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

Vincenzo

If the tenant wishes to leave early, the best course of action is to speak to the Landlord about remarketing. I am a bit hazy on this but I believe, even if the tenant leaves early without permission, if the Landlord re-lets they can only claim the actual loss. IE the marketing period when they were not receiving rent. The Landlord would also be under a legal obligation to mitigate that loss (ie to find a tenant).

mustardseed6

I will have to talk to the tenant and see what can be agreed or done now that I am a bit clearer where I stand legally. The dog hasn't moved in yet.

myhouse_2

I had bad tenants - but the dog left no problems at all.
I'd negotiate a higher deposit and accept the fact that there will be a dog in the house.

Aquatronixjenny

My landlord originally stated in the advert that they didn't want any pets moving in, but we spoke to the letting agent and they asked the landlord if they would reconsider. We offered to put down a larger deposit and also asked if our prospective landlord would like to come round and view our property we were in at the time and also meet our dog.

They could see (and smell) that the house was fine, the dog was friendly, didn't bark and also didn't smell (they said it was the first house they had been in with a dog that didn't smell!)

She said that she would be happy for us to move in with the dog as long as we got the carpets treated regularly with flea treatments (which I do anyway, every 6 weeks) and we have an agreement that we will have the carpets cleaned professionally at the end of the tenancy.

To be honest, my 2 year old causes more mess than my dog! I caught her colouring in the carpet the other day with her felt tip pens :eek: Luckily they are special pens that just wash away with water....

rexmedorum

mlz1413 wrote: »

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.

It is extremely unfiar on the tenant indeed to restrict what they can and cannot do! It should be about not causing any problems & about paying for anything that may get damagedsurely!
How does a 'no children' clause sound? But is it really that different in principle?

G_M

rexmedorum wrote: »

How does a 'no children' clause sound? But is it really that different in principle?

Hmmmm. Interesting one. One big difference, as a poster said above, is that you can eat dogs. (indeed depending on the breed, I can vouch they are quite tasty). So far as I know eating children is frowned upon in most countries - if not all.

KRB2725

Just be grateful he's not inheriting a toddler!!

Jeffrey_Shaw

N79 wrote: »

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

So how would you defend the long-leaseholder when the freehold reversioner sues (and seeks forfeiture) for breaching a long-lease 'no animals' covenant, even though it was sub-T who did it? That possibility surely shows why your advice is unreliable.

jjlandlord

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

So how would you defend the long-leaseholder when the freehold reversioner sues (and seeks forfeiture) for breaching a long-lease 'no animals' covenant, even though it was sub-T who did it? That possibility surely shows why your advice is unreliable.

Well ground 12 is discretionary, indeed.

I think that the common assumption that a court would not grant possession is based on the case whereby the tenant only has e.g. a smallish dog/cat, and that there is no further problem.

It's quite possible that if LL can show that the pet is not only a breach of the tenancy agreement, but in addition a breach of a long-lease covenant the court would be more inclined to grant possession.

Jeffrey_Shaw

Even though you're right, of course, the issue is not between L [long-leaseholder subletting] and sub-T; it's between F [freehold reversioner] and that L. 'Common assumptions' and them there OFT 'guidelines' will be irrelevant in that context.