Getting a pet mid tenancy

tom9980 wrote: »

The unintended consequences of the new deposit rules are Landlords even less likely to accept pets in their properties, tenants should expect to pay higher rents instead to compensate for the near certainty that their pets will cause some damage to the Landlords property.

Add to that, if many tenants start enforcing their rights by coming in without a pet and then adding one as its "their right", LL's might start proactively raising rents to allow for that responsibility. Or perhaps they could proactively cater for that in the agreement, eg rent without cat or dog* £x a month or £x+£500 a month with.

Similar as the bar in ? Boston? that charges $200 for chips and salsa because they are legally obliged to offer food. And no one is going to order food at that price.


* I do think LL's need to be more specific about what they specify, "no pets" rules out a great dane or a goldfish equally.

Given that the government in their infinite wisdom have stopped landlords taking a pet deposit, it's likely rents will go up to cover the cost of pets if you want one to be sure they can rectify the damage they cause. As another poster said, dogs have the potential to wreck houses. So don't be surprised that a landlord isn't likely to want pets in his/her house.


When you own your own home then do as you please of course. I'm still unsure as to why any tenant would want to limit their ability to find another rental in the future by having a dog or cat (plus as this is MSE; spend money on a pet that could be saved for a house deposit).


To the OP, by all means ask but given the response to the guinea pigs I wouldn't get your hopes up.

EmmyLou30 wrote: »

Given that the government in their infinite wisdom have stopped landlords taking a pet deposit, it's likely rents will go up to cover the cost of pets if you want one to be sure they can rectify the damage they cause. As another poster said, dogs have the potential to wreck houses. So don't be surprised that a landlord isn't likely to want pets in his/her house.

Nail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Head


Whilst I totally understand why the Government had to step in to stop some of the ridiculous long-term rental contracts that effectively meant that tenants could pay £50 a month to live in a 4 bedroom house (probably an exaggeration, but you get my point) the flip side means that there are few, if any, long-term rentals around.


We've been in our current rental for 6 years and possibly would have stayed another 4. We would almost certainly have been prepared to take on the "shell" contract right at the beginning. Unfortunately, whilst we've been breaking even with little debt, we've not been in a position until now to buy. It's an annoyance, because effectively, we've proved over the last 13 years of never having missed a rental payment, that we'd be great for a mortgage.


And before anyone mentions downsizing or cutting down, there is an element here of personal pride here. Me and my current wife had downsized and started putting >£500 a month away to look to buy. However, only a couple of months in, my ex-wife died suddenly and the kids came to live with us. Where we lived wasn't appropriate and we had to upsize again. Not only did this cost more, but clearly, it wasn't fair on the kids going without just so that we could buy our own house. We made a decision to bring the kids up whilst budgeting sensibly. Kids have now moved out, hence why we're now in a position to buy.


Going back to the original point, we'd have loved to rent a shell rather than being responsible for fixtures and fittings we would never have picked, whilst having ridiculous clauses like saying that bins must be hidden unless being collected and that I wasn't allowed to work on my car outside the house :rotfl:

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Add to that, if many tenants start enforcing their rights by coming in without a pet and then adding one as its "their right", LL's might start proactively raising rents to allow for that responsibility. Or perhaps they could proactively cater for that in the agreement, eg rent without cat or dog* £x a month or £x+£500 a month with.

Similar as the bar in ? Boston? that charges $200 for chips and salsa because they are legally obliged to offer food. And no one is going to order food at that price.


* I do think LL's need to be more specific about what they specify, "no pets" rules out a great dane or a goldfish equally.

Which is why the tenancy agreement my tenants have always had, says 'pets negotiable'.

need_an_answer wrote: »

At the beginning of tenancies as a LL I make it clear the property is not accommodating of pets.

That view wouldn't change if I were faced with a tenants request whether they were long standing tenants or not.

By all means contact your LL with a brief request but be prepared for the potential that the answer is no.

A LL cant take an extra pet deposit anymore.That was one of the charges banned in the recent change in charging.

Ultimately it is the decision of the LL whether to accept pets or not.
If you wish to continue your idea of a dog going forward you may need to consider finding a LL who allows them.

There is a proviso in that. In many cases the lease will expressly prohibit the keeping of pets. From memory all my BTL properties have that, so it is always in the tenancy agreement. It is perfectly understandable as in a small apartment block you don't need barking dogs and you don't want them doing their business on the grounds.

I wouldn't want cats or dogs in my properties anyway, but if it's in the lease it saves any arguments.