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

Out,_Vile_Jelly

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.

Pixie5740

Ozzuk wrote: »

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.

D- for your trolling effort. Besides even when people do buy their own homes that still doesn't mean to say they can do what they want. As pointed out above someone may buy the leasehold but the lease prohibits them from having pets or even if someone buys a freehold property there could be something in the deeds which prevents them from keeping pets in the property.

worldtraveller

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

...tenants are prepared to front a much larger deposit to cover the increased likelihood of damage,...

That's exactly what I was thinking, certainly as a prerequisite anyway. Still not sure about the 'right' though.

I don't have any personal experience of this issue, but my parents did many years ago. The tenant had a dog and left the flat in a disgusting state. The whole place needed "fumigation", deep cleaning, and the carpets had to be replaced.

Pixie5740

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.

worldtraveller wrote: »

That's exactly what I was thinking, certainly as a prerequisite anyway. Still not sure about the 'right' though.

What happens if the tenant chooses to get a pet after the tenancy has started?

Landlords need to be careful how large a deposit they ask tenants to pay. Anything which equates to more than 1/6 of the annual rent i.e. over 2 months and a premium tenancy will be created.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/02/09/five-premium-tenancy-questions-answered/

worldtraveller

Pixie5740 wrote: »

What happens if the tenant chooses to get a pet after the tenancy has started?

Landlords need to be careful how large a deposit they ask tenants to pay. Anything which equates to more than 1/6 of the annual rent i.e. over 2 months and a premium tenancy will be created.

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/02/09/five-premium-tenancy-questions-answered/

Fair points!

EmmyLou30

I've never understood why as a tenant someone would limit their choice and likelihood of gaining a nice rental in a sparse market by owning a pet. I mean I understand people love their animals, and many of us would love to own a pet.....but they are a luxury item, not an essential item. You do not need a pet. Just another thing that people see as their 'right' in the modern world. So yes, of course you can have a pet, but don't expect a landlord to want to let it wreck their house and investment and you should fully expect to be turned down for the better houses and have less choice than a non pet owner. This is none of the governments business.

lr1277

I am a landlord of a fourth floor flat. A few years ago, a tenant introduced a cat to the property without my knowledge and against both her tenancy agreement and my leaseholder agreement with the freeholder.

I mistakenly didn't ask her to remove the cat or herself.

The cat scratched all the wallpaper in every room. And by scratched, I mean great big tears in the wallpaper. The cat managed to get out or was let out into the communal corridor, where it scratched and put great tears in wallpaper.

So I had to pay to redecorate my place and also redecorate the corridor.
I can't remember how much of that I got back from the deposit because the redecoration costs was in the thousands.

So what happens if there is a bigger deposit but this is insufficient to repair any damage? A court case? Oh joy!

CurlySue2017

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

I've never understood why as a tenant someone would limit their choice and likelihood of gaining a nice rental in a sparse market by owning a pet. I mean I understand people love their animals, and many of us would love to own a pet.....but they are a luxury item, not an essential item. You do not need a pet. Just another thing that people see as their 'right' in the modern world. So yes, of course you can have a pet, but don't expect a landlord to want to let it wreck their house and investment and you should fully expect to be turned down for the better houses and have less choice than a non pet owner. This is none of the governments business.

Have you ever considered that peoples circumstances can change?

That they may end up having to rent out of necessity rather than choice when they already have a pet?

Comms69

Tenants have a default right to have parties, smoke and keep pets already.


Any clause that forbids any of the above and does not include the wording (without permission, not to be unreasonably withheld) are automatically void.


The issue is, as always, s.21 eviction.

Comms69

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

I've never understood why as a tenant someone would limit their choice and likelihood of gaining a nice rental in a sparse market by owning a pet. I mean I understand people love their animals, and many of us would love to own a pet.....but they are a luxury item, not an essential item. You do not need a pet. Just another thing that people see as their 'right' in the modern world. So yes, of course you can have a pet, but don't expect a landlord to want to let it wreck their house and investment and you should fully expect to be turned down for the better houses and have less choice than a non pet owner. This is none of the governments business.

Nor the LLS, unless the tenant doesn't clean and repair any damage.