Dog in rented flat - admin charges. Help!

chris_m

clutton wrote: »

like being a child again... maybe - but

sadly dogs can do a lot of damage (less so cats - but they can scratch things to destruction) - i have had to replace doors, skirtings, furniture, carpets, a table - all due to a bored dog eating its way through my property grrrr

Could have been worse - a friend's dog ate his way through an entire internal wall, boards, studs, the lot !!!!

kaych

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Our contract says we can't have a pet, but we have a letter from the agent to confirm we can have a cat. See if they'll just do a letter to you as proof.

Needing permission to have a pet is one of the worst things about renting. It's like being a child again.

we are buying a flat and we need permission to have our cat with us. so that can't be worst thing about renting, it's the same with buying a flat! freehold all the way next time!

Milliewilly

Notlob wrote: »

The question was for the OP!!! How do you know the contract does not allow for a dog? You might well be right, but do not assume, as this creates poor advise to other posters

Notlob

Being a public forum I didn't realise only the OP was allowed to answer your question.

In my response that's what the ?????'s were for at the start and end of the sentence - I was posing a possible reason. I don't give poor adviCe its you who has interpreted my post incorrectly.

Owain_Moneysaver

Blanket prohibitions on keeping pets can be classed as unfair contract terms and unenforceable anyway. It does not cost £100 to change a sentence on a word processor. Type up a letter for the landlord to sign and return to you saying you can keep the dog. Then tell agents to whistle.

Notlob

Milliewilly wrote: »

Being a public forum I didn't realise only the OP was allowed to answer your question.

I apologise for misunderstanding your poorly worded first post. There was a distinct element of WELL DUH in your reply and it did seem to suggest that you thought the contract did, rather than might, not allow pets. It did sort of make your reply pointless as it did not contribute to the OP question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Milliewilly wrote: »

In my response that's what the ?????'s were for at the start and end of the sentence - I was posing a possible reason. I don't give poor adviCe its you who has interpreted my post incorrectly.

I wasn't suggesting you gave poor advice; I merely was stating that basing ones reply on an assumption can lead to poor advice.

So, back to the my original question:-
Why does the contract need amending?

Notlob

Milliewilly

Notlob wrote: »

I apologise for misunderstanding your poorly worded first post. There was a distinct element of WELL DUH in your reply and it did seem to suggest that you thought the contract did, rather than might, not allow pets. It did sort of make your reply pointless as it did not contribute to the OP question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I wasn't suggesting you gave poor advice; I merely was stating that basing ones reply on an assumption can lead to poor advice.

So, back to the my original question:-
Why does the contract need amending?

Notlob

Hmmmm. Let's think about the clues logically from the information given:

OP says they have got permission to get a dog from the Landlord. Lettings agent say they now need to amend the contract and want a fee. Wonder what change has occurred to cause the letting agent to need to make an amendment to the contract?

I await the OP's response, the suspense of not knowing why is killing me.....

Debt_Free_Chick

Contract doesn't need amending. A simple letter of consent from the LL will do the job.

Tiddlywinks

This really depends on how "involved" the LL wants to get. If Romans manage the property as well as just handling the initial let then they will be urging the LL to let them handle things (thus generating additional income).

In my experience Romans would charge for permission to use the loo if they could get away with it .

However, from the flip side, in defence of the admin fee it isn't just printing another contract. They need to employ (train and retain) the staff to do it, buy and maintain the equipment, pay for the business premises (rent, rates, water, utilities) and retain a working knowledge of the law etc in order to carry out their business activities - very little comes free these days.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

However, from the flip side, in defence of the admin fee it isn't just printing another contract. They need to employ (train and retain) the staff to do it, buy and maintain the equipment, pay for the business premises (rent, rates, water, utilities) and retain a working knowledge of the law etc in order to carry out their business activities - very little comes free these days.

For just one contract ammendment?

Tiddlywinks

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

For just one contract ammendment?

Yes, they have had to put the infrastructure in place when setting up (and will need to recover those costs) plus there will also be ongoing costs.

Letting agents are in business to make a profit by providing certain services. Harsh but true.