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

PhilE

Comms69 wrote: »

As for being patronising, I'm ok not being in £250,000 of debt, thanks

Then get saving, instead of making fun of someone who's had a bad experience by some scummy tenant.

Then you'd have something to say for yourself.

chucknorris

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Provided it doesn't contravene the building regulations, and that tenants are prepared to front a much larger deposit to cover the increased likelihood of damage, then I don't think this is unreasonable.

I'm a dog lover and I donate to dog rescue centres by direct debit, and I have also done voluntary work for them in the past. We look after our dog (a Lab) very well, but he did once pick up fleas (we think from a dead animal that he found) despite being on Frontline (his regular flea and tick treatment). It was a nightmare getting rid of them, it took over 4 months, so there is no way that I would allow pets in any of my properties.

Cakeguts

I am a landlord. I don't have any pets but my tenants do. Our tenants tend to stay for a long time so we are going to have to repair the wear and tear at the end of the tenancy anyway. After 14 years lots of things will be well used. No our tenants do not get their rent paid for them. They are renting one of our properties from choice.

worldtraveller

Thanks for all the posts, but, it still seems to boil down to, unsurprisingly, those tenants that generally respect the properties that they rent, and those that don't.

Pretty much, in this discussion, you just need to add to that the tenants that have a pet, or pet's and whether they (tenants) still respect the properties that they rent, with the propensity for a lot of pet(s), but not all, to foul and/or damage a property.

As I posted earlier, the issue, undoubtedly, for the landlord, is figuring out which camp they fit into, hopefully before the tenancy is agreed! However, once agreed, you can still have the case where a tenant that originally didn't have a pet, subsequently does.

A lot of damage can undoubtedly be done in a short tenancy, just as much as in a long tenancy, by any tenant, with or without a pet. It's surely all about attempting to figure that all out, if you indeed can, or if indeed you actually need to, before the tenancy starts.

Pixie5740

PhilE wrote: »

You are also free to get some money together, and own your own place where you can have pets rip up the carpet to your hearts content.

And if it wasn't for landlords, you wouldn't have a place to rent would you.

As previously discussed on page 1 of this thread buying somewhere does not necessarily mean you can keep a pet at the property.

News flash! Not everyone who rents couldn’t afford to buy a home if they wanted. There are a myriad of reasons why someone might choose to rent instead of buying.

Everyone needs a home, nobody needs to become a landlord.

Just as all tenants are not alike neither are all landlords. Not every landlord acts as if tenants are poor, little serfs who should be grateful that you have granted them a tenancy.

I do thank you for your concern regarding my housing but it is all in hand. I don’t need or choose to rent my home from a benevolent landlord such as yourself or anyone else.

If this is your former home that you want to rent out I do hope you warn prospective tenants about the noise from your neighbours dog before accepting the tenant’s hard earned cash.

:kisses3:

westernpromise

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.

Also, rather farcically, I have let out and also rented a property that had a gas-effect fire. As owner-occupier it's fine, but as soon as they became rental properties, they were deemed unsafe by the gas safety Nazi, and disconnected from the gas supply.

So owner-occupiers can operate a gas-effect fire safely, but tenants can't, apparently.

westernpromise

Cuilean wrote: »

What about landlord rights?

Corbyn doesn't agree they should have any.

westernpromise

sevenhills wrote: »

I have a dog, a border collie, I rented from the council, no problems.

I didn't know you could rent dogs from the council.

westernpromise

Comms69 wrote: »

I mostly agreed with you except the last bit: there is no reason to believe this would happen, those properties would be either bought by other LLs or by tenants (thereby driving down demand)

No. Owner-occupiers occupy property less densely than renters. A two-bedroom flat that lets to two couples would be bought by one. There is now one flat fewer to rent than there was, but the reduction in rental supply has not been matched by an identical reduction in demand.

The housing crisis would have been far worse without BTL. The population has gone up from 58 to 66 million in the last 22 years and much of this increase has been accommodated by fitting more people into much the same housing stock.

westernpromise

Comms69 wrote: »

As for being patronising, I'm ok not being in £250,000 of debt, thanks

If you rent you're probably in far more debt than that. To be precise, your debt is the NPV of all the rent you have yet to pay. Whether mortgage or rent, you owe someone the cost of your future accommodation.

If you're 35 you owe about 50 years of rent, which is probably more than £250,000.