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

Comms69

dunroving wrote: »

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.

Sorry, in their house. It's not yours when you let it out.


It's at best an investment.

ViolaLass

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

What about people in her position if they have to rent - the landlord will not be able to guarantee no prior pets.

Unless the place is new, the landlord can't guarantee that a dog has never visited or a cat stayed the night.

Mahsroh

ViolaLass wrote: »

Unless the place is new, the landlord can't guarantee that a dog has never visited or a cat stayed the night.

Same also applies when buying a house, so not a specific problem to renting.

dunroving

Comms69 wrote: »

Sorry, in their house. It's not yours when you let it out.


It's at best an investment.

I was using the possessive in the typical English grammatical sense, i.e., belonging to. The house belongs to the landlord. The tenant lives in it.

Comms69

dunroving wrote: »

I was using the possessive in the typical English grammatical sense, i.e., belonging to. The house belongs to the landlord. The tenant lives in it.

The landlord owns a deed, the tenant owns a lease - I don't see the difference. (and frankly your bank probably 'owned' more)





In law the house actually belonged to the tenant in any case. The tenant had right to be there, you didn't. (probably semantics now you've left BTL)

dunroving

Comms69 wrote: »

The landlord owns a deed, the tenant owns a lease - I don't see the difference. (and frankly your bank probably 'owned' more)


In law the house actually belonged to the tenant in any case. The tenant had right to be there, you didn't. (probably semantics now you've left BTL)

Interesting perspective. In all the (many) years I lived in private and public sector rented accommodation in different countries with different property laws, I would never have thought that I owned the house I was living in.

Pixie5740

dunroving wrote: »

Interesting perspective. In all the (many) years I lived in private and public sector rented accommodation in different countries with different property laws, I would never have thought that I owned the house I was living in.

Would you say that a leaseholder owns their own home?

Comms69

dunroving wrote: »

Interesting perspective. In all the (many) years I lived in private and public sector rented accommodation in different countries with different property laws, I would never have thought that I owned the house I was living in.

I cant comment on other countries, but that is in essence the situation here.

pinklady21

There is a paradox here -
as a landlord, I routinely do not allow my tenants to have pets.
as a tenant (which I may be shortly if my house ever sells), I have a cat, and will expect the landlord to allow it in the rental property.....

As a tenant, I know that my cat will be well behaved, and in the event that any pet related damage is caused to the property I rent, I will own up and offer to pay the costs of putting it right.

The problem is that as a landlord, how can I trust my tenant, whom I won't know much about, to behave as responsibly?
Hence, my default position is to ban pets in the property I rent out.

The issue with legislating is trying to be fair to all when there are folks out there who will be irresponsible no matter what the law says!

Comms69

pinklady21 wrote: »

There is a paradox here -
as a landlord, I routinely do not allow my tenants to have pets.
as a tenant (which I may be shortly if my house ever sells), I have a cat, and will expect the landlord to allow it in the rental property.....

As a tenant, I know that my cat will be well behaved, and in the event that any pet related damage is caused to the property I rent, I will own up and offer to pay the costs of putting it right.

The problem is that as a landlord, how can I trust my tenant, whom I won't know much about, to behave as responsibly?
Hence, my default position is to ban pets in the property I rent out.

The issue with legislating is trying to be fair to all when there are folks out there who will be irresponsible no matter what the law says!

Legislation is almost never 'fair'