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

haras_nosirrah

so 1) why can't the landlord set their own rules? I am mainly talking about the people who sneak pets into properties so when the next tenant asks 'were there any pets' the landlord says no when there may have been one they didn't know about

2) so the issue is it is inconvenient that your plane is delayed rather than the fact you may kill a fellow passenger?

Comms69 wrote: »

No, that's actually totally different. For two reasons:

1: the flight operator can set their own rules -
2: it quickly becomes your problem when the plane has to divert due to medical emergency -


My point was more about it being her problem to deal with, as it's her allergy. And as my previous comment - guide dogs are allowed everywhere in the UK, so how does she deal with that?

Red-Squirrel_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

fortunately she owned so this hasn't come up but she wouldn't rent somewhere where the previous tenant had a pet in case the deep clean wasn't deep enough and she couldn't then get out of a contract

Or she could just clean it herself like I did when I moved into a place that cats had lived in before.

Bit over dramatic I think!

Red-Squirrel_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

same kind of problem as 'why shouldn't i allowed to have peanuts on a plane even though someone else is allergic and could die - not my problem, I want peanuts'

No, not really, that would be true if the landlord were expecting her to look after his cat for the duration of the tenancy!

Comms69

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

so 1) why can't the landlord set their own rules? - at the minute they can. If the govt told a flight operator they MUST serve peanuts (the Peanut on Planes Act 2020) then they would have to. I am mainly talking about the people who sneak pets into properties so when the next tenant asks 'were there any pets' the landlord says no when there may have been one they didn't know about

2) so the issue is it is inconvenient that your plane is delayed rather than the fact you may kill a fellow passenger?

No, my issue would be that I've missed my destination due to some idiot opening a bag of peanuts.


My point was that the example was flawed.

haras_nosirrah

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Or she could just clean it herself like I did when I moved into a place that cats had lived in before.

Bit over dramatic I think!

are you allergic to cats?

if not you can't really say it is over dramatic.

She would need to remove every trace of cat not just give the carpets a once over. Cat hair gets inbetween the floor boards etc.

If she signed into a 6 month agreement, moved in and there was any pet hair in the property she would not be living there. As I say my aunt did a deep clean of her house and my sister ended up in the car overnight. This was when we realised how bad her allergy was. Her throat closes up and she gasps for air. She now has an epi pen.

Red-Squirrel_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

are you allergic to cats?

if not you can't really say it is over dramatic.

Yes.

The point is, there is absolutely no way for your sister (or me) to ever be 100% sure that no animals have lived in the place they are moving in to. Changing the rules for landlords won't make a scrap of difference to people with allergies.

Soundgirlrocks

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

This was when we realised how bad her allergy was. Her throat closes up and she gasps for air. She now has an epi pen.

That sounds horrendous and I appreciate it would make it difficult for your sister if she had to rent, however she is in a very very small number of people who have extreme allergies. The law can not factor into to legislation every extreme allergy or nobody would be allowed to do anything.

Soundgirlrocks

Carrot007 wrote: »

I think it needs to be taken pragmatically.

Currently LL's prefer no pets as it is hard to police and some people are tools.

If you want a dog (which should not applicable to flats) you should have to provide proof that someone is there during the day of you have hired a dog walker.

Unfortunatly some people are not able to cope with the needs of an animal (or children, or themselves) and should not be allowed to have one but unfortunately there are no checks.

A £2000 deposit per dog might help.

Sorry I disagree with the bit in bold, It is possible to have a well behaved dog in a flat. The knee jerk reaction of "No Dogs" isn't conducive to modern living where we will find more and more people living in flats. Modern sound insulation means noise shouldn't travel between flats. Would you say "No dogs" in terrace houses or semi's? I live in a flat, share of freehold thankfully with reasonable shareholders, pets with permission of the other shareholders are permitted. Only noise complain that we have ever had in 6 years was when we were renovating the kitchen!

dunroving

During my short-lived unfortunate experience as a BTL landlord, I had no problems with pets. However:

Tenant 1 ignored the leak down the side of the shower until the kitchen ceiling fell through.

Tenant 2 kept his incontinent motorbike in the living room (on the brand new carpet that I replaced after tenant 2 left).

It's a shame that generalizations lead to rules that don't fit individuals. Rather than simply suggesting a blanket law that all tenants have a right to keep pets *in someone else's house*, I wish these numpty politicians would think about how to use the law to deal with the irresponsible outliers. Even in the example above, I ended up £1,000's out of pocket because the laws protecting tenants are much stronger than those protecting landlords.

Mahsroh

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

same kind of problem as 'why shouldn't i allowed to have peanuts on a plane even though someone else is allergic and could die - not my problem, I want peanuts'

Suggesting that someone should not have a pet, because a future occupier of that property may have an allergy, is not the same as refusing to stop eating peanuts on an Airplane due a fellow passenger having an allergy. On that basis, we'd have to ban pets altogether.