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 19
    • Soundgirlrocks
    • By Soundgirlrocks 13th Jul 17, 5:58 PM
    • 437 Posts
    • 634 Thanks
    Soundgirlrocks
    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.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    So? You still can't take back the property until the tenant or court surrenders it. The tenant getting nicked doesn't end the tenancy. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/prisoners/keeping_your_home_when_in_prison
    • moneyistooshorttomention
    • By moneyistooshorttomention 13th Jul 17, 6:08 PM
    • 13,422 Posts
    • 36,573 Thanks
    moneyistooshorttomention
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    If there's "4 tendencies" type of people (Gretchen Rubin) = yep....Questioner type here
    - Meets an expectation only if they believe it's justified and resists anything arbitrary or ineffective
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 6:21 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,733 Thanks
    Guest101
    When running a business it's best to understand all possibilities. Then there's fewer surprises.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 13th Jul 17, 6:24 PM
    • 1,360 Posts
    • 4,135 Thanks
    Penitent
    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention
    And the renters of the UK breathe a sigh of relief...
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 6:51 PM
    • 247 Posts
    • 339 Thanks
    leslieknope
    where has anyone said tenants have all the rights? you can look and see countless threads from tenants who have to move for various reasons, but the landlords have exercised their right to charge them for the remaining tenancy. some landlords that leave houses in unfit states just because they can - need we remind everyone that the government voted against legislation to make every private rental fit for human habitation just last year? so a landlord has to provide a gas safety certificate, yes, but can rent a moldy property with no ventilation.

    both sides have rights. there's pros and cons to both. there's good and bad landlords. good and bad tenants.

    people in this thread were just pointing out the various rights tenants have because the OP wanted to evict tenants for maybe having a dog. which is not the law.
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • gingercordial
    • By gingercordial 13th Jul 17, 7:25 PM
    • 982 Posts
    • 940 Thanks
    gingercordial
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention
    As a tenant I'm very pleased that you (and others like you) might draw this conclusion.

    I would not want a landlord who thought they should have the right to control my family planning! My god...

    I'd rather properties remained in the hands of landlords who have a clue or were released onto the market for first-time buyers. So please, if you end up considering this in real life, sell up for all our sakes and invest your money elsewhere.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 13th Jul 17, 7:28 PM
    • 1,879 Posts
    • 2,775 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 13th Jul 17, 7:58 PM
    • 1,614 Posts
    • 4,310 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention

    Having fewer amateur BTLers out there is no bad thing at all!
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 13th Jul 17, 8:00 PM
    • 1,614 Posts
    • 4,310 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Maybe its their friend Schrodinger's dog?
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 10:08 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 47 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    The actual quote was, "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 (I will add a comma here to make it clearer), and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is."

    I.e. perhaps obviously, I know that it is there, because of the unasked-for but constant stream of alerts and photos from my neighbour showing otherwise. Couldn't care less if it is 'owned' by her or someone else or if it has come from the woods of its own accord to huff and puff and blow my house down, if it is there inside the property
    • Riggyman
    • By Riggyman 13th Jul 17, 10:56 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 149 Thanks
    Riggyman
    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.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Wouldn't end the tenancy and give reason for eviction though.
    • macman
    • By macman 13th Jul 17, 10:59 PM
    • 41,291 Posts
    • 16,954 Thanks
    macman
    How can you possibly think that drip feeding would reduce your tax bill? Income tax is calculated on your income within the tax year, whether it's paid in one lump sum or in monthly instalments.
    Who has been handling your tax returns in the past, since you have apparently been self employed?
    BTW, my comments about a cannabis farm were entirely serious: how did the tenants otherwise come to pay not only 12m rent upfront but £4K deposit as well? I'm guessing they paid out a lump sum of maybe £28K in total? Did you ask the agent to find someone who would pay upfront?
    The people who 'front' such farms are of course well dressed, have impeccable (fake) references and cash upfront. They are not of course the people who actually tend the farm.
    No free lunch, and no free laptop
    • Riggyman
    • By Riggyman 13th Jul 17, 11:00 PM
    • 161 Posts
    • 149 Thanks
    Riggyman
    I'm now relegating this thread to 4.5/10. No bags for life, no second hand chocolate oranges and no vampires.

    V. Poor, must try harder.
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 14th Jul 17, 12:24 AM
    • 247 Posts
    • 339 Thanks
    leslieknope
    not even an emotionally difficult turkey
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • PersianCatLady
    • By PersianCatLady 14th Jul 17, 12:38 AM
    • 339 Posts
    • 320 Thanks
    PersianCatLady
    This almost made me panic for a moment but I think you are being facetious. They look very well dressed, at least in the photographs taken by the neighbour, and the woman sounded reasonably well educated on the phone. I cannot imagine her growing a cannabis. I should have thought my neighbour would inform me if anything like that was happening there, although I doubt that she would know anything about drugs. He could just be very well paid or there could be wealthy family involved. I am not going to add THAT to the list of concerns

    However it does continue to upset me that they are fibbers, with dog, and the female does actually not seem to be working as was stated.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    I don't think that the previous poster was being facetious.

    In fact I think he/she was telling you one of the common pitfalls in renting out a property.

    You seem to be very naïve about how being a landlord works.
    • PersianCatLady
    • By PersianCatLady 14th Jul 17, 12:44 AM
    • 339 Posts
    • 320 Thanks
    PersianCatLady
    Then I will just have to make sure that they do not find out about any of this, and be none the wiser when they eventually leave. Maybe I will also have to hope that their hound does damage something, preferably expensive and ugly so that I can take it from what they are owed!!
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Are you going to take their internet away then.

    Anybody can find out in seconds that if your deposit isn't protected you have legal recourse against your landlord.
    • PersianCatLady
    • By PersianCatLady 14th Jul 17, 1:14 AM
    • 339 Posts
    • 320 Thanks
    PersianCatLady
    I can't believe that I got taken in by this heap of nonsense troll thread.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 14th Jul 17, 8:05 AM
    • 1,879 Posts
    • 2,775 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    The actual quote was, "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 (I will add a comma here to make it clearer), and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is."

    I.e. perhaps obviously, I know that it is there, because of the unasked-for but constant stream of alerts and photos from my neighbour showing otherwise. Couldn't care less if it is 'owned' by her or someone else or if it has come from the woods of its own accord to huff and puff and blow my house down, if it is there inside the property
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    I don't know whether or not there's a dog there; that's not my point.
    You seem to be saying that they have told you there is a dog that exists somewhere (dogs do exist; this is widely accepted by scientists) but they don't own it and it isn't in your house. So what, exactly, has she admitted to you? That her cousin has a dog? What?
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 14th Jul 17, 1:08 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 259 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Leave him............he don't want the smelly, flea bag mut of a poo factory in hes house.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 14th Jul 17, 1:10 PM
    • 15,147 Posts
    • 14,733 Thanks
    Guest101
    Leave him............he don't want the smelly, flea bag mut of a poo factory in hes house.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    it's not his house at the moment....
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

166Posts Today

1,348Users online

Martin's Twitter