Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet?

scd3scd4

The poster hasn't been there!

You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means?



It depends on how the property is returned!

Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question, thread and answers.




You clearly have no idea...

I would be more worried you say its your living.



seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......and they are paying for the carpets to be cleaned.

Guest101

higgledypiggledy_pop wrote: »

Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point)- ye I got that. , it would be raided - unlikely, the police tend to work with prostitutes to ensure their safety. They typically act where there is coercion. and shut down - if raided, yes it would be shut down. and the guilty parties prosecuted - possibly. and taken into custody.

Almost certainly there would not be a prison sentence. BUT even if there was. You still couldn't evict them!


they are still tenants, even if they were in prison.

Guest101

scd3scd4 wrote: »

The poster hasn't been there!


You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means? - Indeed. And its not legally relevant




It depends on how the property is returned!


Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question and thread. - Which has been answered about 50 times...




You clearly have no idea...


I would be more worried you say its your living. - I didn't say that. However that said, I'm being accurate. Your playing a moral violin.




seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......

if you say so pal

Guest101

higgledypiggledy_pop wrote: »

No, this was put in my mind by individuals on here making suggestions about money laundering and drugs because of the tenants' high disposable income/some apparent fibs about employment, which I do not entirely believe is likely but has added to my worries. Also because I don't know if they have a connection to my very suspicious agent which is possible. I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is. If they are so well protected by law I don't know why she just didn't tell me the truth, dishonesty does not bode well!

Probably she's not yet aware of her legal position....

leslieknope

i would have hoped you had realised that posters were exaggerating about drug rings and money laundering as a very worst case scenario, perhaps in reaction to how absurd some of your allegations have been. and again you seem to be focused on what the tenants are doing wrong instead of how your agent has s----ed the pooch and you have in fact not ensured the rights the tenants have to a protected deposit and quiet enjoyment of their home.

the most likely scenario here is yes, tenants have a dog and thought they would be okay to just quietly enjoy their tenancy and then get things cleaned when they move out so you're none the wiser. and your lone agent has approached you with this deal, preying on your naivety in order to gouge you for 40% of the income, and has cut corners in order to maximise profit. he has also likely charged your tenants for referencing and checks and then not completed them.

scd3scd4

Indeed. And its not legally relevant


It is and that's why you have a deposit.


Your playing a moral violin.


No violin but a dog.




if you say so pal


I do and I have geezer...

Guest101

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Indeed. And its not legally relevant


It is and that's why you have a deposit. - the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


Your playing a moral violin.


No violin but a dog. - as I said, not relevant




if you say so pal


I do and I have geezer...

you're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it's not helping the OP. You're wrong and sharing incorrect information.

scd3scd4

the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


You are trying to change tact. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear.


People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. Most don't need explaining why. If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good.


However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example.


If he has done something illegal with the deposit, that is he's look out.....we can have more than one view point of a post.

Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.

Guest101

scd3scd4 wrote: »

the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is £4,000.


You are trying to change tact. - explain. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear. - you are the only person talking about wear and tear. Everyone else is focusing on the bigger picture. (p.s. dog hair is not damage either and can e rectified very easily)


People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. - and that reason is not relevant Most don't need explaining why - most such clauses are unenforceable . If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good. - indeed. And until the tenancy ends they can do as they wish.


However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. - oh you're a psychic? My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. - your friend could repair or replace the backdoor in a few hours. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example. - it could be, was it to be protected correctly.


Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.

What straw man argument, I'm talk about this specific example!

Soundgirlrocks

higgledypiggledy_pop wrote: »

Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point), it would be raided and shut down and the guilty parties prosecuted and taken into custody.

So? You still can't take back the property until the tenant or court surrenders it. The tenant getting nicked doesn't end the tenancy. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/prisoners/keeping_your_home_when_in_prison