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.......

1…34689…12

Comments

  • moneyistooshorttomention
    moneyistooshorttomention Posts: 17,940 Forumite
    I can understand why this proposal has been made - with a rather higher number of people having to live in rented for one reason or another (when they would normally expect to own their own homes). Be that reason because they're a home-owner - but can't afford to buy their own home. Or they're a home-owner - but it was a shared house with a spouse and they've now lost it because of divorce.

    This is happening.....

    But I do tend to think this would backfire and would-be landlords/ladies would think "Another brick in the wall" (quoting Pink Floyd) and it would put them off renting knowing this is on top of all the problems already experienced in getting rid of bad tenants.

    Or is that the whole intention? It's actually really about discouraging people from having buy-to-lets in the first place - ie as they think "That's a last straw - adding to the difficulties I might experience because of how the law is at present - so I won't do so". Put like that - if it's a sneaky tactic to decrease the number of properties being used as buy-to-lets - then it may well have a "last straw effect" and work differently for a hidden purpose (if not the stated purpose - of tenants being able to have pets that a home-owner would take for granted they could have if they decided to).
  • Murphybear
    Murphybear Posts: 7,275 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Cuilean wrote: »
    I'm concerned by the vagueness of the description "pets" at the moment. A cat, dog, rabbit or hamster is one thing. What about these trendy pets like pigs and mini horses? I'm guessing landlords who have "No pets" clauses in their letting agreements have it there for a reason. I know I do. What about landlord rights?

    I'm also worried about what else this will open the door to. Default right to smoking inside the house? Default right to loud parties every night? Can open, worms everywhere...

    Are worms pets ?
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    How many landlords would allow tenants to bury their pets in the garden of a rented house?
  • Blueday
    Blueday Posts: 941 Forumite
    It's definitely an unfair proposal. I do not dislike dogs but I hate the smell of dogs so would not want to buy or rent a property that a dog has been living in and Im sure others must feel the same.

    Before everyone tells me that their dog doesnt smell, I dont believe you. My experience tells me that almost all dogs stink. I know several dog owning families amongst my friends, relatives and acquaintances. They are all generally house proud and look after their pets exceptionally well and all of these people would swear blind that their dogs dont smell. Well Id never tell them different but without exception all I can smell when I go into one of their houses is that horrible, stale, musky dog smell.
  • Davesnave
    Davesnave Posts: 34,741 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    Murphybear wrote: »
    Are worms pets ?
    They are till I take them out and drown them.:)
  • bris
    bris Posts: 10,548 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    anselld wrote: »
    Except Labour are also looking to scrap non-fault s21.
    It's coming, Scotland already has it. From 1st December 2017 Short assured tenancies were replaced so tenancies now have a start date but no end date. No fault evictions are now no longer available so getting tenants out is impossible.


    There are certain conditions if a LL wants their property back, 3 whole months rent arrears, selling the house or moving back into it personally are the 3 key ones but there are other more unlikely grounds.


    It will be with you sooner or later.
  • AvocadosBeforeMortgages
    AvocadosBeforeMortgages Posts: 44 Forumite
    Pixie5740 wrote: »
    What happens if the tenant chooses to get a pet after the tenancy has started?

    Landlords need to be careful how large a deposit they ask tenants to pay. Anything which equates to more than 1/6 of the annual rent i.e. over 2 months and a premium tenancy will be created.

    In that blog it says that a premium tenancy is created when one of the following is charged
    (a) any fine or other like sum;
    (b) any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent; and
    (c) any sum paid by way of deposit, other than one which does not exceed one-sixth of the annual rent payable under the tenancy immediately after the grant or renewal in question.

    Does this mean that my [STRIKE]incompetent[/STRIKE] private landlord (no agencies involved, though the paperwork suggests it was done through what I suspect is a shell company belonging to the landlord) accidentally created a premium tenancy when he charged me a £150 admin fee?

    This is also a man who charged first and last months' rent at the same time "because I don't want to take a deposit, it's too much hassle protecting it" so I hold little faith in his knowledge of the law.
  • Mahsroh
    Mahsroh Posts: 769 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    AvocadosBeforeMortgages wrote: »
    In that blog it says that a premium tenancy is created when one of the following is charged



    Does this mean that my [STRIKE]incompetent[/STRIKE] private landlord (no agencies involved, though the paperwork suggests it was done through what I suspect is a shell company belonging to the landlord) accidentally created a premium tenancy when he charged me a £150 admin fee?

    This is also a man who charged first and last months' rent at the same time "because I don't want to take a deposit, it's too much hassle protecting it" so I hold little faith in his knowledge of the law.

    If I was you, I would consider moving house!
  • Niv
    Niv Posts: 2,468 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    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.


    I thought deposits were getting capped at 6weeks rent?
    YNWA

    Target: Mortgage free by 58.
  • AvocadosBeforeMortgages
    AvocadosBeforeMortgages Posts: 44 Forumite
    Mahsroh wrote: »
    If I was you, I would consider moving house!
    The same landlord has also failed to notice / is turning a blind eye to my accidentally acquired dog, so I'm going to stay put and keep my head down for now!
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards