Unauthorised Pet!

moneyistooshorttomention

I can certainly understand OP feeling a bit "proprietorial" about their home (even if not currently living in it).

I've moved area now but, back in my home area, if I was walking past houses I had any sort of interest in, then I would have a look at them as I went past and point out to people "That's the house I started buying, but the vendor let me down", "That's where I had one bedsit", "That's where I had another bedsit", etc, etc.

You do things like that and, if I were on a visit back there now, I would take a look at the outside of my old house in order to see what changes had been made to it since I sold it.

That's what people do and, if you still own the house and know you might decide to live there again at some point, you'll be the more concerned to do (ie to check its still in good order, etc).

Annie1960

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Nope, it the tenant's home. It used to be the OP's home until they decided to let the property. It doesn't matter how the OP came to be a landlord the property is still the tenant's home. The OP only still has this property because they couldn't sell it for the price they wanted.

This misunderstanding of whose home a property is, is one of the things making tenant's feel like second class citizens. If you don't own the bricks and mortar it's not your home...that's ridiculous.

Quite right.

When the LL decided to rent the property out, it became a business. I think a lot of problems tenants have stem from the fact LLs don't seem to grasp this point, they are still emotionally attached to the property as though they are still living there.

For the moment, it is a business. If the LL decides to move back in, then it will become their home again.

MobileSaver

SoyaBunny wrote: »

As a cat owner myself I can confirm that they are super clean and nothing to overly worry about,

Yes, cats themselves are super clean but they do get hairs everywhere and they do have a habit of bringing in small rodents and dissecting them on the carpet leaving little pools of blood... as you noted this is when a professional clean at the end of the tenancy will be required.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Errr...nope...its OP's home

Errr... nope... it's the OP's house but the tenant's home.

TopQuark

Oxford English dictionary definition of 'home';

The place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household

Ergo, it is NOT the OP's home, it is the tenant's home.

If the OP is incapable of treating it as the business asset it now is, perhaps being a landlord is not for them. The UK has enough clueless amateurs as it is.

jaylee3

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Nope, it the tenant's home. It used to be the OP's home until they decided to let the property. It doesn't matter how the OP came to be a landlord the property is still the tenant's home. The OP only still has this property because they couldn't sell it for the price they wanted.

This misunderstanding of whose home a property is, is one of the things making tenant's feel like second class citizens. If you don't own the bricks and mortar it's not your home...that's ridiculous.

Agree with this.

Many people rent - private AND social housing, and these houses ARE their homes. I know many people who rent social housing and regard the house as their home. Officially it belongs to the council, but it's 100% their home. They decorate it, do small alterations, do the garden up, all sorts.

It's scary how many people who rent out a property, think they have a right to nose and perv on the tenants in there. I know a couple of people personally, who have landlords who just turn up when they feel like it. And the 3 monthly and 6 monthly inspections are horrible. Nosing around, commenting, and taking photographs (for the files,) inside YOUR HOME.

Urgh, gotta feel for private tenants. Some landlords are so power-crazy and are under that very wrong assumption that the house the tenants are living in is 'their home.' It isn't: not while someone has a tenancy there.

Strapped

I wonder how the OP would feel if the tenants took it into their heads to start wandering past their LL's home, and peer into their windows?

fozzeh

TopQuark wrote: »

Oxford English dictionary definition of 'home';

The place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household

Ergo, it is NOT the OP's home, it is the tenant's home.

If the OP is incapable of treating it as the business asset it now is, perhaps being a landlord is not for them. The UK has enough clueless amateurs as it is.

It depends how you want to define permanent :rotfl: As the contract is defined by a length of time, it isn't permanent or constantly withstanding (bar extremes) is it?

jaylee3 wrote: »

Agree with this.

Many people rent - private AND social housing, and these houses ARE their homes. I know many people who rent social housing and regard the house as their home. Officially it belongs to the council, but it's 100% their home. They decorate it, do small alterations, do the garden up, all sorts.

It's scary how many people who rent out a property, think they have a right to nose and perv on the tenants in there. I know a couple of people personally, who have landlords who just turn up when they feel like it. And the 3 monthly and 6 monthly inspections are horrible. Nosing around, commenting, and taking photographs (for the files,) inside YOUR HOME.

Urgh, gotta feel for private tenants. Some landlords are so power-crazy and are under that very wrong assumption that the house the tenants are living in is 'their home.' It isn't: not while someone has a tenancy there.

That's the kind of attitude which gives tenants a bad name. If you are/were a renter; I'd have you on three monthly inspections minimum. If you have that much disregard for someone wanting to ensure their property is in good nick, who knows what it would be like behind closed doors.
The deeds to the property are in the landlords name...if the house fell down, the tenant would be sad and upset for their material possession...but the landlord still have to clear up the mess...the bricks and mortar. Same goes for the interior and the state it is in until they have no legal ownership over that house. I'm not going to get into whether they deem it as their home or not...but it could quite easily not become their home through no choice of their own.

