Is it immoral?

Pollycat

Guest101 wrote: »

Incorrect.

The onus is always on the LL to prove the 'damage', not the tenant. Pet or no pet clause is irrelevent.

The DPS only looks at the state of the house when let and when returned.

OK - so the onus is on the landlord to prove the damage.

That is why I wrote 'may' and added 'I'm not sure of the legal side'
You do understand the word 'may' and 'I'm not sure', don't you?

Pollycat wrote: »

Even if the landlord cannot legally keep your deposit because you kept a dog even though it was against your tenancy agreement, he can make it very difficult for you to recover your deposit.

I can imagine he would possibly say the carpets needed replacing and the onus may be on you to prove otherwise (I'm not sure of the legal side).
If that happened you may need to take legal action to recover your deposit and it may not go well as you will have knowingly broken your agreement with the landlord.

I don't know if this old article may help you find somewhere that allows pets:
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/mediacentre/newsreleases/pr11letswithpetssurvey.aspx#.U-xyutJwbVI

Why are you so aggressive in your replies to me and blondygirl?

Guest101

Pollycat wrote: »

OK - so the onus is on the landlord to prove the damage.

That is why I wrote 'may' and added 'I'm not sure of the legal side'
You do understand the word 'may' and 'I'm not sure', don't you?


Why are you so aggressive in your replies to me and blondygirl?

1: I wasn't aggressive. Stating you are incorrect, which you were, is useful to the OP and others. Completely understand the words, which basically said: I have no idea is this is right but I'm going to give my opinion anyway. I corrected you
2: blondygirl is a Landlord, she should know the rights and responsibilities of this. For her own sake, since the tenant has a contract with her, not the agent. Should the gas safety certificate expire and a gas leak occur, blondygirl is being sued ( assuming no one was injured, or she may be arrested too ), should the deposit not be protected it's blondygirl paying thousands, not the agent.

I find it highly annoying that people shirk their responsibilities, and when they give 'possible' facts, which are nothing more than uninformed opinions.

Hope that helps explain the situation to you.

Pollycat

Guest101 wrote: »

I find it highly annoying that people shirk their responsibilities, and when they give 'possible' facts, which are nothing more than uninformed opinions.

WOW!
Really sorry to have annoyed you. :rotfl:

It would be really helpful if you could please point out the bit in MSE rules where it says everything you post has to be 100% accurate and no 'uninformed opinions' are allowed.

Thanks so much.

Guest101

Pollycat wrote: »

WOW!
Really sorry to have annoyed you. :rotfl:

It would be really helpful if you could please point out the bit in MSE rules where it says everything you post has to be 100% accurate and no 'uninformed opinions' are allowed.

Thanks so much.

The spirit of MSE is to be helpful to posters and give accurate information wherever possible.

The OP asked a question with a legal implication, best to give correct information there.

Where this is the case, yes it is annoying that posters in the know have to monitor threads where they have given correct information for further misinformation by posters with strong opinions.

TooTallTim

I moved into my house five years ago, and at hat time had no pets (and wasnt allowed them). However, a few years ago I decided I wanted to get a dog, I decided in the end not to tell my landlord, however he found out....so what he did was alter the tenancy agreement so that any danage caused by the dog to the house I would be liable for. I think thats fair.

Guest101

TooTallTim wrote: »

I moved into my house five years ago, and at hat time had no pets (and wasnt allowed them). However, a few years ago I decided I wanted to get a dog, I decided in the end not to tell my landlord, however he found out....so what he did was alter the tenancy agreement so that any danage caused by the dog to the house I would be liable for. I think thats fair.

Sensible, but you would be either way. Just like any guests you have etc