To Landlords, would you Rent to a Pet owner?

Pixie5740

Innys1 wrote: »

S21 at the end of the AST, they didn't leave, went to Court and had a judgement against them for unpaid legal costs.

That requires a lot of ifs, maybe they'd just move out before it went to court.

Windsorcastle

When I let my place the tenancy agreement stipulated no pets which is fairly standard. I an not interested in animals in the slightest and wouldn't entertain pets in my own home.

However after sacking my letting agent I started doing the biannual maintenance visits myself and it soon became apparent they had rather a huge lizard. It was always in a cage when I visited and by amazing coincidence they were always just pet-sitting it for a weekend for her sister!
Obviously it was theirs but we all played along so I didn't have to call them on it.

They were otherwise dream tenants and stayed for 5 years, looked after my home really well, etc. so it didn't bother me even though it was technically a bit naughty.

Having said that, what damage could a big lizard in a cage cause? 3 cats would have annoyed me, because of the smell and potentially a lot of scratching to my furniture etc. 1 cat I would possibly overlook, but 3 does raise alarm bells I'm afraid...

Innys1

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That requires a lot of ifs, maybe they'd just move out before it went to court.

Maybe they wouldn't, see post #20.

bigpat

I'm a landlord and would let to a cat-owner. In fact I have done so in the past. My standard deposit is two months rent and I make sure the tenant knows that damage caused by pets is chargeable from that. But it has never happened. I've only ever retained a deposit once and that was for serious damage the tenants did. I rent my flats unfurnished and I will accept general wear and tear e.g. scuffs on walls and skirtings. Cats are unlikely to do more than that. I would try to gauge the tenant's "general cleanliness attitude" and find out if the cats were more likely to spend most of their time in or out, though I know that's a risk.

To the OP I would say: try Gumtree, or ads in your local paper. See if you can deal with actual landlords. I avoid letting agents like the plague and would advise you to do so. Their fees are frankly outrageous. There are many good landlord-tenant relationships out there.

But if a tenant LIED to me, said they didn't have pets, but clearly did, I would not renew that contract. Damage or no damage, and nothing against animals, but I will not rent to someone who has proved untruthful. There's enough honest folk out there, looking for somewhere decent to live.

seven-day-weekend

It would depend upon the pet. I would take each case on its merits. I would be more likely to rent to someone with three cats than one dog (dogs smell and bark), although a well-behaved dog would not be ruled out.

However I wish whoever it was who let the house a few doors away from me hadn't let it to people with a horrible yappy Jack Russel and an even worse aggressive and snarling Yorkie. They have totally spoiled our enjoyment of our garden with their incessant barking/snarling.

mrstick

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That requires a lot of ifs, maybe they'd just move out before it went to court.

Depends on whether they were being self-righteous about the fact that they'd been given the S21 because they'd lied about having a cat...

Vectis

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I can't believe some of the things I read on here... Seriously... :rotfl:

Thank the Lord not all Landlords have the same attitude as you and a few others on here...

The thing that worries me is that I really think you're all being serious.

Don't want cats in their house, don't want wants kids in their house, don't even want to have tenants in their house. :rotfl:

Have you missed the point of what a LANDLORD is?!

Oh mah Gawd.......

Wow, you have a very strange idea of whose house it is when you're renting!

Just in case you missed it, it's the landlord's house. Yes, really, it is. You're just renting it for a limited period. It's not your house!

But I'll agree with you on one thing 'I can't believe some of the things I read on here...' For instance, tenants who think they own the house because they live there!

And, by the way, I like cats and have let properties to families with dogs so, please, don't get on your high horse about that!

Pixie5740

Vectis wrote: »

Wow, you have a very strange idea of whose house it is when you're renting!

Just in case you missed it, it's the landlord's house. Yes, really, it is. You're just renting it for a limited period. It's not your house!

But I'll agree with you on one thing 'I can't believe some of the things I read on here...' For instance, tenants who think they own the house because they live there!

And, by the way, I like cats and have let properties to families with dogs so, please, don't get on your high horse about that!

During the tenancy it does become the tenant's though. The tenancy owns the lease for the property in exchange for money. Much in the same way as someone purchasing a leasehold property. The Landlord Law Blog has two very good articles explaining it.

emmita

To be honest I have cats and own a home which I put up for rent. I allowed pets at my discretion. They had a dog and the house is ruined. I for one as a landlord would have accepted cats but I would say no to a dog. Hope you find somewhere

emmita

Reading back and if a tenant lied I would end tenancy. Sorry bad day of being a landlord with terrible tenants