Heavy-handedly dealt with for having someone visit with a pet (tenancy)

DRP

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Yeah. Then just stop paying rent and, when they write to you about your arrears, just write back saying you have paid the rent. Problem solved.

You could always start looking for a place that will accept pets.

Now that's just being silly

The key word is 'keeping'.

Once or twice a week (one night) is regular visiting, but I wouldn't interpret it as contravening the contract.

lighting_up_the_chalice

DRP wrote: »

Now that's just being silly

The key word is 'keeping'.

Once or twice a week (one night) is regular visiting, but I wouldn't interpret it as contravening the contract.

Your interpretation is neither here nor there. You won't be serving the S21. It's the LL interpretation that matters, and they've made that quite clear. Ignoring it carries a risk to the tenant, but not to you.

sniffles

If there is a no pet policy then there is nothing you can do except ask your girlfriend to visit on her own. You signed the lease and agreed to it.

I have three cats myself and I smoke, but if I rented out a premises I would not want to deal with that. It makes redecorating annoying, so I can't really understand why you are complaining.

DRP

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Your interpretation is neither here nor there. You won't be serving the S21. It's the LL interpretation that matters, and they've made that quite clear. Ignoring it carries a risk to the tenant, but not to you.

That's a risk that the OP may or may not be willing to take. Having known about the rule, he was already somewhat aware of the risk.

As I said, if it were me I'd probably carry on with the pet visiting.

sniffles

DRP wrote: »

That's a risk that the OP may or may not be willing to take. Having known about the rule, he was already somewhat aware of the risk.

As I said, if it were me I'd probably carry on with the pet visiting.

Can I ask why?

Road_Hog

citricsquid wrote: »

Approaching it logically: Pets are not allowed in rented accommodation by many landlords because pets can damage fixtures and fittings,.

I find that tenants tend to do more damage to fixture and fittings than dogs.


I also find that allowing pets and smokers, means that you have virtually no void periods.

ognum

I think GM is peopbably right, I suspect the landlords lease does not allow pets, the majority of flat leases I have read (probably 15-20) say not pets.

I don't think the landlord has any room for negotiation. I think the building porters are just trying no to get into controversy. So I guess you have a few options before you get an S21

Move to a freehold propert with a garden
Go and stay with your girlfriend at weekends
Carry on as you have been

seven-day-weekend

If I was your landlord I would be acting exactly the same way. That clause is there for a reason.

Would you think it was OK for children to visit every weekend if the lease said no children? Or to smoke in it on weekends if it said no smokers?

If however you had asked me if a dog could visit every weekend, I may actually have said yes.

princeofpounds

Wow there is a lot of confusion on this thread.

Thankfully the correct answer is in there.

There is a big difference between putting a clause in a contract and enforcing that clause. A contract is not law.

So the LL has three things they can do if they think you have broken the clause:

Section 21 - ends tenancy at end of fixed term. There is no defence, because it doesn't need a reason. But the LL has to wait and you can carry on doing what you want in the meantime.

Section 8 - allows early termination of tenancy based on various grounds, including breach of contract. It is discretionary (i.e. the judge decides) and can be defended. Highly unlikely to be used because evicting someone is taken incredibly seriously by judges and the best the LL could realistically hope for is for the judge to give you a chance to not bring a dog to the property.

Suing you - if the LL suffers loss or damage as a result of the dog being there, they can sue for a monetary amount. But they have to actually suffer loss to sue for it, they can't sue as a penalty.

Because Section 21 is realistically the only route here, it actually doesn't matter about interpretation of the clause or anything like that. This will ultimately be a personal decision on the part of the LL, perhaps under their own pressure from the freeholder.

But don't think you are being clever about any ambiguity in the clause. Regular nights almost certainly count as 'keeping' a dog. Occasional day visits, no.

But having said that no pets clauses are notoriously difficult to enforce. Blanket bans are almost certainly unenforceable for a number of technical reasons.

So me, if it was important to me to keep having my girlfriend visiting and the dog was non-negotiable, I would carry on as I have been but be prepared to move out at the end of my tenancy. Or you may find out they never do anything.

I would reply with 'you are incorrect' as suggested earlier, if I felt like I wanted to actually converse with anyone on the topic.

HelenRachel

I don't think the clause in your tenancy is ambiguous. I always thought that this means you are not allowed a dog in the premisses at all. We rent and have a similar clause in our tenancy.