or neutering, which owners on benefit said they could not afford.
‘If we leave it, the problem only escalates,’ said Mrs Ferneyhough.
Mrs Vidamour said that many of the incidents had been reported by neighbours.
‘We would like Housing to limit the number of animals people can keep.’
The Housing spokesman said the department had discussed Animal Aid’s concerns with Mrs Vidamour.
States tenants are allowed pets if they do not pose a risk or cause a nuisance.
‘Tenants are expected to have the finances and facilities to properly care for their pets and where there is evidence that this is not the case, the department will withdraw its consent for the animals to be accommodated,’ he said.
‘The same applies where there is proven neglect of, or cruelty to, the animal.’
A Social Security spokesman said its visiting officers saw a lot of people, particularly older generations, in their own home and many had a pet for company.
‘Rates take no account of any expenses for pet food or vet bills,’ he said. ‘It’s up to the individual how they spend their benefit money.’
Article posted on 8th January, 2009 - 2.30pm
.gif&contenttype=gif "Guernsey Museums & Galleries")
.gif&contenttype=gif "Sula Gallery")
15 Article Comments
I am totally in favour of the state helping those in genuine need, whether that be benefits or a States House. Neither do I think that those who live in States houses or claim benefit should be prohibited from some of life’s pleasures, such as keeping pets.
Nevertheless there should be responsible limits put in place, after all someone claiming to require state assistance to live should not be able to afford to responsibly keep 15 animals and a horse.
I hope these sorry stories bring about some common sense regulations that continue to allows States tenants to keep pets responsibly whilst stopping excesses like these.
Report abuse
I am totally in favour of the state helping those in genuine need, whether that be benefits or a States House. Neither do I think that those who live in States houses or claim benefit should be prohibited from some of life’s pleasures, such as keeping pets.
Nevertheless there should be responsible limits put in place, after all someone claiming to require state assistance to live should not be able to afford to responsibly keep 15 animals and a horse.
I hope these sorry stories bring about some common sense regulations that continue to allow States tenants to keep pets responsibly while stopping excesses like these.
Report abuse
Well why the f**k were they getting enough money to purchase and keep that many animals!? The states must be stupid to give out that much money to people who obviously dont appreciate it as instead of trying to save to buy a house, they waste it on buying a horse.
And before people start saying they are entitled to privilidges, yes they are, but i dont want to be paying for it!
Id rather spend my social security contrubutions on more stuff for my horse. not theres.
Yes this may be selfish, but so are they.
Im glad these animals got taken off them.
Report abuse
Just as a matter of interest, why aren’t these people still paying for the up keep of these animals, theres no report of ill care so they were obviously well looked after. Instead of, well you cant cope, we will take them and you stay in your house and keep claiming.
And with that thought, what stopping them getting another 10 cats etc?
Report abuse
Yes i would like to make a comment and this goes to gsy gal as well, i live in a states house , a single mum with 3 still at home, i work very hard and i do have 2 dogs, 3 cats and 2 cockateils and 3 budgies, apart from buying a dog and a budgie the other animals have come to me through adoption rather than purchase,i am not on benifit and i look after my kids and my pets to a very high standard. Just cause i live on a estate that is owned by housing does not mean i sponge off the states to pay for them , most people in states houses go to work and pay there way in society like you do. We are allowed to give a home to a pet if we want to, whether it is an hampster or a horse,i bet the person who gave up there loved horse was devastated to have to let it go and rather then
be negleted ,went to animal aid , so c,mon sue give the lady credit for that.She wanted the best for her horse. We live in states houses due to circumstances , we are just like everyone else, and to all the people on benifit , it is only help that you are totally entitled to . That is life! thats the way it is. We are a nation of Animal lovers and as for sue , she is only too pleased to sell dogs to people in states houses and then go moaning to housing a little two faced if you ask me …..when you needed help it was people like us who gave to you, remember that……….
Report abuse
catgirl, nowhere did i say anything about people in states houses. I was talking about people who couldnt be bothered to go to work so live off benefits. Many of my friends live in states houses as there wage, like mine, is not enough to rent somewhere and they do not have the luxury of still being able to live with there parents.
As i own a horse i know how expensive they are, I work very hard for this. I just dont see how when the benefits are apparently calculated very well, someone could afford a horse and numerous other pets. Yes a dog or cat, maybe one of two animals is fine, but these peopls have obviously been abusing the system to be able to afford so many animals.
