Tenants want a Dog

mattyprice4004

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

A total ban on having pets is likely to be an unfair contract term and unenforceable anyway. (See the OFT guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements.)

Therefore it is better to agree to a specific dog and manage the situation.

Why is it an unfair term? It's the OPs house, if they don't want pets then the tenants can't have pets.

Is it also unfair that I can't have a radioactive substance in my house? Should the landlord not agree to just a bit of plutonium if I promise to store it correctly and look after it? :rotfl:

Come on man, wake up. It's clear you're not a landlord or familiar with tenancies etc.

kcseb

NO to dogs! Just had a tenant in one of my London places keep a dog without my permission: put off loads of prospective tenants and when I went there on the weekend to to remedial works, smell was awful!

Jus say no

jjlandlord

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Come on man, wake up. It's clear you're not a landlord or familiar with tenancies etc.

And it's clear that you are not familiar with tenancy and contract law.

fromtheshires

Having read the replies to this thread some people are thoroughly miserable people and incredibly nasty in some posts.

I am a home owner myself and have a dog and a cat to clear up my situation.

To say that people shouldn't have pets until they can afford a place of their own is ludicrous. A starter home in my town is going for around £150K to buy and that doesn't get you a lot at all. These houses rent for 650 a month minimum. If someone is paying that much to rent, plus bills on top where are they going to get the money to save to be able to afford a place?

The majority of my town is dead on the job front and everywhere is offering minimum wage or just above. Store manager of a well known cheaper shop 45-50 hours per week - £22K. If a store manager is only getting that, then what are the rest of the people earning and what hours are they working as i bet they wont be on standard 37.5 hour week contracts.

How about kids. I know plenty of people who have had children before buying a house. How many of you have refused people with children in case they poo / wee / vomit on the carpet or scribble on the walls or said to someone sorry you are pregnant, I will send the S21 in the post just in case.

I think a lot of you don't realise how lucky you all are to have been able to purchase a property before the massive price increases and the hoops that people my age have to suffer to be able to buy a house. I got lucky and saved but not all people can.

I know these are your properties but to be quite frank the sincere and total lack of anything from some people on this thread is disgusting.

mgarl10024

fromtheshires wrote: »

Having read the replies to this thread some people are thoroughly miserable people and incredibly nasty in some posts.

The way I think about it is that you are entrusting a large asset to someone you don't really know. In effect, you are trying to decide who will look after something (that they don't own) best for you - and in many cases this could be an asset worth £150k+ and could represent many years' worth of earnings.

For this, you try to estimate the risk of the tenant. So, you put them through credit checks, and get references, etc. You are trying to work out whether this person is low risk, and so will be the best choice to look after that asset for you.

Things like a bad credit history, a history of non-payment, or poor references are all indicators of higher risk. A landlord then has a choice of whether to accept this higher risk tenant (with perhaps higher rent, or a larger deposit) or, if the market is strong, to choose another tenant who may be lower risk.

Owning a pet or having a child makes a tenant higher risk. This seems logical - if you have a pet, there is a higher change of it doing some damage. If you have a child, there is a higher chance of the child doing some damage. The more pets / children you have, the higher the risk, probably leveling out as the number increases (although I'm no expert, but I imagine someone with 15 cats being about as risky as someone with 16 cats).

Pets and Children are expensive, and also dependent on the parent. This means that should the parent lose their job, there is a double effect - money is being used faster, and owners/parents are almost certainly going to ensure that the pet/child is looked after and well fed, before paying the rent. Again, this makes the tenant higher risk.

Being higher risk means that the rent or deposit may be higher, or that your selection of properties to let will be limited.

As you rightly point out, life is tough out there - with stagnating wages and people struggling to make ends meet.
However, what I think some of the responders were trying to say, was that if you are struggling to make ends meet, or are struggling to afford a place of your own, then getting a number of pets or choosing to start a family may not be in your best interests at this point. In many ways, I guess it is a lot like a mortgage applicant taking out a number of credit cards right before the application. You don't want to be adding more risk factors.

(Incidentally, my tenants have two children and two dogs, and we felt we mitigated some of the risk by a higher deposit).

scotty01

I would be looking at how they are as tennants and how long they have been there already. If they have proved themselves to be good tennants, looking after the property well so far then it would be reasonable to assume they will do so with a dog there.

Assuming one of the tennants is home to look after the dog then i wouldn't have a problem with it but would include on the tennancy agreement that the whole house is professionally cleaned upon checkout and any damages caused by the dog, paid for or made good. Signing a new 12 month contract might also be a good idea.

If you would feel better about the garden being fenced in at the back, for safety, i would say to them, yes you can have a dog, these are the conditions and you must also get the garden fenced in. It is not your responsibility to pay for this, they are the ones who want the dog.

