PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Tenants should have 'default right' to pets.......
Options
Comments
-
worldtraveller wrote: »... Labour wants a default right for them to do so unless there is evidence their pet will be a nuisance.
How is the LL expected to be able to gather such evidence, having had no contact with the tenant prior to this?0 -
Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »Provided it doesn't contravene the building regulations, and that tenants are prepared to front a much larger deposit to cover the increased likelihood of damage, then I don't think this is unreasonable.
What about other tenants/owners with (severe) allergies in flatted properties, who don't want dog or cat hair in the communal areas?0 -
I think it needs to be taken pragmatically.
Currently LL's prefer no pets as it is hard to police and some people are tools.
If you want a dog (which should not applicable to flats) you should have to provide proof that someone is there during the day of you have hired a dog walker.
Unfortunatly some people are not able to cope with the needs of an animal (or children, or themselves) and should not be allowed to have one but unfortunately there are no checks.
A £2000 deposit per dog might help.
Other pets should have a lesser requirement as appropriate and anything "above" a dog is unsuitable for rented accomodation.
Landlord's should also not be allowed to use agents as they just cause problems and disconnects. if you want to be a landlord take the job seriously or give it up.0 -
oh that made me laugh...I think it needs to be taken pragmatically.
Currently LL's prefer no pets as it is hard to police and some people are tools.
If you want a dog (which should not applicable to flats) you should have to provide proof that someone is there during the day of you have hired a dog walker.
Unfortunatly some people are not able to cope with the needs of an animal (or children, or themselves) and should not be allowed to have one but unfortunately there are no checks.
A £2000 deposit per dog might help.
Other pets should have a lesser requirement as appropriate and anything "above" a dog is unsuitable for rented accomodation.
Landlord's should also not be allowed to use agents as they just cause problems and disconnects. if you want to be a landlord take the job seriously or give it up.0 -
So, to summarise, it would appear that, unsurprisingly, most people accept that there are tenants that generally have respect for the properties that they rent, whether pet owners, or not, and there are tenants that have no respect, whatsoever, for the properties that they rent, whether pet owners, or not. The latter, generally, don't care about leaving the property like a sewer when they vacate, pets or not, the former do. There are also, clearly, tenants somewhere inbetween the two.
The issue, undoubtedly, for the landlord, is figuring out which camp they fit into, hopefully before the tenancy is agreed! There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more...0 -
I knew there was one with a goat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owlx2_L24u80
-
How is the LL expected to be able to gather such evidence, having had no contact with the tenant prior to this?
I've no idea. Maybe ask Comrade Corbyn or his mate Comrade McDonnell! There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more...0 -
Except Labour are also looking to scrap non-fault s21
Good luck to that one! I can't imagine a law that says that no LL could issue an S21 to repossess the property because they've separated and need to move back into their own property.
Even if they passed legislation to make it unlawful for a LL to issue an S21 for possession of a pet, the LL will just have to ensure that they never bring up the issue and deny that was the reason.
The main problem with pets is the fact that LL are not entitled to replacement, which is fair enough, but if you have a carpet that is 5 years old but in good condition and the tenant gets a pet that pees all over it so that there is no alternative but to replace, the LL will only get a small fraction of the costs of the replacement, whereas without a pet, they would have been able to make the carpet last another 2 or 3 years say (assuming it's good quality).0 -
The main problem is s.21 - there's really nothing else for it.Good luck to that one! I can't imagine a law that says that no LL could issue an S21 to repossess the property because they've separated and need to move back into their own property. - Remember Section 1 covers that.
Even if they passed legislation to make it unlawful for a LL to issue an S21 for possession of a pet, the LL will just have to ensure that they never bring up the issue and deny that was the reason.
The main problem with pets is the fact that LL are not entitled to replacement, which is fair enough, but if you have a carpet that is 5 years old but in good condition and the tenant gets a pet that pees all over it so that there is no alternative but to replace, the LL will only get a small fraction of the costs of the replacement, whereas without a pet, they would have been able to make the carpet last another 2 or 3 years say (assuming it's good quality).
Landlords are entitled to replacement. And they get the value of a 5 year old carpet (which is what they are replacing like for like with)0 -
They can hope to get the value of a 5yo carpet -it's not even a given as trying to prove that smell equals full damage is not always an easy task - but trying to get a 5yo carpet at the same price than what they'll get for it that will fit the room is almost impossible and with the cost of fitting it, they will inevitably be out of pocket. Like any business, this is something you try to avoid if possible, hence the no pet clause and the option of the S21 if there is indeed concern that the pet is likely to cause such damage.Landlords are entitled to replacement. And they get the value of a 5 year old carpet (which is what they are replacing like for like with)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards