Tenants should have 'default right' to pets.......

worldtraveller

....according to Labour.

Labour wants to strengthen the rights of tenants to keep a pet in their properties as part of a package of proposed animal welfare measures.

Some rental agreements drawn up by landlords insist on no animals.

Tenants can seek permission to keep pets but Labour wants a default right for them to do so unless there is evidence their pet will be a nuisance.

BBC News

Ozzuk

Perhaps they should work harder, buy their own place then they can do what they want! And I say that as a dog owner (couldn't be without them) and I see the damage/mess they can cause.

Another crazy idea.

FBaby

Don't see how it will change anything. Tenants can currently have pets even if the contract says they can't, in the same way they can change the locks even if the contract says they are not allowed.

The issue is whether by doing something their LL isn't happy with, they are risking getting an S21 at the end of their fixed contract.

Ozzuk

I think it could change things, not many know you can have pets, so we could see increased rental prices/larger deposits required as landlords seek to offset the perceived increase in risk (blanket allowance on pets).

The get out for landlords is dog size - I for instance have a 50kilo rottie cross, highly unlikely I'd be able to rent (and I have had issues in the past trying).

Just read the article, its more interesting seeing what Michael Grove is proposing - increasing animal abuse penalties. Great idea.

[Deleted User]

It obviously isn't widely known.

I wouldn't have challenged a 'no pets' clause as I'd not want to take the risk of an eviction. Its difficult enough to stay long term in a private rental as it is.

anselld

FBaby wrote: »

The issue is whether by doing something their LL isn't happy with, they are risking getting an S21 at the end of their fixed contract.

Except Labour are also looking to scrap non-fault s21.

scottishblondie

I've heard of many properties where the keeping of pets is not allowed by the terms of the lease (down south) or forbidden by the deeds of the property (in Scotland - the number and type of animals I can keep is defined in my deeds). Surely this idea would immediately come into conflict with that?

Norman_Castle

^ It is odd that leaseholders and tenants can have different rights despite being in identical properties in the same building.
In some cases tenants are allowed pets where leaseholders aren't. Surely the lease overrides the landlords views.

Silvertabby

Give some people an inch, and they'll be wanting to move 3 alsatians into a one bed 4th floor flat.

davidmcn

Norman_Castle wrote: »

^ It is odd that leaseholders and tenants can have different rights despite being in identical properties in the same building.
In some cases tenants are allowed pets where leaseholders aren't. Surely the lease overrides the landlords views.

It would, though such a discrepancy is presumably where the tenanted properties are let directly by the freeholder (e.g. social housing blocks where some people have exercised the right to buy).

Cuilean

I'm concerned by the vagueness of the description "pets" at the moment. A cat, dog, rabbit or hamster is one thing. What about these trendy pets like pigs and mini horses? I'm guessing landlords who have "No pets" clauses in their letting agreements have it there for a reason. I know I do. What about landlord rights?

I'm also worried about what else this will open the door to. Default right to smoking inside the house? Default right to loud parties every night? Can open, worms everywhere...