1 Year AST with no pets clause, now tenant inherits a dog!!

tbs624

HappyMJ wrote: »

My opinion is (i.e not fact) is that the landlord can issue a section 21 at any time for breach of contract giving 60 days notice to leave.

It's good that you stated that this was simply your opinion.

A S21 ( of the Housing Act 1988) Notice is a "no-fault notice" which relates to the LL's recovery of possession on expiry or termination of an assured shorthold tenancy. There is a minimum notice period of 2 months ( not "60 days") and the LL has to time it to line up after the expiry of the Fixed Term .

Note that the T in this thread is still within the Fixed Term of their tenancy. LL may indeed promptly serve an S21 so that T is under no illusion that there will be no agreed extension of the tenancy after the FT expires but he cannot just say "in 60 days, thou shalt go, taking aforementioned mutt with you"

LL can also obviously look to the T to pay for all damage to garden/property/furnishings etc and for the property to be subject to an anti-flea treatment on exit.

T may find it helpful to look for the pet insurance company that offers a policy which will apparently cover damage done to a rental property.

missile

mlz1413 wrote: »

..... I feel sorry for the dog being used a pawn in couples battle - just hope they don't also have kids.

I feel sorry for the LL, being stuck with a dog he does not want in his property. It is amazing how much damage a pet can cause and how difficult it can be to remove the smell. In my experience the deposit does not cover the inconvenience, cost of redecoration and new carpets or the void period to clean up the property:(

ILW

evoke wrote: »

Why not just have the pet put down so everyone is happy? LOL.

Probably with the exception of the dog.

evoke

Who cares about the dog? Nasty, dirty creatures. Give it to a Korean and you'll be feeding someone too. Win-win.

tamarto

evoke wrote: »

Who cares about the dog? Nasty, dirty creatures. Give it to a Korean and you'll be feeding someone too. Win-win.

Not feeding them much if it's a ratty little Paris Hilton type dog.....


You do make me laugh.

Planner

evoke wrote: »

Why not just have the pet put down so everyone is happy? LOL.

How about putting the landlord down? That would make a good 98% of the population happy.

mlz1413

missile wrote: »

I feel sorry for the LL, being stuck with a dog he does not want in his property. It is amazing how much damage a pet can cause and how difficult it can be to remove the smell. In my experience the deposit does not cover the inconvenience, cost of redecoration and new carpets or the void period to clean up the property:(

You should see what damaged some tenants can do a house.......

I have owned dogs for a fair amount of my adult life, my house is clean, smell free and the carpet is not / has never been in need of replacement due to pets.

I have seen houses were the OWNER has let the dog pee & pooh in and outside the house, but then again their kids weren't that much better in their toilet habits.

It really does depend on the owners and clearly in Evokes case the dog would just be used to feed the family and so the problem would be solved.

missile

mlz1413 wrote: »

You should see what damaged some tenants can do a house.......

I have owned dogs for a fair amount of my adult life, my house is clean, smell free and the carpet is not / has never been in need of replacement due to pets.

I have seen houses were the OWNER has let the dog pee & pooh in and outside the house, but then again their kids weren't that much better in their toilet habits.

It really does depend on the owners and clearly in Evokes case the dog would just be used to feed the family and so the problem would be solved.

I have never been in a home of a pet owner, where I could not tell instantly when I walked through the door. I have never met a dog owner who thinks his home smells of dog. When I had one I was not aware of the pet smell in my house either :beer:
IMHO a LL should have the right to specify no dogs / redecorating or whatever he likes. The contract should be binding on both parties. The tenant should abide by the terms or choose another property. Some tenants are all to aware that they can sign the contract today and move in with their pet rottweiler tomorrow.

mlz1413

must admit I'd hadn't realised the no pets clause was legally unenforceable, which I do agree is unfair as LL should have a choice.

it will be interesting to see what mustardseed6 comes back with, they have said about an amicable resoultion and there are plenty of ideas and legal advice.

N79

I just want to rewind a bit on the "no dog clauses are not legally enforceable" comments in this thread.

Firstly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a reasonable no dogs clause eg "No dogs may be kept at the property without the written permission of the LL which will not be unreasonably denied. " One reason a LL might do this is because they themselves may be subject to terms in a head lease or covenants on their title which impose such a constraint. For example, this is true for most modern flats.

Secondly, since such a term is not unfair (not even the OFT try to claim this) there is no reason why the LL can not enforce it. There are two means at the LL's disposal.

i) They can wait until the end of the tenancy and then ask the T to pay damages equal to the LL's costs as a result of the breach (removing dog hair, dog smell, repairing damage, maybe changing carpets after accidents, deflea treatment etc).

ii) They can start possession proceedings using Ground 12 of the Section 8 possession process. However, this is a discretionary ground and it is highly unlikely that a court will actually evict for breaching this term, but it is a possibility. Even when the court declines to evict the T may well have to pay the LL's costs.

This leads us to the conclusion that, in reality, there is very little useful action a LL can take against a T who breaches this clause during the fixed term of the tenancy agreement. The only reliable action the LL can take is to use the Section 21 process to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term at which time they can, if appropriate, sue for damages.

So these clauses are not legally unenforceable but there are no practical enforcement options available to the LL during the fixed term of a tenancy.