Report abuse
When will Animal Aid, as worthy a charity as it is, stop trying to take on too much workload?
It would be interesting to know exactly how much in the way of charitable donations that AA requires to function each year.
Report abuse
The problem is that these people are not thinking of the future.
Living in a states house should be viewed as a temporary arrangement - until people can get back on their feet and into the rental market etc. Am i naive in thinking this?
Many places available to rent will not take pets. That is the problem here. If these people were serious about trying to improve their situation they would not buy a pet in the first place, knowing that they may not be able to keep it when they move out of states housing back into normal rental accommodation.
It is irresponsible pet ownership -to buy a pet which you may only be able to keep temporarily, it is unfair to the animals and it is also unfair to the owners as it may dampen their aspirations and hinder their ability to improve their life as how can they move out unless they give up their beloved pet/s?
Housing should seriously consider limiting pets and recommending no pets for this very reason.
Report abuse
I hope States tenants who own more than one pet don’t have a Sky Satellite dish outside their house as well.
That would annoy the moderate right whingers in the Island!
Report abuse
Good grief! My senses did a spin when I read that some States House renters own and maintain horses. Doing so surely is a very expensive proposition ? 60 years ago my parents and my sister and I lived in a States house at Courtil Portier, a lovely, new, 3 bedroom home. We were very grateful.
Back then, States houses were for lower income earners, the low cost of renting one of them a way for low income families to make ends meet and/or until they had saved enough to purchase their own bungalow or other home.
With that in mind, it seems to me that anyone who can afford to purchase and maintain a horse ( of all things!) today shouldn’t be living in a States house. Rather, they should be making way for low income earners who cannot, for instance, afford to purchase and maintain horses, multiple dogs cats and what have you.
Have things changed that much? Or is the situation unmanaged now and totally out of control?
Report abuse
The whole States House system annoys me…
Drive past states houses & you see flash cars in the drive… At christmas you can see loads of them from space due to the amount of lights as well!!
I know a few people who co-habit yet claim single parent benefit.
I know 1 family who admit that they could afford to rent privately but wont, as if they do then they would not be able to visit America TWICE a year…
& who pays for this?? Me!!!
I do not have 2 pennies to scratch my ar*e with… We have a young daughter & various jobs to make ends meet… I rent privately - I could get a States house but I am a proud man that wants the best for his family….
Could I afford a horse or a day trip to Endland even?? No…. But then I am not a free loader who is happy to abuse the state & sponge off of the working man…
Report abuse
What’s this? States house tenants having a life?
Despicable! We private rentiers need any surplus cash these people have, after all no one else is going to help us increase our property portfolios. Not to mention the profit of mortgage brokers and bankers.
We simply cannot have low income earners managing their money in such a way as to afford some pleasure in life. Low earners simply don’t deserve it and any surplus they manage to achieve above a very basic life should be channelled into the profits of people who deserve it.
I know of one States house tenant with a car worth £12,000 pound outside. It’s a waste, no garage to keep it at it’s best. Okay he has a loan on it but his collateral on the vehicle must be at least £2000. Now if he was forced into the private sector a decent landlord would have that off him in less that two months. There’s real efficiency. Mind you to give credit to the States, private landlords can only achieve this sort of efficiency due to current housing policies.
In an ideal world these low earning Guernseymen would be forced off the island thereby making space for high net worth individuals that can afford to pay taxes and rents, or better still buying their own house which would increase rentiers property portfolios to somewhere near what they are really worth.
If the States house tenants that can afford any pleasure in life are made to feel guilty for being alive then they may leave Guernsey of their own free will, then Guernsey could reach it’s full potential.
Report abuse
Oh dear, Steven. No offense intended. Sorry about that. It does seem as if I inadvertently struck a states house renters guilty nerve though. So which group are you from, horse owners or ritzy cars?
Report abuse
WHB - if you genuinely do know a few people who are co-habiting and still claiming single parent benefit why haven’t you reported this? Surely you are duty bound to do so - it’s our money that’s being stolen after all. I and other taxpayers would applaud you for doing so. Then maybe you’d have an extra penny or two with which you could relieve that embarassing itch.
Report abuse
As much as I want to, I don’t keep a dog because I’m not around in the day to look after it, as I’m out at work, earning money to pay for my rented accomodation and 2nd hand car.
It’s just fantastic to know that 6% of my salary is going on paying for people to stay at home and have the pets I would so dearly like to have and probably a better car than me.
Something is seriously screwed.
Report abuse