Rental Properties with Pets. Urgent.

ameliarate

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Aranyani

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Comms69

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Well to some degree i sympathise with that view. The landlord runs the risk of financial investment. 

Ideally Landlord and Tenant would negotiate a contract suitable for all.  

regency_man

Comms69 said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Well to some degree i sympathise with that view. The landlord runs the risk of financial investment. 

Ideally Landlord and Tenant would negotiate a contract suitable for all.  

There really is very little 'financial risk' in allowing a pet.  Let's say, worst case scenario, the dog digs up the garden and scratches/chews the woodwork.  The LL still has the protections of the deposit to pay for repairs, still has the ability to bring private proceedings against the renter. 
Humans can do way more damage to a property than pets, yet it's still more common to see 'NO PETS' in an advert than it is to see 'NO SMOKERS'.

Comms69

regency_man said:

Comms69 said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Well to some degree i sympathise with that view. The landlord runs the risk of financial investment. 

Ideally Landlord and Tenant would negotiate a contract suitable for all.  

There really is very little 'financial risk' in allowing a pet.  Let's say, worst case scenario, the dog digs up the garden and scratches/chews the woodwork.  The LL still has the protections of the deposit to pay for repairs, still has the ability to bring private proceedings against the renter. 
Humans can do way more damage to a property than pets. 

I mean generally the LL carries the financial risk, and generally should decide their level of comfort in what happens in their investment. 

Whether that's pets, or BBQs or whatnot. 

OldMusicGuy

Just ask. We had the same issue when we were renting and several of the places that said no pets would consider them for an extra monthly fee and after a discussion about the type of pet involved (and I guess an assessment of us as responsible pet owners). 

Aranyani

Comms69 said:

regency_man said:

Comms69 said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Well to some degree i sympathise with that view. The landlord runs the risk of financial investment. 

Ideally Landlord and Tenant would negotiate a contract suitable for all.  

There really is very little 'financial risk' in allowing a pet.  Let's say, worst case scenario, the dog digs up the garden and scratches/chews the woodwork.  The LL still has the protections of the deposit to pay for repairs, still has the ability to bring private proceedings against the renter. 
Humans can do way more damage to a property than pets. 

I mean generally the LL carries the financial risk, and generally should decide their level of comfort in what happens in their investment. 

Whether that's pets, or BBQs or whatnot. 

Is that the same with all other investments?  Someone puts their money into something known to be high risk and then gets to decide their own 'comfort level' with how the businesses they are invested in are managed?

NinjaTune

I can't see that it would be an issue in places with hardwood/vinyl flooring, however, even  deep clean of carpets doesn't remove all pet hairs, dander etc.  If the next tenant has a severe allergy and was attracted by the STRICTLY NO PETS part of the advert then I'd imagine they would have something to say to the LL if they suffered  reaction.

Basically it's just easier for a LL not to have pets in a property due to the additional risk of damage etc.

I rented a property that didn't stipulate 'no pets'.  Made the mistake of double checking pets were okay after putting down a deposit and paying the letting fees.  LL was very clear the only pets allowed were fish in tanks.  Bit late for me by then so I smuggled my 3 rats and their enormous cage into the house under cover of darkness.  Had to take them to my parent's house the night before LL inspection every 3 months 

Comms69

Aranyani said:

Comms69 said:

regency_man said:

Comms69 said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

ameliarate said:

Aranyani said:

regency_man said:

Aranyani said:

It can, but if a tenant moves in now without telling the landlord then its going to be a really really long time before the landlord can do anything about it and evict them. 

Well over a year even if he finds out about the dog on day one. 

Thanks.  Just seems like such a shady way of operating!

Not really, the dog is trained, she needs a place to live.  Nobody will suffer except perhaps a landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! 

Utter nonesense! 

Which bit? 

landlord's sense of superiority and control over their tenants! - this bit.  Pretty sure few landlords feel like this. 

Read this forum for a bit, you'll see plenty of it. 

Not all of them, but some certainly seem to see the fact that their tenants are human beings who won't always do exactly as they want them to and have certain legal rights in their home as an inconvenience, they'd rather they were just rent paying machines who would meekly follow every crazy rule set for them and then quietly leave without a fuss as soon as the landlord has no use for them anymore. 

Well to some degree i sympathise with that view. The landlord runs the risk of financial investment. 

Ideally Landlord and Tenant would negotiate a contract suitable for all.  

There really is very little 'financial risk' in allowing a pet.  Let's say, worst case scenario, the dog digs up the garden and scratches/chews the woodwork.  The LL still has the protections of the deposit to pay for repairs, still has the ability to bring private proceedings against the renter. 
Humans can do way more damage to a property than pets. 

I mean generally the LL carries the financial risk, and generally should decide their level of comfort in what happens in their investment. 

Whether that's pets, or BBQs or whatnot. 

Is that the same with all other investments?  Someone puts their money into something known to be high risk and then gets to decide their own 'comfort level' with how the businesses they are invested in are managed?

Generally yes, in terms of AGMs etc. Where investors are able to dictate their views. Obviously in those cases they are only a fraction owner... In this case the Landlord is the sole investor. 

And generally speaking yes - business owners should be free to treat their business in the way they decide. 

regency_man

Well this discussion is straying a little into the merits of capitalism and fiscal policy!  Thanks for the advice.  Seems that most landlords will consider pets if they are contacted directly.  So will head down that route first.
If all else fails, will just pretend there is no dog....