Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 10th Jul 17, 11:42 AM
    • 148Posts
    • 47Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet?
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:42 AM
    Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet? 10th Jul 17 at 11:42 AM
    I am renting a flat to a couple on a 12 month tenancy agreement. When they applied they did not say anything about having a pet and in the tenancy agreement it states that tenants must get permission for any pets from the landlord first. I have been informed by a neighbour that one of the tenants has been seen going in and out of the flat with a dog, and the dog has also been seen in the garden. I asked the tenants about it and they claimed that it didn't belong to them but was a friend's who had been visiting or had left the dog there for a short time. I told them that I did not want a dog in the flat at all even if it was a friend's and that they should stop allowing the friend to bring the dog in, but it has been seen again since by my neighbour who watches and keeps me informed, when the woman tenant is around she often seems to have the dog with her.
    I think that the dog is probably really theirs or has been staying with them and I don't want it there. How can I go about ending their tenancy for breach of contract? Will I have to obtain proof that the dog is there? Does it matter legally whether it belongs to them or not?
    They also pre-paid all 12 months of their rent before moving in and have eight months remaining on the tenancy, will this make it harder for me to get them out?
Page 18
    • Pixie5740
    • By Pixie5740 13th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • 10,826 Posts
    • 14,961 Thanks
    Pixie5740

    Since when is a contract not a contract - just because one party to it decides they personally don't wish to abide by it? They shouldnt have signed it in the first place if they had no intention of abiding by it. It's called "being responsible" and not "trying to have everything your own way - regardless of what you agreed to".
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention
    Oh c'mon money you've been on MSE long enough to know that contracts aren't the be and and end all and I'm not just talking about tenancy agreements either. There are parts of the forum dedicated to PPI reclaims, bankruptcy and debt.

    You can put what you like in a tenancy agreement but that doesn't means its enforceable. The tenancy agreement doesn't trump a tenant's statutory rights.
    Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 4:22 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    To achieve what exactly?
    Originally posted by Riggster
    To achieve peace of mind if nothing else. My imagination is already running riot with all the possibilities so it can hardly be worse.

    Also on the small chance of finding evidence of something illegal going on..... I suppose! Not what you want going on in your property but would be very convenient!
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:27 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 343 Thanks
    leslieknope
    oh my god... this has gone from the tenants potentially having a dog and you being allergic, to you thinking they're doing something illegal? because they deigned to POTENTIALLY have a pet????
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:28 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    To achieve peace of mind if nothing else. My imagination is already running riot with all the possibilities so it can hardly be worse.

    Also on the small chance of finding evidence of something illegal going on..... I suppose! Not what you want going on in your property but would be very convenient!
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Lets say there is something illegal - how does that help you? You still cant evict them....
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 4:28 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    Perhaps the landlord/lady is friends with the neighbours and would like it to stay that way - without the hassle of trying to "fall over backwards" to apologise/try and deal with barking dogs or crying babies?
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention
    I do think one should have the right to bar potential nuisance animals like dogs and babies and for that contract to stand up in a court, if the tenant willingly agrees to it and signs it. This is hardly 'gay cake' territory, by all means force the cake maker to write whatever amorous message you like on your cake in the name of equality but don't say you have the right to force him to sit next to your crying baby and howling wolfdog while he does it!
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:29 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    I do think one should have the right to bar potential nuisance animals like dogs and babies and for that contract to stand up in a court, if the tenant willingly agrees to it and signs it. This is hardly 'gay cake' territory, by all means force the cake maker to write whatever amorous message you like on your cake in the name of equality but don't say you have the right to force him to sit next to your crying baby and howling wolfdog while he does it!
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Then write to your MP...
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 4:36 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    oh my god... this has gone from the tenants potentially having a dog and you being allergic, to you thinking they're doing something illegal? because they deigned to POTENTIALLY have a pet????
    Originally posted by leslieknope
    No, this was put in my mind by individuals on here making suggestions about money laundering and drugs because of the tenants' high disposable income/some apparent fibs about employment, which I do not entirely believe is likely but has added to my worries. Also because I don't know if they have a connection to my very suspicious agent which is possible. I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is. If they are so well protected by law I don't know why she just didn't tell me the truth, dishonesty does not bode well!
    • fairy lights
    • By fairy lights 13th Jul 17, 4:37 PM
    • 8,035 Posts
    • 26,790 Thanks
    fairy lights
    Off topic but prostitution as in the selling of sexual services for money is not in illegal. It's the associated aspects such as soliciting in a personal c place which breaks the law.
    Originally posted by elsien
    Would you need to get a permit from the council to run a brothel from home though? Would it affect your council tax banding, and would you need to pay for a trade waste service to remove....used delicates?
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 4:38 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    Lets say there is something illegal - how does that help you? You still cant evict them....
    Originally posted by Guest101
    Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point), it would be raided and shut down and the guilty parties prosecuted and taken into custody.
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:40 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 343 Thanks
    leslieknope
    lord above.... yes, lets threaten people with eviction from their home just because they got pregnant.
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:41 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 343 Thanks
    leslieknope
    Would you need to get a permit from the council to run a brothel from home though? Would it affect your council tax banding, and would you need to pay for a trade waste service to remove....used delicates?
    Originally posted by fairy lights
    you can reclaim some tax for any costs of washing a uniform... so i assume you could claim a rebate!
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 4:42 PM
    • 309 Posts
    • 279 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    The poster hasn't been there!