It would prove they are long term tennants, if they are happy to do this.

theartfullodger

maddermanblue1 wrote: »

And if that someone can't afford that said house and stuck with renting? Landlords snapping up property, preventing FTB's from getting on the ladder due to them pushing up prices.

Ah, the perils of Capitalism: Well you can be certain Dave & his Etonian chums won't sort that out: Remember the issue at all upcoming elections!!!

MadelinesMum

Don't forget, if they do leave it home alone, then not only could it deficate, it could also bark, prompting complaints from neighbours. More trouble than it's worth imo.

[Deleted User]

mgarl10024 wrote: »

The way I think about it is that you are entrusting a large asset to someone you don't really know. In effect, you are trying to decide who will look after something (that they don't own) best for you - and in many cases this could be an asset worth £150k+ and could represent many years' worth of earnings.

For this, you try to estimate the risk of the tenant. So, you put them through credit checks, and get references, etc. (Not good enough) You are trying to work out whether this person is low risk, and so will be the best choice to look after that asset for you. (credit checks and references are not enough proof)

Things like a bad credit history, a history of non-payment, or poor references are all indicators of higher risk. A landlord then has a choice of whether to accept this higher risk tenant (with perhaps higher rent, or a larger deposit) or, if the market is strong, to choose another tenant who may be lower risk. (lets forget the fact that they may lose their job etc)

Owning a pet or having a child makes a tenant higher risk (no, character determines whether a tenant is a risk or not). This seems logical - if you have a pet, there is a higher change of it doing some damage. If you have a child, there is a higher chance of the child doing some damage. The more pets / children you have, the higher the risk, probably leveling out as the number increases (although I'm no expert, but I imagine someone with 15 cats being about as risky as someone with 16 cats).

Pets and Children are expensive, and also dependent on the parent. This means that should the parent lose their job, there is a double effect - money is being used faster, and owners/parents are almost certainly going to ensure that the pet/child is looked after and well fed, before paying the rent. Again, this makes the tenant higher risk.

Being higher risk means that the rent or deposit may be higher, or that your selection of properties to let will be limited.

As you rightly point out, life is tough out there - with stagnating wages and people struggling to make ends meet (and how they meet these stressors determines if they are high risk or not, not their acutriments)

(Incidentally, my tenants have two children and two dogs, and we felt we mitigated some of the risk by a higher deposit).

I take issue with some of this. It seems that this person wants the human race to die out.

I have two children, both have mild special needs and horror of horrors I am their carer on benefits. As a consequence of a lot of work on my part, my older son is now in college getting merits and distinctions whereas at one point his then school said he'd be lucky to get 2 GCSE's (he got 7 but only due to my tutoring). So yes, I am on benefits, but my older son will be a productive employable member of society.

And yes, there were times we were incredibly short of money. I didn't default on the rent, I cut back, lived on toast for weeks on end if I had to. My kids ate ok, not fancy but it filled them up (and I had to deal with very finicky appetites too which is a part of their condition). At one point I was topping the rent up by £120 a month and even when my son turned 16, it took another 11 months to get the new rate for a 3 bed house (son needs his own room) because government policy only allowed increases to be paid once a year. Nothing to do with me, I just had to cope.

So having kids does not mean rent is less likely to be paid if things are tough. It depends on the tenants priorities. If a tenant puts rent first, that's the important thing. Not if they have children.

AND I also have two dogs. Carpets and laminate are fine (I know how to clean). Bought a vacuum that sucks up hairs. Use prescribed flea spot and use a recommended flea spray in the house. They did scratch a door, I bought a safety gate and repaired the damage. I bleach the outside yard. No smells.

Whether there are smells/damage on leaving depends on the tenant, not whether they have dogs. A LL could ask to see where a tenant is living now to see if a tenant looks after a place (which personally I think they should do whether there are dogs or not if they are going to hand over a property to someone).

fromtheshires

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

Pets are not a fundamental human right. Most of the world manages just fine without them. They are a luxury with significant drawbacks. Not just to yourself but to other people too.

Have you noticed all the places where you're not allowed to take them?
Are you complaining about your right to have pets in supermarkets, school playgrounds, restaurants...?

If you were to let your own property today, you'd find people gagging at the smell, unhappy with the amount of destruction and uncomfortable with the amount of animal bacteria everywhere (or worse!)
Most of all, a growing number of people who would actually suffer serious health risks with asthma and allergies.

You'd be deterring or denying these people a home because for them, you've contaminated it.

Does that sound like the way forward to provide safe, clean homes for us all?

So I live in a bacteria filled, destroyed premises that stinks so bad people are gagging and due to this I have devalued my house as I've contaminated it? Thats what you are implying. Casing point about people being damn right rude. I guarantee if I took my animals out of my home, removed all their stuff and hoovered to pick up the stray hairs thats have fallen in the couple of days since I last hoovered no one would be able to tell as i take pride in my house and my animals are well behaved.