To question why a landlord should be concerned about a property they own (either as a profession or, in our case, for personal reasons) is comical! It's like investing in the stock market and not looking at the shares you bought for 3 years.

(To note; I've only past the house once in the passed 4 years (when not privately managed) and that was this time).

Strapped wrote: »

I wonder how the OP would feel if the tenants took it into their heads to start wandering past their LL's home, and peer into their windows?

Firstly, I'd be quite worried as it's not on a through street, is at the end of the street and has no traffic...as opposed to the house in question.

Secondly, I'd ask them what they were doing. Due to the first point, there is no need for them to be there. The house near Leeds is a thoroughfare.

Thirdly, I'd also be reading things a bit better. Where does it say I peered in a within the thread window? Skip back to post 19 (and read 49 and 52 too).

Manchee

fozzeh wrote: »

It depends how you want to define permanent :rotfl: As the contract is defined by a length of time, it isn't permanent or constantly withstanding (bar extremes) is it?



That's the kind of attitude which gives tenants a bad name. What exactly are you talking about? What attitude? What the poster has said is true, I have experienced it myself, the LL or agent who thinks they can just come round whenever they like. That doesn't make me a bad tenant. Seriously, !!!!!!?? If you are/were a renter; I'd have you on three monthly inspections minimum. If you have that much disregard for someone wanting to ensure their property is in good nick, who knows what it would be like behind closed doors.
The deeds to the property are in the landlords name...if the house fell down, the tenant would be sad and upset for their material possession...but the landlord still have to clear up the mess...the bricks and mortar. Yes, and that's what insurance is for...? Same goes for the interior and the state it is in until they have no legal ownership over that house. I'm not going to get into whether they deem it as their home or not...but it could quite easily not become their home through no choice of their own.

To question why a landlord should be concerned about a property they own (either as a profession or, in our case, for personal reasons) is comical! It's like investing in the stock market and not looking at the shares you bought for 3 years. That analogy doesn't really work here, its not stocks and shares, its people we are talking about here, but if you want to use it, it would be more like paying someone to keep an eye on your stocks then still doing it yourself, possibly giving the stocks the impression they don't have as much privacy they feel they should. Besides, no one is saying you shouldn't be concerned, but that you need to be more detached, this is no longer your home, it is a business and as such they way you (and all Landlords) treat any tenants you have should be in a professional, detached manner.

(To note; I've only past the house once in the passed 4 years (when not privately managed) and that was this time).



Firstly, I'd be quite worried as it's not on a through street, is at the end of the street and has no traffic...as opposed to the house in question.

Secondly, I'd ask them what they were doing. Due to the first point, there is no need for them to be there. The house near Leeds is a thoroughfare.

Thirdly, I'd also be reading things a bit better. Where does it say I peered in a within the thread window? Skip back to post 19 (and read 49 and 52 too).

Yeah but, come on, you seriously don't understand why some people may find the idea of being checked on by the LL as a bit OTT/disturbing? - I mean, its being managed by an agent, with regular inspections, to some people this would feel quite intrusive.

Dreaming_2

Herbalus wrote: »

When they leave they must return the property to you in the same condition as when they moved in.

Just to point out, this isn't the case - reasonable wear and tear is allowed. Otherwise landlords would demand all of the deposit to redecorate every time they had a new tenant.

For the original question, the answer is simple:

- ask tenant about pet / tell them you know
- if you are okay with this, ask for additional pet deposit
- if you are not okay with this, ask tenant to get rid of pet
- if tenant does not get rid of pet, give them section 8 NTQ
- if tenant does not leave at end of term, apply to courts for possession order
- reclaim costs of possession order from tenant, unless they're judgment proof, then just take it on the chin / get insurance for next time

It depends whether you want the hassle + expense or whether you just want a happy tenant who pays the rent on time.

Manchee

Dreaming wrote: »

Just to point out, this isn't the case - reasonable wear and tear is allowed. Otherwise landlords would demand all of the deposit to redecorate every time they had a new tenant.

For the original question, the answer is simple:

- ask tenant about pet / tell them you know
- if you are okay with this, ask for additional pet deposit
- if you are not okay with this, ask tenant to get rid of pet
- if tenant does not get rid of pet, give them section 8 NTQ
- if tenant does not leave at end of term, apply to courts for possession order
- reclaim costs of possession order from tenant, unless they're judgment proof, then just take it on the chin / get insurance for next time

It depends whether you want the hassle + expense or whether you just want a happy tenant who pays the rent on time.

Surely, that's not right - would you actually be able to take a section 8 to court on the basis of having seen a cat through a window, having no proof the cat was resident or that it belonged to the tenant?