Pet Clause in Tenancy Agreement

mrginge

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

How does the OP know that there is no need to do the work?

If the OP decides off their own back that there are no fleas and does not have the work done, then they better be damn sure of that, because if the next tenant finds one single little flea, then the OP has breached a term and would be liable for the LLs costs.

Guest101

mrginge wrote: »

How does the OP know that there is no need to do the work?

If the OP decides off their own back that there are no fleas and does not have the work done, then they better be damn sure of that, because if the next tenant finds one single little flea, then the OP has breached a term and would be liable for the LLs costs.

I'm confused? Surely that's self explanatory?


The OP has stated numerous times they want 'if necessary' added to the clause. I'm pretty sure they're aware of this.

danslenoir

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

I disagree.

There is currently a no pets clause in the lease that the landlord has agreed to waive if OP agrees to his terms, which include 'de-infestation of the house to eradicate fleas'.

I think it's pretty clear that the intention is for the house to be treated at the end of the tenancy in order to get rid of any fleas that are there or might be there as a result of the cat living there.

I don't think the painting over scuff marks is an appropriate comparison. Scuff marks are an obvious defect, a flea infestation may not be. Landlord is completely reasonable to want to get the house treated at the end of the tenancy to protect future tenants.

If OP can prove without doubt at the end of the tenancy that the cat has not introduced any fleas into the house, fine, but this is not going to be possible.

cavegirl1

I understand what you're saying but by that rationalisation given that humans can bring fleas and flea eggs in from outside why not have a de-infestation clause on every tenancy agreement? I've got more chance of catching fleas than my cat has!

Anyway like I said I'm going to sign the agreement,but I reserve the right to moan about it :-)

HappyMJ

cavegirl1 wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but by that rationalisation given that humans can bring fleas and flea eggs in from outside why not have a de-infestation clause on every tenancy agreement? I've got more chance of catching fleas than my cat has!

Anyway like I said I'm going to sign the agreement,but I reserve the right to moan about it :-)

Fleas need a cat or a dog. They can bite humans but they won't live on one.

Guest101

danslenoir wrote: »

I disagree.

There is currently a no pets clause in the lease - Right and the LL can either try to enforce it (possible, but ultimately fruitless as the tenant will just leave), or evict the tenant, which again just means he or she has a void period. that the landlord has agreed to waive if OP agrees to his terms, which include 'de-infestation of the house to eradicate fleas'. - Right, and the Tenant doesn't feel this is acceptable. The LL will now be written out of the equation and the tenant will just get a pet. The LL has won nothing.

I think it's pretty clear that the intention is for the house to be treated at the end of the tenancy in order to get rid of any fleas that are there or might be there as a result of the cat living there. - Right, which is the same as my example. There might be scuff marks at the end, so im going to charge you.

I don't think the painting over scuff marks is an appropriate comparison. Scuff marks are an obvious defect, a flea infestation may not be. - It may not be, how about damp, or any other defect which the tenant is liable for. The result is still the same, either it's discovered at the time, or discovered at a later stage. Landlord is completely reasonable to want to get the house treated at the end of the tenancy to protect future tenants. - Assuming he or she actually bothers to get the treatment done...

If OP can prove without doubt at the end of the tenancy that the cat has not introduced any fleas into the house, fine, but this is not going to be possible.

The LL must prove the deductions to any deposit to be reasonable and necessary. Clearly having no proof of fleas would not be necessary to treat them.

Miss_Samantha

danslenoir wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that the intention is for the house to be treated at the end of the tenancy in order to get rid of any fleas that are there or might be there as a result of the cat living there.

As written before, this is not what the clause says.

The clause actually says what cavegirl1 wanted, she shouldn't have asked to clarify it.

danslenoir

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

As written before, this is not what the clause says.

The clause actually says what cavegirl1 wanted, she shouldn't have asked to clarify it.

I disagree.

I could buy some disinfectant to disinfect a glass jar that has just come out of a sterile laboratory. Does that 100% mean the glass jar is contaminated with something in the first place?

The intention is clear. And landlord has since made it clearer still.

I'm not often on the side of LLs, but in this instance, he is doing OP a favour. OP should return that favour by being amenable to paying a relatively small amount to provide 100% assurance that LL's flexibility is not going to result in fleas being left behind by the cat.

Marvel1

cavegirl1 wrote: »

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.

If they agree get it in writing and signed by themselves, verbal is nothing.

Miss_Samantha

danslenoir wrote: »

I could buy some disinfectant to disinfect a glass jar. Does that 100% mean the glass jar is contaminated with something in the first place?

That's completely irrelevant.

The clause clearly states that it is for fleas de-infestation, therefore the landlord must have evidence of an infestation first.

A similar clause would be "to re-imburse the landlord for the unclogging of toilets". Clearly I don't think that anyone is going to argue that this means that the landlord has the right to ask for money even if the toilets weren't clogged.