Pet clause

Guest101

Quick question for you.
A friend of mine has recently purchased two kittens. The tenancy agreement states that the LL will not unreasonably withhold requests from the tenant to keep pets. The tenant agrees to pay for a professional clean if they do keep pets.
Now they have contacted the letting agent, who has replied saying the LL says no, on the basis that they may damage the wallpaper.
Two points of reference here:
1. There is only wall paper in two small areas on the house (1 bedroom and 1 landing – the wall paper is not new, and clearly the rest of the property has been painted over where wall paper used to be)
2. The deposit already protects from damage to the wallpaper, (tenant has children too, who frankly are far more likely to draw on it etc), and the tenant is happy to increase the deposit payment as a pet clause.


I believe, though am open to being corrected, that this is not a ‘reasonable’ reason to deny permission. Clearly there was an implication in the terms that, assuming the tenants cleans the property, the permission would be granted. (had they said allergies, or other health related, etc reasons, I may understand)
The LL run a business from a nearby property, and had asked to use some of the land of the rented house for storage. I did suggest that this would be a good negotiating step for the tenant. (the LL had asked earlier if they could do this, and the tenant had in principle agreed, saying that they would be happy if certain arrangement were made), I’ve suggested that the tenant reinforce this to the LL, given that reasonable behaviour all round is best.

Any thoughts?

jjlandlord

They should have sought permission before purchasing pets, instead of trying to find ways around it afterwards.

Clearly there was an implication in the terms that, assuming the tenants cleans the property, the permission would be granted

I think it's the other way round. There is no implication that consent will be granted based on your OP.

Now, without debating whether the refusal is reasonable or not (it does seem a bit superficial):
- They do have pets.
- If the landlord does not like it he can start s.21 proceedings as soon as permitted by law.

In my view, consent or lack thereof will therefore only come into play when estimating dilapidations.

DaftyDuck

The LL has explained the reason.... therefore it's a "reasonable" reason to withhold permission. It would be unreasonable if he wouldn't provide a reason.

You or I may not agree with his reason, but I don't find it "unreasonable"

G_M

The wallpaper seems a weak reason to withold consent. Personally I'd withold consent on grounds of odour (can linger long after the pets are gone despite 'professional' cleaning and fleas (I have yet to hear of a pet-owner who does not immediately deny their pet has fleas!). Normal 'profesional' cleaning will not remove fleas/lava, and there is nothing worse, as a landlord, than having your newly-installed tenants ring up to complain they have found fleas and demand you take action......

Your options are:
* just keep the kittens and ignore the LL. Expect a S21 sometime. How long is the fixed erm?
* discuss/negotiate the 'reasonableness', and offer increased deposit and/or flea-treatment on departure
* blackmail te LL over the storage, and expect a S21 as above

Guest101

jjlandlord wrote: »

They should have sought permission before purchasing pets, instead of trying to find ways around it afterwards.



I think it's the other way round. There is no implication that consent will be granted based on your OP.

Now, without debating whether the refusal is reasonable or not (it does seem a bit superficial):
- They do have pets.
- If the landlord does not like it he can start s.21 proceedings as soon as permitted by law.

In my view, consent or lack thereof will therefore only come into play when estimating dilapidations.

I agree that a section. 21 is always a possibility, hence why I suggested that being reasonable in regards them using the property for the short term business necessity might win some brownie points in regards the pet.
I’m not sure I agree, as if this was a problem, why not simply have a ‘no pets’ clause? I suppose it can be read both ways. The inclusion of the having carpets cleaned, seemed to imply to myself that this was the main concern / main stipulation.
Certainly I agree the reason is superficial, and the ‘permission to not be unreasonably withheld’ clause, may atleast protect from section 8 in the meantime.
Thanks for replying (I know we don’t always agree, but I appreciate your input)

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

The wallpaper seems a weak reason to withold consent. Personally I'd withold consent on grounds of odour (can linger long after the pets are gone despite 'professional' cleaning and fleas (I have yet to hear of a pet-owner who does not immediately deny their pet has fleas!). Normal 'profesional' cleaning will not remove fleas/lava, and there is nothing worse, as a landlord, than having your newly-installed tenants ring up to complain they have found fleas and demand you take action......

Your options are:
* just keep the kittens and ignore the LL. Expect a S21 sometime. How long is the fixed erm?
* discuss/negotiate the 'reasonableness', and offer increased deposit and/or flea-treatment on departure
* blackmail te LL over the storage, and expect a S21 as above

I agree that, hence why I think they are being unreasonable given the reason they have said.
Your point about pets and fleas is absolutely correct and would ofcourse need to be rectified. I will pass the options along to my friend, I do think ur right. Except the 'blackmail', the LL wishes to use the tenants property, seems only right to use it in negotiations.

Fixed term has 4 months remaining. And previous tenants also had pets ( forgot to mention ).

I do think offering the value of the wallpaper as extra deposit was the best option, I'd imagine it's not worth much.

Thanks

Guest101

DaftyDuck wrote: »

The LL has explained the reason.... therefore it's a "reasonable" reason to withhold permission. It would be unreasonable if he wouldn't provide a reason.

You or I may not agree with his reason, but I don't find it "unreasonable"

I think it's unreasonable, given that the wall paper is worth so little. But point taken thanks

DaftyDuck

I agree with you.... but it doesn't mean it's unreasonable to the LL. His grandmother wallpapered that wall in memory of his Grandpa, and fell off the ladder whilst doing it; she spent the next eight years in a wheelchair, living in the basement. he'd be heartbroken if this lasting memento of his family was damaged.... or something. He has still given a reason, and it's not completely beyond the bounds of possibility he believes it.

I welcome cats in one of my properties. And dogs. Hamsters, gerbils, whatever. There were snakes galore in there at one point. Easiest going bunch of tenants of the lot. Nice people. I even got a wedding invite from one set of pet-mad people. Yes, there's damage, but I expect it. I do have a "no pets" property. It's old & fragile. It's listed. I love it. I would find a reasonable excuse, if I could, to withhold petty permission. One reason: I have pet allergies, and it's a property I might like to move back into one day.

Oh, I also have cats here. several. One on my lap right now. ZZZZzzzzz. It makes typing difficult. So, it might seem unreasonable to say no cats.... There is logic, but it's complex. It might not seem reasonable to a tenant. It would to me.

Guest101

I do see what your getting at. In a round about ( & highly amusing ) manner.

I would counter on a purely technical point. If LL felt such so strongly about the property, renting it at all, risks damage. Now I do understand that the risk is higher with a pet.

Anyway, I'll pass on all the views and see how they get on negotiating.

Thanks