Landlord letting room to tenant with a pet

salgoud

Hello,

I will try to keep this brief.. My friend lives in a house where rooms are let on an individual basis. The property/rooms are advertised as unsuitable for pets. Recently, one of their house mates move out (but paid that months rent, giving the landlord a full month to find a suitable tenant to replace them without loss of income). After a week or two the landlord got in touch with the current tenants to ask whether they would be OK to share the house with a new tenant who has a cat.

My friend does not want to do this for personal reasons (doesn't want cat hair in kitchen etc.), and another tenant is allergic to the point where they would be forced to move. Despite raising these concerns immediately, the landlord has decided to let the room to this new tenant stating that the cat will only be allowed in the tenant's room and in the garden (which is reached through the kitchen). The allergic house mate fears he will have to move out because of this, to which the landlord replied that he had 'researched' the issue and found that the tenant could simply take antihistamines which are 'widely available'.

The property in question is in England. Does anyone know whether this is within the rights of the landlord? It seems odd to me that they would be able to rent the room to someone with a pet despite the property being advertised as unsuitable to pets - especially given that they asked the tenants if this would be OK, and they clearly stated that they are not happy to live with a pet and that one is in fact allergic.

Marktheshark

Landlords house, landlords decision on pets.
Solutions = Move out

salgoud

Marktheshark wrote: »

Landlords house, landlords decision on pets.
Solutions = Move out

Is it really that clear cut? It seems to me that it would at least be a case of false marketing - surely it's a reasonable expectation that the house will be kept pet free if advertised as such, given that some people (as one of the tenants) do have allergies? The pet-free aspect was clearly of particular importance when the tenant decided to sign the contract..

If a chocolate manufacturer advertised their product as nut free, then decided to throw nuts into the mix without changing the labelling, and it was bought by someone suffering from allergies.. that would have implications for the manufacturer.

LEJC

But the thing is the LL hasnt advertised the room as no pets....or indeed nut free,he has just said that its unsuitable...or indeed could contain nuts.

Whilst his comments about allergies and antihistamines are perhaps insensitive,what he says is infact truth,they are indeed prescribed and widely available for purchase and will stop the symptoms of allergy.

I feel the best way for the house mates to deal with this is voting with their feet and actually look for other accommodation as clearly the LL isnt going to stop the pet.

salgoud

LEJC wrote: »

But the thing is the LL hasnt advertised the room as no pets....or indeed nut free,he has just said that its unsuitable...or indeed could contain nuts.

Whilst his comments about allergies and antihistamines are perhaps insensitive,what he says is infact truth,they are indeed prescribed and widely available for purchase and will stop the symptoms of allergy.

I feel the best way for the house mates to deal with this is voting with their feet and actually look for other accommodation as clearly the LL isnt going to stop the pet.

Fair point! I'm actually not sure whether the advertisement said not suitable for pets or pet free. Would this make a difference?

Old_Git

cats can get lost ;););)

Gigervamp

Rental places are often advertised as saying no pets, but a lot of landlords are willing to allow pets if asked. The tenant might have to pay a larger deposit in those cases.

LEJC

salgoud wrote: »

Fair point! I'm actually not sure whether the advertisement said not suitable for pets or pet free. Would this make a difference?

In my mind there is a difference...not suitable would mean"i'd rather not have pets ...but might consider it "....pet free means just that...

Although in allowing the pet he's obviously also allowing the associated problem of fleas,and opening up the debate of if the cat is an inside cat with a litter tray etc or will cat flaps be fitted to allow it easy access through the kitchen to outside....

I guess only time will tell how everyone adapts to their new tenant!!!

G_M

So just to clarify

* landlord does not live there too - you are all tenants, not lodgers?
* you each have a seperate tenancy - not a single 'joint and several' tenancy.

It could be argued (quite easily?) that there were implied terms in all your contracts that the property would be pet-free. If you were told this, or given to believe this, at the time you each agreed to your contracts, then this would be an enforcible term.

but the practicalities of going to court and arguing a breach of contract are not simle. I'm also not sure what compensation you'd claim ot the judge could award. He could not order the pet removed, since the new tenant clearly would have a contractual right to keep the pet.

You would have to argue a financial loss (forced to move out, lost rent, hotel bill) and claim that.

The LL's defence would doubtless be that you were not actually forced to move out. What the judge would do is anybody's guess!

thesaint

Let's say you are right.
What are you going to do?

The best way to get through to this landlord is to give your notice and leave. Make sure your notice states that it is because of the cat.