Nickalea Deacon brought Bronson from a private breeder two years ago on the understanding that he was a cross between a Bullmastiff and a Rottweiler, but as he grew and on a normal trip into her local town, police seized him after they had suspicions he was a banned breed.  Bronson was labelled as 30 percent Japanese Tosa

From this, Nickalea followed all of the appropriate legal channels and the case went through the Court, where a police dog handler confirmed that Bronson was not a danger to the public and he was returned to Nickalea with a Certificate of Exemption, after being added to the index of Exempted Dogs.  This meant that as long as he was kept on a lead and muzzled at all times in a public place, and that Nickalea took insurance against her dog injuring other people he could stay with his family.  Nickalea Deacon has abided by these rules and yet she is now being penalised by the company that provide her social housing, stemming from a complaint from a neighbour that Bronson was barking, an allegation that Nickalea has denied. 

Stonewater, who provide the social housing for Nickalea Deacon, have advised that Bronson cannot stay at the property as he is a banned breed, and yet he has a Certificate of Exemption from a Court, having been assessed that he is acceptable to live among society provided his family abide by the Court's conditions.

Due to his characteristics, he has been labelled 30 percent Japanese Tosa which means he cannot be rehomed with anybody else, he can be put in foster with someone but Miss Deacon cannot find anyone to take him who is prepared to accept the responsibility of the conditions of his Certificate of Exemption. Miss Deacon has advised that she cannot afford to move and fears that without a home to go to it will end up with the destruction of Bronson being the only outcome.

Stonewater have made a statement to the local media as follows: 

Ros White, head of housing for Stonewater said: “Our tenancy agreement clearly states we do not accept any breed of dog classified under the Dangerous Dogs Act, (DDA) 1991.“We appreciate this is an emotive issue, made more complex in this instance by the existence of an exemption certificate.

“As a responsible landlord, we have a duty to uphold our rules for the benefit of all customers and the wider community. We will continue to work with Miss Deacon to achieve an acceptable outcome.”

This answer, from Stonewater, to a desperate plight is both vague and dismissive.  We stand as a nation of dog lovers, we have already seen discrimination against breeds in this country, through no real fault of their own but the people who are in ownershio of them.  Here stands a dog, who has been through the system and proved he is non aggressive, who has a family that have strived to clear his name of any stigmatism through the court, and yet Stonewater feel the need to discriminate, where a court has seen fit to do the opposite.  What is the point in a family going to court in the first place to be met with such discrimination by a Housing Company.  This is unacceptable.

KEEP BRONSON WITH HIS FAMILY, DON'T LET HIM DIE