Petition about landlords not allowing pets in rented accommodation.

Person_one

This thread is a great illustration of why housing is too important to be in the hands of private individuals. So many see a rented property as the landlord's house, but not the tenant's home.

Poppy9

Person_one wrote: »

This thread is a great illustration of why housing is too important to be in the hands of private individuals. So many see a rented property as the landlord's house, but not the tenant's home.

As a landlord though I am the one taking the risk. I have a lot of money invested in this "business" and while I respect my tenants right to make it a home, if they are bad tenants I wouldn't renew the tenancy.

Energize wrote: »

These properties landlords own are not personal residences they are business properties, so different rules should obviously apply to them, especially considering that the housing situation is so dire that most people have to rent these days.

Landlords should accept pets as long as a reasonable deposit is made to take that into account. Most types of pets are kept in a cage or tank and can't cause damage to the property anyway, only cats and dogs are liable to cause significant damage, so excluding all pets is overkill in the first place.

As for carpets in rented properties, that's a really bad idea in the first place for obvious reasons, pets or not. If you're going to rent a property, you should really be using laminate flooring or equivalent, saves a lot of time and money not having to clean or replace the carpeting after a tenant ruins it, and no tenant should be subjected to a dirty stained carpet.

As I said previously it's my business and while it's an essential service to many people I have the right to choose who I do business with. In the same way it's essential to eat I cannot force Tesco to sell me food if they don't wish to have my custom.

On the carpets bit. We put a new carpet in sitting room and stairs before letting as this was the most cost effective option for us (laminate/tiles everywhere else). We fully expect to replace it if our tenants move out if necessary as I wouldn't expect to get decent rental income for a tatty/dirty property. Not all LL are disrepectful of their tenants, just like not all tenants are disrepectful of their rental property. If it ever got to the point I was FORCED to take any tenants who wishes to have the property I would sell up as I like to choose who lives in my house.

Person_one

Poppy9 wrote: »

As a landlord though I am the one taking the risk. I have a lot of money invested in this "business" and while I respect my tenants right to make it a home, if they are bad tenants I wouldn't renew the tenancy.

Personally, I don't think either you or the tenant should be in that position though. Rented property should all be managed by councils or not-for-profits.

Probably more a topic for discussion time though!

Poppy9

Person_one wrote: »

Personally, I don't think either you or the tenant should be in that position though. Rented property should all be managed by councils or not-for-profits.

Probably more a topic for discussion time though!

We did actually look into letting the council manage our property, as they offer this service (as does the local uni) for a fee. However we didn't feel comfortable with what rights we had to sign over to them and the fact we didn't get to meet the tenants.

In an ideal world all essential services would be run by the state (I don't really like "not for profit" as often there is no profit because of high salaries to directors etc.) But we are stuck with buying our food, housing, transport, utilities etc. from private companies. I don't know whether out City is unusual but we have constant building by social housing - it's literally taking over. Mainly 1/2 bedroom flats, plus they buy up private housing to rent out.

Pollycat

Person_one wrote: »

Personally, I don't think either you or the tenant should be in that position though. Rented property should all be managed by councils or not-for-profits.

Probably more a topic for discussion time though!

Why?
If my financial position is such that I can afford to purchase property to rent out, why shouldn't I be able to?

It's usually people who don't have much money who want it all shared out.

Person_one wrote: »

This thread is a great illustration of why housing is too important to be in the hands of private individuals. So many see a rented property as the landlord's house, but not the tenant's home.

If I were the landlord it would be my investment.

And if I didn't want pets, I would stipulate that.

Person_one

Pollycat wrote: »

Why?
If my financial position is such that I can afford to purchase property to rent out, why shouldn't I be able to?

It's usually people who don't have much money who want it all shared out.

Same reason you can't set up your own private police force, no matter how much money you have. Some things are too important to society to be a vehicle for individuals wanting to make money, housing should be one of them.

People without much money are often that way because they are motivated by other goals. They tend to give proportionately more to charity for example.

Pollycat

Person_one wrote: »

Same reason you can't set up your own private police force, no matter how much money you have. Some things are too important to society to be a vehicle for individuals wanting to make money, housing should be one of them.

People without much money are often that way because they are motivated by other goals. They tend to give proportionately more to charity for example.

Comparing owning a house that you want to rent out with setting up your own private police force?

That's :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

If housing is so important to society, why aren't councils building more places?
Why are there so many houses boarded up?

It's a pity nobody thought housing was important to society when the Tories were selling off council houses.

Person_one

Pollycat wrote: »

Comparing owning a house that you want to rent out with setting up your own private police force?

That's :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

If housing is so important to society, why aren't councils building more places?
Why are there so many houses boarded up?

It's a pity nobody thought housing was important to society when the Tories were selling off council houses.

Lots of reasons, but they should be.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/fixing_private_renting

Pollycat

Person_one wrote: »

Lots of reasons, but they should be.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/fixing_private_renting

But they aren't.
So where's the importance to society?

I agree that rental properties should be of a certain standard - I
said as much when I replied to catkins' post about the state of some of the properties she's rented.

Pollycat wrote: »

What this says to me is that it would make more sense to petition for better standards in rented accommodation than to "Demand that Private Landlords accept Family Pets".

I still can't see why all 'rented property should all be managed by councils or not-for-profits'.

What do you propose should happen if 2 people who each own a house get together?
The council seize one property so the owner can't make any money out of renting it out?
Buy it at the going rate? At a reduced price?

GobbledyGook

I would stop renting out if I was forced to allow pets. Same if I was forced to accept the first tenants who enquired.

Yes my flat is a business, but it's not something I rent out just to make money (in fact because of the improvements I made to it last year I was out of pocket). It was my home and when it is rented out I view it as my tenants home.

However if I'm renting someone a good property that is well maintained and at a fair price (and not a complete rip off like several in the next block owned by a LL who never gives back deposits, inspects his tenants monthly and has lists of rules for them) then surely I should have some say in certain things.

My current tenants have a dog. When they contacted me to ask I didn't hesitate in saying yes. My previous tenants - not a chance would I have been okay with that (not that they'd have bothered to ask). The damage they allowed their children and friends to do was bad enough far less throwing an animal into the mix.

If councils and HA's are allowed to say no pets in properties that have been just build or renovated why should I be obliged to say yes when I've shelled out on it?

If the issue is unfair landlords who overcharge for low standard properties then address that. Don't assume that everyone who is a landlord is overcharging their tenants for a substandard home because not all of us are. And not all tenants are nice people who wouldn't allow their pet to wreck a property either.