Pet Clause in Tenancy Agreement

danslenoir

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

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.

Like the scuff mark example above, clogged toilets is an obvious defect that would easily be noticeable on vacation of the property. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that fleas might not be noticeable for some time afterwards. Unreasonable to ask for money for obviously unclogged toilets to be declogged, yes, but not unreasonable to ask for money for the house to be treated for fleas (a clear risk associated with cats, no?) that might well be there, whether there is evidence of them or not at the time of the property is vacated.

Either way, LL is doing OP a favour by reconsidering his position on pets. Many would not and would prefer to go through the process of finding a new tenant before letting pets into their property. It doesn't seem right to me on a moral level to return that favour by trying to find a grammatical loophole to use to renege on those conditions. It's clear to me what LL meant with the clause wording, and this has been confirmed by LL when asked for clarification. Presumably it was clear to OP too, or she wouldn't have asked for the 'if necessary' wording to be added to the clause wording.

Miss_Samantha

danslenoir wrote: »

Like the scuff mark example above, clogged toilets is an obvious defect that would easily be noticeable on vacation of the property. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that fleas might not be noticeable for some time afterwards.

That might be so, but then the clause should be worded differently.

It is not a grammatical loophole, just plain English.

Guest101

danslenoir wrote: »

Like the scuff mark example above, clogged toilets is an obvious defect that would easily be noticeable on vacation of the property. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that fleas might not be noticeable for some time afterwards. Unreasonable to ask for money for obviously unclogged toilets to be declogged, yes, but not unreasonable to ask for money for the house to be treated for fleas (a clear risk associated with cats, no?) that might well be there, whether there is evidence of them or not at the time of the property is vacated.

Either way, LL is doing OP a favour by reconsidering his position on pets. Many would not and would prefer to go through the process of finding a new tenant before letting pets into their property. It doesn't seem right to me on a moral level to return that favour by trying to find a grammatical loophole to use to renege on those conditions. It's clear to me what LL meant with the clause wording, and this has been confirmed by LL when asked for clarification. Presumably it was clear to OP too, or she wouldn't have asked for the 'if necessary' wording to be added to the clause wording.

I don't make judgments based on morality when dealing with sainbury's, so likewise I won't when dealing with a LL.

danslenoir

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

That might be so, but then the clause should be worded differently.

It is not a grammatical loophole, just plain English.

It was plain enough English for both OP and I to interpret it per the LL's intention without needing any additional clarification

Miss_Samantha

danslenoir wrote: »

It was plain enough English for both OP and I to interpret it per the LL's intention without needing any additional clarification

cavegirl1 wrote: »

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.

At least someone wasn't asleep during the lesson on prefixes.

pollydollydoodah

Do you know how much this will cost? As you said it's all laminate except for the stairs so surely its just carpets which are treated? (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I once had a cat in a rented flat and we had to agree to cleaning the carpets professionally plus a flea treatment once we left, so there's usually an extra cost.(indoor cat too)

danslenoir

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

At least someone wasn't asleep during the lesson on prefixes.

It seems this company should think about rewording its 'de-infestation' cleaning service for 'if you have pets OR have an infestation problem'. Incidentally, they also state this is typically required to satisfy tenancy agreement clauses.

http://www.greencleansolution.co.uk/services/deinfestation-treatment/

Similarly this one:
http://smartclean.net/de-infestation

And this one:
http://www.pristinecarpets.co.uk/insecticide-treatment/4584115988

So it seems that the term 'de-infestation' is commonly used within the cleaning industry to refer to treating carpets etc. exposed to pets (potential infestation) OR to treat known infestations.

Don't fall when you get off your high horse, will you?

marksoton

cavegirl1 wrote: »

It's my Grandma's cat and she is unable to look after it anymore due to ill health, so I've offered to look after her.

Existing contract says no pets so I've asked permission for it to be amended.

I know I've probably not got much choice but to agree to his terms. But it just seemed a bit excessive to me and when you're trying to save up for your own house having to pay £100 for a professional to come and get rid of some invisible fleas when we leave isn't exactly something I'm thrilled about!

If £100 is a problem then you're in for a shock when you become a property owner!

Miss_Samantha

danslenoir wrote: »

It seems this company should think about rewording its 'de-infestation' cleaning service...

Sometimes I really despair...

Pixie5740

marksoton wrote: »

If £100 is a problem then you're in for a shock when you become a property owner!

Or a vet bill.

OP, if you start putting a few quid each week/month away now you'll probably have the £100 to pay for whatever it is the landlord wants done because of the cat. However, I do agree with Miss Samantha, to de-infest there had to be an infestation in the first place. It's a badly worded clause.