Increased rent due to pets

robthenewboy

Even £300 per year is stretching the limit of credibility.  £300 as one-off to cover your entire time at the property is more like it.  What about the LL/agent doing their due diligence on the tenant and their pet?  This all seems very arbitrary.
I pay the same rent for having 2 people in the house or 3, so charging 'per animal' again does not paint the policy in a good light.

Scotbot

Hasbeen said:

robthenewboy said:

Do they charge extra for having young kids?  Just as much if not more potential for damage.

But you are correct. But young kids do not usually have fleas, mites, pee on curtains, chew skirtings/kitchen units and howl when left all day alone?

I reckon the damage from and noise young kids and pets is probably about equal. Kids may not pee on the carpet but dogs dont throw sticky orange juice all over them! 
The difference is it's illegal to ban children

Hasbeen

robthenewboy said:

Even £300 per year is stretching the limit of credibility.  £300 as one-off to cover your entire time at the property is more like it.  What about the LL/agent doing their due diligence on the tenant and their pet?  This all seems very arbitrary.
I pay the same rent for having 2 people in the house or 3, so charging 'per animal' again does not paint the policy in a good light.

As posted before any extra deposit is not now illegal for pets etc. In my opinion any extra the landlord added and was refunded at the end of rental, if no damage etc made sense? But legislation?

How can a landlord do due diligence on your pet?

To be honest I have never seen a rental ad asking for an extra rent per animal per month? perhaps does not happen in my area?

Can you provide some links to the properties/agents you are looking at in your area?

As I previously posted look at alternative sites rather than agencies for private Landlords renting, especially the ones saying pets welcome? 

Edit: Went on looked at Right Move. Most do state "Sorry No Pets" minority do not specify?

They must have their reasons for this?

[Deleted User]

robthenewboy said:

Even £300 per year is stretching the limit of credibility.  £300 as one-off to cover your entire time at the property is more like it.  What about the LL/agent doing their due diligence on the tenant and their pet?  This all seems very arbitrary.
I pay the same rent for having 2 people in the house or 3, so charging 'per animal' again does not paint the policy in a good light.

I think you are missing the point of their motivation. They aren't interested in letting to someone who has pets, or bothing to do due diligence (not sure what that would actually entail for a pet or what it would achieve). They are slapping extra on the rent if they really must bother with all of that but would probably prefer to rent to someone without pets in given the choice.
You are interested in arguing why £300.00 per year is excessive, whilst trying to persuade landlords to offer at a reduced rent and to let to you with a pet. They don't give a hoot really and want to rent to someone else fitting the profile that they want.

robthenewboy

Just seeing the dog for yourself and getting an idea of temperament would be a good start, the same as seen your potential tenants.  References from previous LLs who accommodated the animals.  Pretty simple stuff really.  Can't foresee everything the same as you can't for people.
The extra rent is being mentioned on many of the properties I see in my Right Move alerts.  Here's an example - it's detailed in the Tenancy Info (not allowed to post links)
rightmove.co.uk/properties/104494535#/


"Pets:
Where formally accepted by the landlord, pets carry an additional monthly rent of £50 per pet."

SpiderLegs

I don’t believe this is a widespread or ‘pretty much standard’ practice, however I’m sure it is becoming more popular in some areas.
round here there are no examples of this on rightmove.

however it seems like a pretty reasonable response from landlords who, as stated above probably just do not really want pets in the property.

The unfortunate reality is that you have disadvantaged yourselves by renting and wanting to have pets. The benefit of the deposit cap legislation has further disadvantaged you, but your complaint is really with the govt, not landlords. 

robthenewboy

A government policy that wasn't well thought-out - who knew!?

Mahsroh

I don't think this unreasonable personally. When we moved into our current property with our cats I agreed with the landlord that we'd replace the (already very worn) carpets with brand new when we vacate in return for him allowing us to keep the cats. The cost of the carpets divided by the number of months we're likely to be here means that's a cost to us of about £20/month. 

robthenewboy

No doubt some will find it reasonable.  We've been in this (lovely old) house for just over 6 years.  That would be potentially an extra £7200 we'd have paid.  If you're in for six months or a year maybe, but month-on-month extra is not justifiable IMO.
But as others have said, it's probably more down to dissuasion.

Mahsroh

robthenewboy said:

No doubt some will find it reasonable.  We've been in this (lovely old) house for just over 6 years.  That would be potentially an extra £7200 we'd have paid.  If you're in for six months or a year maybe, but month-on-month extra is not justifiable IMO.
But as others have said, it's probably more down to dissuasion.

Yeah I guess that's fair, but at the beginning the Landlord has no idea how long you're going to stay. Even if you tell them it's 6 years you can still leave at the end of your fixed term.

I guess that's why our carpet replacement agreement was a good compromise because that's the same one off cost however long we're here for (inflation notwithstanding).