Dog owners being forced to live in cars due to 'ridiculous' landlord rule

People are being forced to live in their CARS due to a "ridiculous" landlord rule, it has emerged. A van driver has been forced to live in his car because of a ridiculous landlord "rule" and he has fumed how he is "completely stuck".

Paul Growns, from Maidstone, Kent, became homeless in January 2022 and is still is still living in his vehicle - with his two dogs - two years later. Mr Growns, who works full-time as a van driver, became homeless in January 2022Credit: KentOnline says he was advised that his only option is to look for private accommodation.

The 45-year-old told KentOnline that the council has not offered him and temporary accommodation because he is not in priority need so he is looking for private digs, but it's hard to find accommodation because landlords don't accept pets.

READ MORE UK tourists in Spain risk £5,000 fines over little-known '200 litre' water rule

The van driver has Max the Dachshund and Toby the Jack Russell. He said: "Being an animal lover, you can't separate yourself from your animals because they're family and they're like your children while your homeless, because if you didn't have them, you've got no-one.

"Places don't accept pets, so you have a choice you either stay homeless or re-home your pets." He said: “These dogs are the reason I’m still here at the moment, because if I didn’t have these, I don’t know how long I’d be here."

"Most people go home every night to their family and dogs, and a nice warm bed - I wouldn't know what that feels like anymore," he said.

A Maidstone Borough Council spokesman told The Sun: “ Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) has instructed its independent reviewer to consider Mr Growns’ request to overturn the decision to find him a non-priority under the Homelessness legislation and is awaiting the outcome.

"MBC is aware of Mr Growns’ case and is working with him and others to identify a suitable housing solution. Mr Growns’ most recent loss of discretionary accommodation, provided by the Council, was in relation to a breach of conditions and not due to him being a dog owner.”