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

catkins

I think it is sad that so many landlords do not allow pets. Many people have dogs and/or cats that don't do any damage.

My OH does lots of work in rental properties and says most of the filthy ones have children rather than pets. Children can also cause as much if not more damage than a dog or a cat

takman

Comms69 wrote: »

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

So you honestly think its better to pay rent with no hope of getting anything back than to borrow money to buy an appreciating asset. Where you have an extremely good chance of getting back that money when you come to sell.

Plus if you rent then you have pay that for the rest of your life, yet if you buy then after you pay off your mortgage (if you have one) then you have to pay no rent. Which when you retire will be very helpful if you have no pension.

FBaby

It's the old argument who should hold more control. Like many LL, I feel that the balance of control is more on the tenant terms than LL, although not completely. However, push the balance further down and I would certainly walk out of being a LL. Whether this would be seen as something positive, ie. reducing cost of properties allowing some people to become home owner, or whether it would take away properties for people who can only rent privately, I'm not sure.

11Mike

I!!!8217;m a Landlord and have pets myself. I have the clause in my agreement saying no pets without the express written permission from the Landlord. (Which will not be unreasonably withheld).

This line was also mentioned earlier on and I think is crucial. What if the landlord has an allergy to pets, surely that is a fair reason to withhold permission for pets? This hasn!!!8217;t even been mentioned yet? It was mentioned about other tenants potentially having and allergy but if you as a landlord has one surely it is your right to deny that type of animal.

We have allowed our tenants to have a range of pets, we take the chance after interviewing the prospective tenants and see how they are before we decide, we can then add an additinal clause to the agreement stating what pets we allow.

I would never force someone to give a pet up so they could rent, i would rather just not let it to them at all. I would also like to say My last tenants had snakes and lost one of them for 4 months. I just told them no contractors would be sent to the house for painting etc until the snake was found. This is also mentioned at the point of signing so they are aware.

I think this is wrong to force LLs into this but also LLs have to have valid reasons imho to deny tenants. This is one of the risks you takes in joining the BTL market.

FBaby

I think this is wrong to force LLs into this but also LLs have to have valid reasons imho to deny tenants. This is one of the risks you takes in joining the BTL market.

Except that's not how it works. A number of posters here are keen to remind everyone that being a LL is running a business. You don't have valid reasons to do business with one client over another, it's up to you and it's down to supply vs demand.

I am fortunate that I own a property where demand significantly outstage supply, so this means that the control is in my hands as to who I pick as tenants. I agree a rental cost with the agent from the start and stick to it, even if some tenants are prepared to offer more to be the ones selected and I have never increased the amount during the length of the tenancy, however I will select the tenant I believe to be the less risky for my business, ie. a tenant who would have more to lose stopping paying rent, and who is less likely to damage the property.

These are valid reasons to sustain any business. The system can't have it both ways, expect LLs to act in a business manner, but then be prepared to take on added risk just to be 'nice' to the customer.

Pixie5740

11Mike wrote: »

This line was also mentioned earlier on and I think is crucial. What if the landlord has an allergy to pets, surely that is a fair reason to withhold permission for pets? This hasn!!!8217;t even been mentioned yet? It was mentioned about other tenants potentially having and allergy but if you as a landlord has one surely it is your right to deny that type of animal.

What if a landlord has a peanut allergy? Should their tenants be banned from having any products which contain, or might contain, peanuts in their home?

Murphybear

PhilE wrote: »

Perhaps we could interview the pet. Check its CV.

Good plan. Perhaps the landlords should have to pass referencing as well:cool:

Comms69

PhilE wrote: »

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.

Have you considered that I don't want to buy?....


I wasn't making fun of anyone, though in your case that's more out of pity.

Comms69

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

Your example is just one example. Families who rent tend not to share.