Tenant has moved in with a dog

GaleSF63

RAS said:

Just to check. Is the property leasehold? If so, any restrictions on pets?

Leasehold not necessarily relevant - I live in a freehold flat but there are still restrictions. 

hpsauce86

SueDebt said:

Thanks everyone for all the replies.

I just wanted to know what the legal position was as my estate agent told me that pets had to be allowed under a new law and I didn't think that was correct.

According to the link someone kindly provided that is not currently the case.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-standard-tenancy-agreement-to-help-renters-with-well-behaved-pets

Try reading this. Might help you. 

km1500

The tenancy contract is the only thing that matters

If the tenant breaches it (in any way) then the landlord has the option of asking them not to breach it and ultimately applying for an eviction order

grumiofoundation

km1500 said:

The tenancy contract is the only thing that matters

If the tenant breaches it (in any way) then the landlord has the option of asking them not to breach it and ultimately applying for an eviction order

This is not true (of any contract not just tenancy). 

Just because something is in the contract not not necessarily mean it is enforceable.

There are obviously numerous absurd examples one could give to highlight this so not going to bother. 


Of course a landlord can try and get the tenant evicted but this does not mean it will be successful just because the tenant breaches a contractual term. 

gm0

Current proposed new guidance on short term tenancy and pets does not communicate clearly on the reasonableness of refusing when the freehold/leasehold arrangement for flats has a term in it forbidding them.  It alludes to "not all places are suitable" flats etc in a vaguer way.  Unhelpful.  They need to do better and be clearer. 

Flats with communal carpets to corridors, lifts, limited sound control.  Not suitable. It should remain both possible to refuse and for that to be always reasonable - where the condition already exists - in the existing long leases.  Unless the freeholder share and lease owners agree to change it.  Landlord owners need to be reminded of their ongoing legal obligation to REFUSE every request every time despite the new short term tenancy default becoming yes. 

If this is not what happens then the blow back from owner occupiers in developments like this will be severe and the following will happen with an attendant high level of conflict and lack of neighbourly harmony between landlords and owner occupiers while it is debated.

If they genuinely make this in some way binding over lease conditions with no context.  Many leasehold owner occupiers with share of freehold will just seek to ban ALL sub-letting entirely on their development.  No new Tenancies.  Solved.  Lease conditions still active on buyers.  Done.  Not the intended outcome for society.  Fewer tenancies available.  Don't screw it up then.  This limits capital investor choice upon selling (bad for prices people will argue while others will argue the exact opposite - no pets, no businesses etc brilliant).  And it offends current landlord owners by curtailing their current freedoms (which is also bad - like the short term tenancy proposal which infringes existing owner leaseholder rights that they purchased.

 
The balance in numbers of owners between landlord and owner occupier will dictate whether that idea runs. 

Do nothing is not a good option either as this offends owner occupiers who were and are content with the rules written into the 100-999 year lease with the building condition and design in mind i.e the leasehold conditions on a range of subjects being binding on all who live there.  Letting tenancies stick it in and leases stand just puts the leaseholder objecting to nuisance dogs on the case of the freeholder agent - on the case of the landlord - who is then powerless to do much even if they wished in the tenancy agreement and yet the freeholder is still legally compelled (can be sued to) enforce the condition on them.  It is nonsense to say Yes in the short term tenancy and No in the lease.  And it is bad policy to impose YES on unsuitable properties.

A 3rd way compromise across the two factions is that they add an extra letting step vs banning subletting.
A Residents Association tenant approval  "consent"  short of a subletting ban but which instead of the landlord agreement doing it brings ALL the communal living behavioural conditions back in separately in a separate agreement.  Which you must sign before consent is given to get the tenancy.  Just it's the RA not the landlord doing it.  I am not generally a fan of RA/Home Owner Association vetting as a concept but if forced into it by stupid legislation. Off we go.  Unless that option is fully legally curtailed in the new legislation.  We shall see.   More paperwork but "No pets" remains in place.  Hooray.

2nd contract agreement required prior to consent which is signed by the potential tenant or the RA refuses consent for the tenancy. Don't sign.  No consent.  No consent. Don't get to rent.  Job Done.  Dogs are still banned effectively where they should be but in two steps instead of one.  Typical useless government intervention to be seen doing something however half assed

You reapply ALL the relevant behavioural quiet enjoyment conditions of the leases via the RA side agreement (i.e exploit any or all legal loopholes left by a !!!!!! implementation of the new tenant regulations).  Landlords may have to accept this consent compromise or face ongoing war amongst neighbours over a total subletting ban until a voting majority is reached in a shared freehold where there is a mixture.  There could be some sites - suitable or not - where a majority of pet lovers wish to relax pet policy. Fair enough.

