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.......

1356712

Comments

  • I think its an interesting one, pet ownership in the UK is actually declining, and I wonder if there is a correlation with the number of people living in private rentals & an increase in number of flats where the lease bans all pets?

    As a London dog owner I'm aware of how many people would love to have a pet but can't (the amount of fuss my muttly gets on the tube is astounding) Humans have a symbolic relationship with dogs especially, dating back around 15,000 years. The health benefits of having an animal are huge and yet we are creating a world where it is harder and harder for people to have a pet so perhaps it does need some government intervention to recognise the importance having a pet can have on peoples well being.
  • sevenhills
    sevenhills Posts: 5,838
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    That's exactly what I was thinking, certainly as a prerequisite anyway. Still not sure about the 'right' though.

    I don't have any personal experience of this issue, but my parents did many years ago. The tenant had a dog and left the flat in a disgusting state. The whole place needed "fumigation", deep cleaning, and the carpets had to be replaced.

    I have a dog, a border collie, I rented from the council, no problems.

    I can see that dogs and other pets can be essential to family life, and private renting is becoming more common, but we must think about the small landlord; where a big bill when the tenants leave is a nightmare.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    sevenhills wrote: »
    I have a dog, a border collie, I rented from the council, no problems.

    I can see that dogs and other pets can be essential to family life, and private renting is becoming more common, but we must think about the small landlord; where a big bill when the tenants leave is a nightmare.
    Why? I don't consider mr Sainsbury's, so why should I consider mr jones?
  • Ozzuk
    Ozzuk Posts: 1,884
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Pixie5740 wrote: »
    D- for your trolling effort. Besides even when people do buy their own homes that still doesn't mean to say they can do what they want. As pointed out above someone may buy the leasehold but the lease prohibits them from having pets or even if someone buys a freehold property there could be something in the deeds which prevents them from keeping pets in the property.

    I'm confused on the trolling comment, a little immature maybe.

    My point is put yourself in a position where if pets are your priority (which they are for me) then buy a property where you can achieve that - which of course would include making sure there are no restrictions on it.

    How is it fair that people who rent would now have to subsidise those wishing to have pets? It's like the BBC license...but don't get me started on that :D
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Ozzuk wrote: »
    I'm confused on the trolling comment, a little immature maybe.

    My point is put yourself in a position where if pets are your priority (which they are for me) then buy a property where you can achieve that - which of course would include making sure there are no restrictions on it.

    How is it fair that people who rent would now have to subsidise those wishing to have pets? It's like the BBC license...but don't get me started on that :D
    Why would they subsidise those people?
  • LilElvis
    LilElvis Posts: 5,835
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    This topic is going to be discussed on Radio 5 this hour, with a member of the shadow cabinet contributing. Will also likely be available as part of the podcast later.
  • Mahsroh
    Mahsroh Posts: 769
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    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.

    My thought exactly.

    As a landlord, I always have the "No pets" clause in the agreement, but if i'm approached by a tenant asking to keep a pet at the property (as I have been) I wouldn't unreasonably object. My tenants who have left recently kept a small dog at the property, with my agreement.

    As a tenant, we have two cats, which has been agreed with the landlord. The agreement is very clear that it is for those two pets only, and any further plans we had to bring more pets into the home would require further consent, rather than a blanket "pets are allowed" clause. Seems more than reasonable.
  • Ozzuk
    Ozzuk Posts: 1,884
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Comms69 wrote: »
    Why would they subsidise those people?

    As I said earlier, if policy dictates you must account for pets, then landlords will seek to mitigate that risk/cost - larger deposits/higher rent. All IMO of course.
  • Comms69
    Comms69 Posts: 14,229
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Ozzuk wrote: »
    As I said earlier, if policy dictates you must account for pets, then landlords will seek to mitigate that risk/cost - larger deposits/higher rent. All IMO of course.



    Ah I see you're saying the LL would charge e.g. (+£50) on each property, to account for the 1 or 2 that might have a pet - assuming this is a portfolio holding LL ofcourse.


    That's possible. On the plus side, LLs can mitigate this by simply inspecting the property every 3-6 months and letting tenants know if repairs are required.
  • Pixie5740
    Pixie5740 Posts: 14,515
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Ozzuk wrote: »
    I'm confused on the trolling comment, a little immature maybe.

    In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, and your comment about tenants working harder was inflammatory. Just because some is a tenant does not mean they don't work hard.
    Ozzuk wrote: »
    Perhaps they should work harder, buy their own place then they can do what they want!


    Ozzuk wrote: »

    How is it fair that people who rent would now have to subsidise those wishing to have pets? It's like the BBC license...but don't get me started on that :D

    :huh:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards