Unauthorised Pet!

LannieDuck

Southend1 wrote: »

Op's allergies have no relation on whether his tenant should or should not keep a cat. That is solely a decision for the tenant. OP doesn't not have the right to impose his whims on his tenants and punish them for transgressions. It is the tenant's home; if she wishes to keep a cat that's up to her.

Except that there's a 'no pets' clause in the tenancy agreement. Yes, the tenants can choose to ignore it, but the OP can choose to give them notice.

Southend1

LannieDuck wrote: »

Except that there's a 'no pets' clause in the tenancy agreement. Yes, the tenants can choose to ignore it, but the OP can choose to give them notice.

I'm sure someone with more legal knowledge than me will be able to tell us whether this clause is enforceable in a court. However the reality of the situation is that OP has rented a property to someone and that person can live in it however she likes, as long as she pays the rent and repairs any damage at the end of the tenancy. OP has lost sight of the fact that the property is not his home but the tenant's. Landlords have no moral (and I'm pretty sure no legal) right to dictate how their tenants live in their own homes.

Southend1

bouicca21 wrote: »

This thread has simply gone crazy. OP said the tenancy agreement forbade pets. This is not exclusive to rented properties - I'm buying a flat and believe there is a similar provision in my lease.

OP mentions allergies - I sympathise as I am also allergic to cats - so much so that I had a major problem when a cat owning colleague had to share my office one day (his suit wasn't obviously dirty but must have had traces of cat hair and dander all over it - next time I saw him he'd had it cleaned, what a sweetie ).

Whether OP wants to keep the tenant or not, he'll still have to get the place thoroughly cleaned, so if they pay their rent on time and are otherwise good tenants he might as well hang on to them.

Op's cat allergy has nothing to do with whether his tenant should or should not keep a cat!

neilj1984

Five pages of replies which basically say:

1) Walking past a house you happen to be in the area of is not "weird". LL did not sneak up to the window and peer in like something from a Benny Hill sketch. Calm down people.

2) The T now has the cat. Whilst they should have asked the LL for permission, not much can be done about that now.

3) LL has options of: a) putting up with it, or b) serving notice through whatever the expected legal processes are.

DaveTheMus

fozzeh wrote: »

That's not a very nice assumption; a very sexist thing to think they every time someone moans about something trivial, they must be a woman!

Nothing to do with this being a trivial issue, it's just your posts and writing style seems quite feminine and a bit dramatic, flamboyant even.

PenguinJim

Wow, are jaylee3's posts serious? The OP asked for advice. jaylee3 then submits seven essays on how tenants are always fantastic people who have every right to breach their contract, and the OP is clearly the scum of the earth for their behaviour!?! After reading their numerous works on the subject over the past few pages, it seems that all landlords are the very spawn of Satan and devote every second of their time to obsessive, maniacal plotting and scheming in order to find new ways to torture their innocent, angelic rentees. Surely this is a parody account? :eek:

Southend1 wrote: »

OP has lost sight of the fact that the property is not his home but the tenant's.

They haven't even done anything! They came here to ask for advice, but were then goose-stepped into submission!

bmunky7

fozzeh wrote: »

Maybe it's my naivety or own morals in the matter but when I rented and it said no pets, we had no pets.

I know this is an old thread but it's very interesting.

I'm with the OP quoted above.

Why shouldn't a landlord stroll past their own property? And why can't people make commitments then stick to them? It's common decency really. When I rented I wanted a satellite dish up, I thought I ought to check with the LL. The LL said no, so I didn't have it, even though I would have later made good any damage. I may be using the premises as my home but it's not my property so I have to respect the owner's wishes. Similarly the tenant has agreed to have no pets, so they shouldn't have any. It's not 100% clear that this cat was a pet, but the fact the LL said no pets then you would probably assume that a temporary / overnight pet would also be against the spirit if not the letter of the agreement.

Pixie5740

Yes a landlord can stroll past a property they own but there isn't a non-creepy way of saying that whilst passing the property you noticed a cat through the window.

I have a pet. I lied about having a pet when I signed my tenancy agreement or I wouldn't have found anywhere to live. I had been upfront about with other potential landlords and they all said no straight away. So I told a porkie pie.

I have an inspection coming up and my pet will be hiding out at my friend's house that day so the LA won't be any the wiser.

It's my home and that's how I choose to live. I pay my rent and haven't caused any damage to the property over and above fair wear & tear so no harm, no foul.

bmunky7

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Yes a landlord can stroll past a property they own but there isn't a non-creepy way of saying that whilst passing the property you noticed a cat through the window.

I have a pet. I lied about having a pet when I signed my tenancy agreement or I wouldn't have found anywhere to live. I had been upfront about with other potential landlords and they all said no straight away. So I told a porkie pie.

I have an inspection coming up and my pet will be hiding out at my friend's house that day so the LA won't be any the wiser.

It's my home and that's how I choose to live. I pay my rent and haven't caused any damage to the property over and above fair wear & tear so no harm, no foul.

People who make commitments and then break them, and knowingly lie to others for selfish reasons, cause all sorts of society's ills. Rules are rules, if you won't stick to them you shouldn't agree to them, even if they are stupid. But then I'm old school, decent kind of guy.

hazyjo

I think what people are getting at is that if their LL told them something about the way they were living/occuping their home, it would not be appropriate.

That's what the inspections are for.

If I had a LL who brought up something not as a result of an inspection, yes it would wind me up.

If they'd let the garden grow wild, would you feel the need to mention that? We had a LL saying pretty much that on here (wondering whether they should 'pop round' and do it themselves), and another about the amount of rubbish/clutter/washing up, etc in their tenants' home.

Personally, I think you should just forget what you saw. If it bothers you that much, ask the letting agency to check for signs of a cat on their next inspection.

If then evidence of them owning a cat is found, then serve notice. I don't see what other choice you have if it bothers you that much. Using that as an excuse to increase the rent by more than you had in mind would IMO be quite inappropriate and not particularly decent - but each to their own. If it doesn't bother you, let them be.

Please either serve notice or accept the situation. Do not give them an option of 'getting rid' of their cat. That really would be cruel.

Yes, they should have asked (if they do indeed have a cat!).

No, I wouldn't be thinking 'OMG what other rules/regs/terms have they broken!' It's a bloody pet. That's it. Doesn't make them persistent rule breakers :rolleyes:

Jx