Indeed I would go MUCH further on RA consent when doing this.  To seek to add a penalty basis for fines in the side RA agreement on compliance to ALL lease conditions copied across - parking, noise, pets, running a business 24x7 in a residential block etc. That would be better than today where chasing the recalcitrant landlord of the defiant tenant is both slow and fairly ineffective. Even before the regular tenancy S21 reforms. Get them to sign a 2nd contract with a few penalty teeth in it that you can take to small claims to get some cash. Which help pay for the extra managing agent work to hunt down the non-compliant.
3 strikes in six months - evidenced complaints.  Warning letter.  Then a penalty letter with fines. Unpaid fines. Off to the small claims court to enforce said contract terms for the breach of RA contract.  Adjust drafting as "unfair terms" challenges stop it being draconian.  It's the deterrent effect we are after.   And lobby for a way - to get continually breaching RA agreement entered into "revoked consent" around behaviour agreement becoming a cause for breaching tenancy.  Supporting one of the forms for eviction.  Basically the idea is to push back on this !!!!!! by any and all means.  Lawyers will find a loophole and create a template.  It's the deterrent effect we are after more than the agreement or the fines (if possible). 
Don't like the rules of these flats.  Don't rent here.

For added "reasonableness" all the leasehold owner occupiers could sign up to the 2nd RA agreement too. 
It is in no way unreasonable.  It's not anything new for them.  They are all already signed up to exactly these terms bar the penalties suggestion.  They all already signed up to them in the lease.

A repeating fines process for breach is needed to address the the wealthy irresponsible who would rather pay to continue to behave however they like vs address an issue and provide remedy.   You can't get them out but you can make it sting and MUCH more importantly you deter them from arriving in the first place.  So make fines recurring.

The RA consent step also lets you stop the bad tenant (business/noise/dogs/lots of extra cars strewn about) returning in a different unit which happens all the time.  Some difficulties to overcome over GDPR but tenant X previously in breach with an RA at No. 6 on estate Y should be OK to fail a proper person test with the same RA at estate Y for a new tenancy in No. 8.   So put a proper person / not previously in dispute with the RA clause in.  And reject them.  Solves a current real problem (moves it on somewhere else anyway) as this 18 months to get the landlord to move them on and then they just rent a different unit and start again issue is entirely real.

This new !!!!!! will cause all sorts of trouble for a few years in residents associations everywhere there is pet unsuitable accommodation and leasehold.  Pet policy will be a red hot topic for a year or two

km1500

grumiofoundation said:

km1500 said:

The tenancy contract is the only thing that matters

If the tenant breaches it (in any way) then the landlord has the option of asking them not to breach it and ultimately applying for an eviction order

This is not true (of any contract not just tenancy). 

Just because something is in the contract not not necessarily mean it is enforceable.

There are obviously numerous absurd examples one could give to highlight this so not going to bother. 


Of course a landlord can try and get the tenant evicted but this does not mean it will be successful just because the tenant breaches a contractual term. 

True - hence my careful use of the word 'apply'

grumiofoundation

km1500 said:

grumiofoundation said:

km1500 said:

The tenancy contract is the only thing that matters

If the tenant breaches it (in any way) then the landlord has the option of asking them not to breach it and ultimately applying for an eviction order

This is not true (of any contract not just tenancy). 

Just because something is in the contract not not necessarily mean it is enforceable.

There are obviously numerous absurd examples one could give to highlight this so not going to bother. 


Of course a landlord can try and get the tenant evicted but this does not mean it will be successful just because the tenant breaches a contractual term. 

True - hence my careful use of the word 'apply'

But not so careful when saying 

The tenancy contract is the only thing that matters


(underline added by me for emphasis of the issue with your statement) 

diystarter7

I would never want a pet in any of our properties as they do smell and many people do not look after their pets as they should and they stench out the house.

LL's should be allowed to demand larger deposits for those with pets as there is more to go wrong. Not allowing this only stops more LL's from having T's with pets. In my case, I would never allow a pet into our rentals.

I do feel for those that look after their pets but I know of someone that has dogs and is a LL and outrightly refuses pets as they have witnessed the damage to their rentals because of some unedcated/dysfunctional T's.

Life is never fair and though we have a few quid in our pockets all via hard work and good money management, I'd like a nice big house in central London just off Hyde park and a mansion in Weybridge but the fact is we can not afford it as is life.

km1500

'only' was also carefully used in this context (dog) as it doesn't matter who said what to whom about having a dog, or what the ea said - it is what is in the contract that matters

grumiofoundation

km1500 said:

'only' was also carefully used in this context (dog) as it doesn't matter who said what to whom about having a dog, or what the ea said - it is what is in the contract that matters

But if the tenant has proof the agent said they could have a dog then it could well be that a section 8 to evict them for having a dog would be unsuccessful based on this. Despite what contract said.

So the contract would not be the 'only' thing that mattered then would it? Hence your comment still being misleading.