Unauthorised Pet!

supersaver2

daphnemoon wrote: »

It should happen if the agents are good and have the rights of the tenant and LL in writing.

If it's doesn't happen, move agents as they should warn you of how to behave.

It's in the agreement with the LL that all contact and inspections will be carried out by the agent not the LL. If you breech this rule you are in beech of contract and you should be warned bout behaviour which comes close - ie spying on tenants.

How on earth does walking down a public road which happens to have a house you own constitute spying?! If it were weekly occurrence it would be odd, but just once. I would certainly be taking my business to another letting agent if they warned me about walking down the road.

supersaver2

WelshPaul wrote: »

So you don't have an allergy to pets. You come across as a weirdo to me! Maybe they were looking after a cat for the day? I own my own home and yesterday I looked after my sisters dog for the day... It was a one off!

Asky them! depending on the answer you get take it from there.

People like you give landords a bad rep!

My daughter has a terrible reaction to cat hair, but not dog hair. Not that unusual at all.

Poor OP has had a slating that he hasn't deserved on this thread and posters admitting to breaching rules when it suits give tenants a bad name. As for calling the OP a weirdo, you sound like a charmer.

Daisy_bee

So did we ever find out what the OP did (if anything) about the pet situation? Gotta say some of the replies on this thread have had me howling with laughter! :rotfl:

Pixie5740

supersaver2 wrote: »

Poor OP has had a slating that he hasn't deserved on this thread and posters admitting to breaching rules when it suits give tenants a bad name. As for calling the OP a weirdo, you sound like a charmer.

I signed a tenancy agreement last year saying I was to use a particular company to supply the gas and another to supply the electricity. I knew full well that I was going to use the utility supplier that offered me the best deal. A landlord cannot tie you to specific suppliers and it turns out the gas company in the tenancy agreement wasn't even the one supplying the property.

There were several other completely up enforceable clauses in that agreement that contravened tenancy laws.

I could have pointed out these flaws but then I might have looked like a troublemaker before the tenancy started and not got the flat. The landlord is running a business, it's not my place as the tenant to school them.

ognum

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I signed a tenancy agreement last year saying I was to use a particular company to supply the gas and another to supply the electricity. I knew full well that I was going to use the utility supplier that offered me the best deal. A landlord cannot tie you to specific suppliers and it turns out the gas company in the tenancy agreement wasn't even the one supplying the property.

There were several other completely up enforceable clauses in that agreement that contravened tenancy laws.

I could have pointed out these flaws but then I might have looked like a troublemaker before the tenancy started and not got the flat. The landlord is running a business, it's not my place as the tenant to school them.

Not sure what this has to do with an elicit pet!

If you are trying to prove that all contracts have 'wiggle room' I'm sure we are of aware of that.

As for the pet, now I have more life experience I believe that honesty usually works out best, as a LL I have agreed to pets when I would rather not, it worked out fine. When I was young having an elicit cat was somehow more exciting and part of a kick against authority. I never got found out and eventually moved the cat to our own house.

Pixie5740

ognum wrote: »

Not sure what this has to do with an elicit pet!

If you are trying to prove that all contracts have 'wiggle room' I'm sure we are of aware of that.

As for the pet, now I have more life experience I believe that honesty usually works out best, as a LL I have agreed to pets when I would rather not, it worked out fine. When I was young having an elicit cat was somehow more exciting and part of a kick against authority. I never got found out and eventually moved the cat to our own house.

The point being that posters such as bmunky7 and supersaver2 are saying that tenants who breach clauses of the tenancy agreement give tenants a bad name when in actual fact some of the clauses are nonsense. Therefore tenants sign tenancy agreements knowing full well they are going to pick and choose what clauses to follow.

supersaver2

Pixie5740 wrote: »

The point being that posters such as bmunky7 and supersaver2 are saying that tenants who breach clauses of the tenancy agreement give tenants a bad name when in actual fact some of the clauses are nonsense. Therefore tenants sign tenancy agreements knowing full well they are going to pick and choose what clauses to follow.

Yep I do believe people who are hiding pets that shouldn't be in a property give tenants a bad name and stand by that, if the clauses are such nonsense though why are people hiding their pets away before a visit?

At the end of the day the house isn't yours and if you want free reign the answer is to buy your own house and then you can have 20c cats living there.

I'm a secondary teacher and 1 of our pupil has a very severe allergy to cats and carries an epi pen at all times, there can be very good reasons not to allow pets in a property and if the house owner says no pets, then the decent thing to do is have no pets. Seems honestly isn't the done thing nowadays though.

Pixie5740

supersaver2 wrote: »

Yep I do believe people who are hiding pets that shouldn't be in a property give tenants a bad name and stand by that, if the clauses are such nonsense though why are people hiding their pets away before a visit?

At the end of the day the house isn't yours and if you want free reign the answer is to buy your own house and then you can have 20c cats living there.

I'm a secondary teacher and 1 of our pupil has a very severe allergy to cats and carries an epi pen at all times, there can be very good reasons not to allow pets in a property and if the house owner says no pets, then the decent thing to do is have no pets. Seems honestly isn't the done thing nowadays though.

You've missed my point. In post #146 I gave an example of another clause in a tenancy agreement that I agreed to when I signed it and then instantly ignored once I got the keys. Is it ok to ignore that clause but not the one about pets or should I have paid over the odds for my gas and electricity? Where do you draw the line?

Neither the LL or LA know I have a pet and I don't intend that they ever find out. If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Should pet ownership only be restricted to the home owning class and those fortunate few who have landlords who allow tenants to live their lives without interfering?

supersaver2

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You've missed my point. In post #146 I gave an example of another clause in a tenancy agreement that I agreed to when I signed it and then instantly ignored once I got the keys. Is it ok to ignore that clause but not the one about pets or should I have paid over the odds for my gas and electricity? Where do you draw the line?

Neither the LL or LA know I have a pet and I don't intend that they ever find out. If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Should pet ownership only be restricted to the home owning class and those fortunate few who have landlords who allow tenants to live their lives without interfering?

I don't believe any clause should be ignored, surely speaking up before you sign is the best thing to do. The gas and electricity clause I honestly feel has no effect on the landlord at all so I would ask why that was there before I signed anything.The pet clause I can understand, pets can be messy, leave hair and cause severe reactions in allergy sufferers.

Pet ownership should be for people who can house and look after their pets, if the house you are moving into says no pets, then you can't house your pets at that property.

Pixie5740

supersaver2 wrote: »

I don't believe any clause should be ignored, surely speaking up before you sign is the best thing to do. The gas and electricity clause I honestly feel has no effect on the landlord at all so I would ask why that was there before I signed anything.The pet clause I can understand, pets can be messy, leave hair and cause severe reactions in allergy sufferers.

Pet ownership should be for people who can house and look after their pets, if the house you are moving into says no pets, then you can't house your pets at that property.

I don't know where you live but I live in a property hotspot. Demand for rental accommodation is greater than supply. If a tenant starts pointing out faults before they've even signed with the agreement then it's likely a landlord to get another tenant who doesn't ask questions.

The tenancy agreement I am a referring to had a whole host of clauses that went against tenancy law. It's not up to me, the tenant, to school the landlord. Letting property is a business and it's up to the landlord to keep themselves informed.