LL won't let us have a dog..

Jomo

frugallass wrote: »

you made a judgement in that you queried her ability to look after a dog because she had a depressive illness

Based on what the OP wrote on this post....:rolleyes:

Welshwoofs

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Except for the fact that the Dog Control Bill is coming in and the person walking the dog (not owner) is the one that is responsible for any act of aggression from the dog, towards another animal.

Well you'd like to hope that those walking dogs as a favour to others know the dog fairly well and also that any dog with history of agression towards other dogs (or animals/people) was muzzled when in public

I know a number of dogs which I'd have absolutely no issues with walking because I interact with them a lot and know how they are with other dogs.

Geenie

People get so upset when it comes to pets. As a LL, I am quite happy to have tenants with dogs, as our properties are rural, most have no immediate neighbours,and I ask to meet them before agreeing, to see how they behave, what condition they are in. That said, if the properties were in cities, flats or whatever, I would say no.

I own a black Labrador, and know that they chew when young, lost several legs on chairs and kitchen knobs, and moult like crazy at times, so there is hair everywhere. Barking is a forte, but because we have no neighbours not a problem, but if we did, it would be unpleasant for them. I am scrupulous about hoovering everyday, make sure the dog has regular flea and tick treament etc, but there are others who are not.

I have been in some homes where the stench, dog hair and fleas were horrendous, that I felt sick sitting down! So for all of us bleating on here, and falling out about how great a pet owner we are, there are many who are not, and I think a LL has the right to decide if he finds it acceptable to have them in his property.

There was a thread on here a few days ago about some poor tenants with a young child, moved into a place where the previous ones had pets, unknown to the LL and specified not to. It is a flea pit, involving lots of chemicals and expense to iradicate, the bites on the child, and they are still having to live there, whilst said chemicals are being used. Not fair on the new tenants or LL.

Jomo

frugallass wrote: »

you queried her ability to look after a dog because she had a depressive illness

Yes because I do know of people who have suffered very badly and can sometimes barely get themselves out of bed at all! If a dog needs to be walked twice a day then that could become an issue....if no help was at hand...

But I don't know what you are getting so uppety about....if all I did was query her ability...what is wrong with that? If people were to query peoples ability more the world might be a better place...I certainly don't KNOW the OP so for me to query her ability is fine in my book...based on what she has written...

Blacksheep1979

hayley11 wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice, really appreciate it.

I think I will write him a letter and outline the reasons I want one.

Dear Landlord,

Please can I have a puppy, the reasons are:

- They are soft and fluffy
- They have big eyes
- They are so cute
- I like to hug them
- He will play fetch with me
- He will love me unconditionally

I promise I will try to train him and would never get fed up and let him make a mess.

Lots of love

Tenant who won't take no for an answer.

clutton_2

""dried tripe he loves to chew and hide under his sofa...those things stink like rotten feet ""

this made me roar with laughter..... old cooked tripe even looks like old wrinkly rotten feet !

as a LL i dont want dogs because of the expense involved. one months deposit rarely covers normal non-canine wear and tear and depreciation issues after a tenant moves on -

i once had a tenant's dog chew every single skirting board in the house - it cost me a lot of money to replace - then the smelly carpets made me want to be sick and they all had to be replaced - and the hairs everywhere - and the slobber on the full length curtains....

i dont allow dogs these days - altho a couple of my tenants have snuck in a small one - in the hope that i wont notice (*sighs)

i have a tenant with a large grey parrot who sits on top of the kitchen door hurling pecan nuts - (the parrot sits on the top of the door not the tenant) - down into its owners mouth - like an unearthly game of netball somehow !!! ~They even keep score....

i dont worry one bit about that, as they have put a huge sheet of plastic/perspex all round the cage to protect walls and carpets, and they steam clean the carpets monthly.

They also do all their own repairs and so i shant mind one bit if i have to replace a door when/if they ever leave.

Welshwoofs

clutton wrote: »

i once had a tenant's dog chew every single skirting board in the house - it cost me a lot of money to replace - then the smelly carpets made me want to be sick and they all had to be replaced - and the hairs everywhere - and the slobber on the full length curtains.....

Well yes, slobber is another issue. I love my dog to distraction, but I also recognise he has a slobber problem. My other half and I keep half an eye on him when he's sitting on his (machine washable) mat in front of the fire because we know that when the slobber strings hit approx a foot in length he's going to shake his head....and then globs of Mastiff slobber get sprayed up the walls, over the ceiling, on the TV and if I'm really unlucky I'll get a big gloop running down my laptop monitor...or my face.

I really can't blame any LL for not allowing dogs

clutton_2

""and then globs of Mastiff slobber get sprayed up the walls, over the ceiling, on the TV and if I'm really unlucky I'll get a big gloop running down my laptop monitor"

you paint such a poetic domestic scene here WW !!!

Lavendyr

clutton wrote: »

"one months deposit rarely covers normal non-canine wear and tear and depreciation issues after a tenant moves on .

Clutton, I normally agree with you, but surely a deposit shouldn't be used on normal wear and tear and depreciation - but on the genuine making good of damage caused that is not attributable to reasonable wear & tear?

Geenie

Lavendyr wrote: »

Clutton, I normally agree with you, but surely a deposit shouldn't be used on normal wear and tear and depreciation - but on the genuine making good of damage caused that is not attributable to reasonable wear & tear?

I agree Lavendyr. I always factor in normal wear and tear, after all my home doesn't look as good as a year ago, and I never charge for general scuffs and dents. It is part of being a LL.

That said, if I had stated no pets in the AST, but then had to clear up after slob, fleas, hairs on carpets, chewed knobs or legs, then I would not consider this normal wear and tear for what I originally let, so Clutton makes a valid point.

Mastiff's may be super dogs, but their like are very unappealing to me.....that amount of slobber turns my stomach in truth, and I can't imagine how they can be factored into home life without scrupulous cleaning and a lot of space to have them away from my carpets and furnishings!