Notice to Quit - So upset

jamesd

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

Turnbull that's the most stupid suggestion I've ever seen. ... Owning/ caring for pets is not just something you drop because they're no longer convenient!

It is when the choice is being homeless or not. One dog, three cats and twelve chickens would put off landlords who might normally allow a pet.

The chickens have a ready market or can help to feed the dog or cats. The dog or cats might need either finding a new home or being euthanised. Not much market for their meat in his country and it's unlikely that most UK owners would want to consider that anyway.

If any children are around, some alternative accommodation might be possible in some family situations, depends on what's needed and possible. Probably not necessary, though, since children do not have the same issues for landlords as pets.

The chickens would probably block things with most landlords. Offers of additional deposit to cover possible damage might work with some landlords, others just won't want the lingering dog or cat smell and possible damage at any realistic price.

Dan-Dan

CreditCrunchie wrote: »

Turnbull that's the most stupid suggestion I've ever seen. I guess you'd also suggest 'losing' a child, as they too can make it harder to rent!

Owning/ caring for pets is not just something you drop because they're no longer convenient!

Quite obviously Turnbull was not suggesting smacking the pets on the head and drowning them in a bag , merely suggesting , quite correctly , that rentals are easier to come by without pets , hard enough with dogs , never mind chickens!

jjlandlord

I beg to differ on the dogs v. Chickens as 'pets'.

In a house with a garden, there is a statutory right for the occupier to keep chickens.
A tenancy clause preventing pets will not apply to chickens.

Dan-Dan

jjlandlord wrote: »

I beg to differ on the dogs v. Chickens as 'pets'.

In a house with a garden, there is a statutory right for the occupier to keep chickens.
A tenancy clause preventing pets will not apply to chickens.

Maybe , but in reality 5 tenants , 4 without chickens , 1 with , guess who doesnt get the tenancy

jjlandlord

Well between a cat/dog and chickens, I pick chickens because they stay in the garden and cause 0 damage, which is clearly not the case of the fluffy mamals.

Anyway, here OP has everything and quite a number of chickens.
At least chickens are easily eaten without causing an outrage...

warehouse

jjlandlord wrote: »

Well between a cat/dog and chickens, I pick chickens because they stay in the garden and cause 0 damage.

Chickens wreck gardens. In fact they absolutely destroy gardens.

jjlandlord

warehouse wrote: »

Chickens wreck gardens. In fact they absolutely destroy gardens.

I always assume people are not total morons and will keep chickens in an enclosure.
Otherwise you are absolutely right, and I'm also probably wrong in my assumption...

Davesnave

jjlandlord wrote: »

I beg to differ on the dogs v. Chickens as 'pets'.

In a house with a garden, there is a statutory right for the occupier to keep chickens.
A tenancy clause preventing pets will not apply to chickens.

You are referring to the Allotments Act, right?

This is certainly true for owner occupiers, but although it might also trump tenancy legislation, a landlord doesn't need a reason to end a tenancy once the statutory period is up.

So, good point in that the OP doesn't need to mention the chickens, not so good in that she doesn't want all the costs of moving again within a couple of years.

Tombola591

SeaLion wrote: »

Stay in the house until they evict you. That will give you longer to find somewhere, and you owe them nothing after you have been a good tenant for 8 years.

I would avoid doing this (unless you really can't find somewhere else suitable in time) - if you want/need a decent reference from your current landlord.

It's up to you of course - just thought it was important that you were aware of the risks.

Wishing luck in finding somewhere decent soon - hopefully things will work out.

jamesd

jjlandlord wrote: »

In a house with a garden, there is a statutory right for the occupier to keep chickens.

No, there is not. For this to apply it must be an allotment in England or Wales covered by the Allotments Act 1950 that, if an allotment (definition specified here) garden, is mainly used for the production of fruit and vegetables (Thorpe Report, page 22, paragraph 54):

"in order to be an allotment garden ... a piece of land must fulfil at least five conditions:--

(i) it must be an allotment;
(ii) it must be 40 poles or less in extent;
(iii) it must be used wholly or mainly for the production of vegetables and fruit for home consumption;
(iv) it must not be used for trade or business; and
(v) it must not be used for the keeping of pigs, or any form of livestock except hens and rabbits."

It must also not be prohibited by a local bye-law.

Few landlords are going to be willing to allow a tenant to damage their normal garden to convert it to use primarily for producing fruit and vegetables and a tenancy agreement produced by someone who knows this may well explicitly prohibit such use and thereby also indirectly prohibit the keeping of chickens.

jjlandlord wrote: »

A tenancy clause preventing pets will not apply to chickens.

That's also irrelevant in practice because under an AST a landlord can either refuse to let the property or serve notice to quit with appropriate notice when the fixed term part of the tenancy ends or later with approximately two months notice if it becomes a statutory periodic tenancy.