#18873
Kangaroo
Flatchatter

    It bewilders me why Schemes which do not want pets without prior written approval do not simply strike out (via an amendment) Clause (2) of By-Law 16.

    They’ve decided on Clause (1).

    Why make a rod for their own back by leaving Clause (2) there?

    Instead they should write a new Clause (2) which says that the CTTT is responsible for sending an officer around to remove any pet which does not comply with the conditions they set when ruling the OC’s decision was unreasonable.