Renting with pets 16 May 2019 at 5:03PM edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in House Buying, Renting & Selling 8 replies 519 views

TomTom19998

Hi there I guess this is a fairly simple question. Can a landlord charge someone with a pet more rent than someone without for the same property? I am not talking about a higher deposit but actual rent each month.

It feels like discrimination of some kind, they couldn't for example do the same based on religion, gender, ethanicity.

If it is allowed will it still be allowed after June 1st?

Thanks! :beer:

AnotherJoe

Yes they can charge more, no its not discrimination* , nothing will change after June 1st.


* actually it is, but not in the derogatory sense its generally taken as meaning now.

need_an_answer

my understanding of the situation after June is you cant be charged a higher deposit because of the pet however the LL can set the rent at whatever amount they feel they can achieve.

previously pet owners sometimes faced higher deposits because they had pets,this is now being bought under the same deposit rules as for non pet owners.

From memory its 5 weeks rent = deposit although if my figures are incorrect I'm happy to be corrected.

If rental income is more than £50k per year on the single property the deposit can be increased to 6 weeks rent.

Comms69

TomTom19998 wrote: »

Hi there I guess this is a fairly simple question. Can a landlord charge someone with a pet more rent than someone without for the same property? I am not talking about a higher deposit but actual rent each month.

It feels like discrimination of some kind, they couldn't for example do the same based on religion, gender, ethanicity.

If it is allowed will it still be allowed after June 1st?

Thanks! :beer:

Yes they can. Being a pet owner is not a protected characteristic. 99% of discrimination is legitimate.

Socajam

A lot of landlords may decided not to accept pets now.
As a landlord I do not accept pets or smoking - this is written in the contract

need_an_answer

Although its not just LL's who can restrict the occupation of pets in a property.

Some leaseholders whether they are owners or LL's will still face the same restriction if the no pet clause is written into their lease

Some sort of "discrimination" might also exist when it comes to "housing for the over 60's"...for the next x amount of years I'm sadly not allowed to buy into the villages that are springing up

so its not just tenants with pets who face a barrier sometimes.

Fire_Fox

need_an_answer wrote: »

Although its not just LL's who can restrict the occupation of pets in a property.

Some leaseholders whether they are owners or LL's will still face the same restriction if the no pet clause is written into their lease

Some sort of "discrimination" might also exist when it comes to "housing for the over 60's"...for the next x amount of years I'm sadly not allowed to buy into the villages that are springing up

so its not just tenants with pets who face a barrier sometimes.

Blanket 'no pets' clauses in long leases are considered unfair and unenforceable. An indoor-only cat, house rabbit or fish in an aquarium do not affect other residents nor the communal areas.

What is possible is for a freeholder or managing agent to restrict access of pets to any communal areas, inside or outside. Corridors, lifts, gardens, car park. Anything between the flat door and the public highway, or inside the flat to inside a private car.

In theory this could mean a pet carrier would have to be used to take a dog outside for a walk or to relieve themselves. Obviously this would be more problematic for some dogs more than others, and in some properties more than others!

LandyAndy

I suppose it could be discrimination if your pet is a black Labrador or an Irish Setter. :cool:

Fire_Fox

LandyAndy wrote: »

I suppose it could be discrimination if your pet is a black Labrador or an Irish Setter. :cool:

A sad tail of discrimination from an Irish pedigree.