Pet Clause in Tenancy Agreement

mystic_trev

Tell the Landlord you've seen mice in the Flat. That'll make him change his mind.

HappyMJ

cavegirl1 wrote: »

Hi all, I'm new to the forum but just wanted a bit of advice. I rent privately, I have been at the same property for 2 years and have a good relationship with the landlord. Just recently I asked him permission to keep a cat at the property, he agreed but then sent me a conditions document to sign. I don't have a problem with paying for the house to be professionally cleaned or paying for any damage. But I've got a problem with the condition which stipulates I have to pay for the de-infestation of the house when we leave. I've explained to him that the cat is a house-cat and therefore it is extremely unlikely that it would get fleas. I asked him if he would be prepared to add the words "if necessary" to this clause but he said it's non-negotiable and would need doing regardless if there was any evidence of fleas or not. I believe that this is excessive and that he's being unreasonable. However I also understand that if I don't agree to his conditions then he could easily serve notice on me.... Any advice on how to deal with this matter would be greatly appreciated! He's given me until 3rd March to sign it!

I'm an awful tenant...I wouldn't ask to keep a pet in the first place.

But now you've asked you've got to agree if you want the cat.

De-infesting a property doesn't cost much. Get a can of Indorex at about £12 on Amazon and spray the house every 6 months whether you've seen fleas or not. At £2/month it's not that much. Keep all the receipts to show to the landlord you've done it regularly and do it one final time as you leave the property.

If the landlord isn't satisfied with this product which has a 4-5 star review on most review sites then consider calling in the professionals which if you lived in my area would have cost £50 before the council axed the subsidized service. You would only only have to do that once per year, you'll have to leave the property and take the cat away with you for several hours.

You should also use a flea treatment on your pet such as Effipro which is about £10 for 4 treatments and treatment is required at least every 2 months so about £1.25 per month. Again keep all the receipts and your landlord should be happy enough with it. Don't use cheap treatment's that say they "repel" fleas you want something that will kill them.

cavegirl1

Thanks everyone, you've all pretty much confirmed what I thought but it's nice to get a few different peoples opinions. I'll just have to agree to it but maybe request if I can arrange it myself when the time comes and provide a receipt as proof that it's been done.

Cheeky_Monkey

Maybe you could ask your Grandma to pay for it?

G_M

The clause is perfectly sensible. Look at it from the other side:

* the landlord does not know for sure the cat is a 'house-cat' (whatever that means. Surely a cat is a cat?)

* If you leave, and new tenants move in, what will happen if a week later they complain of fleas?
a) he has started a tenancy badly - the tenants are p*ssed off within the 1st week
b) he has to get rid of the fleas.

As a LL I would always want to protect my incoming tenants by ensuring the property had no infestations, and if the outgoing tenants had pets, I'd treat the property just in case.

Noone can guarantee their pet is flea-free, and verbal assurances by the owner are no guarantee.

Smell can also be an issue (more with dogs than cats, though 'house cats' by defintion urinate/deficate indoors). I frequently hear dog owners say: "my dog does not smell." but my experience is that they (the owners) become used to the smell and simply don't notice it. Cats to a lesser degree.

Miss_Samantha

cavegirl1 wrote: »

Not sure how to attach a jpeg of the document but the exact wording of that particular clause is:

"To reimburse the landlord for the de-infestation of the house to eradicate fleas"

He's already stated by email that this would need to be done professionally

In order to eradicate fleas there must be fleas in the first place, likewise in order to "de-infestate", so the 'if necessary' you requested is already implied.
This might not be what your landlord has in mind, but that what the above clause means.

Now, if your conversation on this is in writing you may have weakened you position because it is now clear that the agreement is to have the house treated in any case.

mlz1413

cavegirl1 wrote: »

Not sure how to attach a jpeg of the document but the exact wording of that particular clause is:

"To reimburse the landlord for the de-infestation of the house to eradicate fleas"

He's already stated by email that this would need to be done professionally

I think that clause is unreasonable but 'to carry out de-infestation' would be reasonable, then as said before you can be in control of the costs.

cavegirl1

I hear what you're saying G_M, for info a house-cat means that they don't go outside at all, therefore, although not impossible, it's unlikely that they would get fleas.

Other 'reasonably worded' pet clauses that I've found online either don't mention de-infestation at all, or if they do it always includes the words "if necessary". I would obviously have been prepared to pay for these costs if upon inspection the landlord deemed it necessary.

And Miss Samantha yes you're right, for a house to be DE-infested means that it would have to be infested in the first place. But the landlord has since confirmed in writing that it would need to be done regardless.

As it stands though I don't think I've got a choice but to agree to his terms, even if I think it's excessive. Tough luck to me!

bouicca21

It is not always obvious whether there are fleas, since if they have the choice, they go for the cat rather than humans. The problem only becomes obvious oNce the cat is removed. I've lived with a flea infestation caused by a cat that simply visited from upstairs. It took weeks to clear it. The owners were completely unaware of a problem either for the cat or for their own flat.

I think if I were a landlord I'd impose a similar condition.

Guest101

Look it's simple. If there is no need to carry out any work, then there is nothing to pay.


If the LL wants to do it regardless, he can do it out of his own pocket.


It's no different to a LL claiming that the house would need to be repainted at the tenants expense, to cover any scuff marks - and this be done regardless of if any scuff marks existed or not.