    You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means?



    It depends on how the property is returned!

    Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question, thread and answers.




    You clearly have no idea...

    I would be more worried you say its your living.



    seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


    Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......and they are paying for the carpets to be cleaned.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 13-07-2017 at 4:45 PM.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:43 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point)- ye I got that. , it would be raided - unlikely, the police tend to work with prostitutes to ensure their safety. They typically act where there is coercion. and shut down - if raided, yes it would be shut down. and the guilty parties prosecuted - possibly. and taken into custody.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Almost certainly there would not be a prison sentence. BUT even if there was. You still couldn't evict them!


    they are still tenants, even if they were in prison.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:45 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    The poster hasn't been there!


    You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means? - Indeed. And its not legally relevant




    It depends on how the property is returned!


    Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question and thread. - Which has been answered about 50 times...




    You clearly have no idea...


    I would be more worried you say its your living. - I didn't say that. However that said, I'm being accurate. Your playing a moral violin.




    seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


    Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......
    Originally posted by scd3scd4


    if you say so pal
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:46 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    No, this was put in my mind by individuals on here making suggestions about money laundering and drugs because of the tenants' high disposable income/some apparent fibs about employment, which I do not entirely believe is likely but has added to my worries. Also because I don't know if they have a connection to my very suspicious agent which is possible. I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is. If they are so well protected by law I don't know why she just didn't tell me the truth, dishonesty does not bode well!
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Probably she's not yet aware of her legal position....
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:49 PM
    • 248 Posts
    • 343 Thanks
    leslieknope
    i would have hoped you had realised that posters were exaggerating about drug rings and money laundering as a very worst case scenario, perhaps in reaction to how absurd some of your allegations have been. and again you seem to be focused on what the tenants are doing wrong instead of how your agent has s----ed the pooch and you have in fact not ensured the rights the tenants have to a protected deposit and quiet enjoyment of their home.

    the most likely scenario here is yes, tenants have a dog and thought they would be okay to just quietly enjoy their tenancy and then get things cleaned when they move out so you're none the wiser. and your lone agent has approached you with this deal, preying on your naivety in order to gouge you for 40% of the income, and has cut corners in order to maximise profit. he has also likely charged your tenants for referencing and checks and then not completed them.
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 4:51 PM
    • 309 Posts
    • 279 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Indeed. And its not legally relevant


    It is and that's why you have a deposit.


    Your playing a moral violin.


    No violin but a dog.




    if you say so pal


    I do and I have geezer...
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:57 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    Indeed. And its not legally relevant


    It is and that's why you have a deposit. - the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


    Your playing a moral violin.


    No violin but a dog. - as I said, not relevant




    if you say so pal


    I do and I have geezer...
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    you're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it's not helping the OP. You're wrong and sharing incorrect information.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 5:25 PM
    • 309 Posts
    • 279 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


    You are trying to change tact. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear.


    People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. Most don't need explaining why. If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good.


    However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example.


    If he has done something illegal with the deposit, that is he's look out.....we can have more than one view point of a post.

    Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 13-07-2017 at 5:30 PM.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 5:31 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,752 Thanks
    Guest101
    the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


    You are trying to change tact. - explain. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear. - you are the only person talking about wear and tear. Everyone else is focusing on the bigger picture. (p.s. dog hair is not damage either and can e rectified very easily)


    People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. - and that reason is not relevant Most don't need explaining why - most such clauses are unenforceable . If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good. - indeed. And until the tenancy ends they can do as they wish.


    However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. - oh you're a psychic? My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. - your friend could repair or replace the backdoor in a few hours. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example. - it could be, was it to be protected correctly.


    Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4


    What straw man argument, I'm talk about this specific example!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

155Posts Today

1,371Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin