Unauthorised Pet!

PlymouthMaid

Some landlords do have no pets clauses for good reasons not just to be a pain. I was a landlady once and stupidly allowed a cat to live there. It destroyed the carpets, left fleas plus the hideous tenants left cat food and uncleaned up pet vomit everywhere. I will not allow pets again or certainly not without a huge deposit. Whole thread is a mad over-reaction to a simple question from the OP. Not all agents can be trusted to do a decent inspection so I think I would call them prior to the inspection and ask them to carefully look for any signs of cat damage etc and maybe ask them if they have any pets. Then since the cat is there anyway now (we think) but they are good tenants otherwise, I would leave it be until renewal and then add clauses about cleaning to the contract.

bmunky7

I agree. If I was a LL I would frankly avoid looking at the place once it was rented, exactly in case I saw things I wished I hadn't. I just don't see how people can think it's acceptable to agree to a set of rules then just randomly choose which to follow. Would those same people kick up a stink if the LL randomly chose to change the locks and kick the tenant out? Obviously there is a difference between contractual agreements and legal commitments but to me they are much the same in principle. My observation is more on how people act in society in general.

abinanthanb

Why most here easily ignored the breach of contract by the tenant? If breaching the tenancy contract by having a pet is acceptable, then where do we draw the line?

Can the tenant do whatever he wants regardless of any specific clause in contract as long as he returns the house as it was? Then what is the purpose of a contract?

Pixie5740

Just because a clause is in a tenancy agreement doesn't mean to say it's enforceable. I've signed tenancy agreements knowing full well that some of the clauses are absolute bobbins with the intention of ignoring them if necessary.

Pixie5740

bmunky7 wrote: »

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.

Yes, I selfishly wanted a roof over my head. I'm a terrible person and Satan has reserved a spot right next to Judas Iscariot in hell for me.

hazyjo

If they didn't have a cat to start with, it probably wasn't something they looked for on the agreement. They won't retain everything written down, and doubt they'd always think to check the contract.

People are very quick to accuse. It's quite possible that they took the flat, then later decided to get a cat or inherited one (or if a neighbour's cat simply moved in). And, btw, we still haven't even established if the cat's theirs! They may have been looking after it, it may be a stuffed toy (or ex-pet!) or it may have got in the house by accident.

I would advise waiting 'til after/during the next inspection though before saying you saw one. I agree with you that it's not creepy, but if was a tenant, I would definitely be creeped out wondering if you were spying on me. Sorry, just the way it is when there's no reason for you (in their eyes) to be at/near the property.

Jx

ognum

It don't think it's such a big deal having a cat if the tenancy agreement says don't BUT, how would the tenant feel if the LL started doing things against the rules.

If the LL lets the self in without warning, is that worse than the tenant having a cat?

There are rules so that a standard of behaviour is set for both the LL and the tenant, if it's OK for tenant to break the rules then maybe it's OK for the LL too!!!,

hazyjo

Not really as some are laws, others are requests. Can't really compare.

Jx

ognum

hazyjo wrote: »

Not really as some are laws, others are requests. Can't really compare.

Jx

I disagree, yes one is the law but the tenant has signed an agreement, are you saying that everything in the agreement can be breached because it's not a law.

We remain a civilised society because we live by rules, both laws and agreements and codes of conduct. Once we say we can disregard something because we feel like it then it's a free do all for LL and tenant.

abinanthanb

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Just because a clause is in a tenancy agreement doesn't mean to say it's enforceable. I've signed tenancy agreements knowing full well that some of the clauses are absolute bobbins with the intention of ignoring them if necessary.

I know there are certain clauses/criteria which are against law (e.g. discrimination by religion/race etc) and hence cannot be enforced in a tenancy agreement. Does ‘pets not allowed’ fall in that category? Can a LL legally include that clause in an agreement and enforce breach if the tenant was found to have pets (not by scooping through the window on a holiday ride!)?

If someone knows that they may possibly have a pet, why would they ignore the clause when they sign it?