Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 10th Jul 17, 11:42 AM
    • 148Posts
    • 49Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet?
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:42 AM
    Can I terminate my tenant's tenancy early for having an unauthorised pet? 10th Jul 17 at 11:42 AM
    I am renting a flat to a couple on a 12 month tenancy agreement. When they applied they did not say anything about having a pet and in the tenancy agreement it states that tenants must get permission for any pets from the landlord first. I have been informed by a neighbour that one of the tenants has been seen going in and out of the flat with a dog, and the dog has also been seen in the garden. I asked the tenants about it and they claimed that it didn't belong to them but was a friend's who had been visiting or had left the dog there for a short time. I told them that I did not want a dog in the flat at all even if it was a friend's and that they should stop allowing the friend to bring the dog in, but it has been seen again since by my neighbour who watches and keeps me informed, when the woman tenant is around she often seems to have the dog with her.
    I think that the dog is probably really theirs or has been staying with them and I don't want it there. How can I go about ending their tenancy for breach of contract? Will I have to obtain proof that the dog is there? Does it matter legally whether it belongs to them or not?
    They also pre-paid all 12 months of their rent before moving in and have eight months remaining on the tenancy, will this make it harder for me to get them out?
Page 18
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:41 PM
    • 315 Posts
    • 480 Thanks
    leslieknope
    Would you need to get a permit from the council to run a brothel from home though? Would it affect your council tax banding, and would you need to pay for a trade waste service to remove....used delicates?
    Originally posted by fairy lights
    you can reclaim some tax for any costs of washing a uniform... so i assume you could claim a rebate!
    CCCC #33: 42/240
    DFW: 4355/4405
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 4:42 PM
    • 820 Posts
    • 700 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    The poster hasn't been there!

    You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means?



    It depends on how the property is returned!

    Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question, thread and answers.




    You clearly have no idea...

    I would be more worried you say its your living.



    seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


    Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......and they are paying for the carpets to be cleaned.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 13-07-2017 at 4:45 PM.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:43 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point)- ye I got that. , it would be raided - unlikely, the police tend to work with prostitutes to ensure their safety. They typically act where there is coercion. and shut down - if raided, yes it would be shut down. and the guilty parties prosecuted - possibly. and taken into custody.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Almost certainly there would not be a prison sentence. BUT even if there was. You still couldn't evict them!


    they are still tenants, even if they were in prison.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:45 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    The poster hasn't been there!


    You know what a dog is right.........you know what being allergic means? - Indeed. And its not legally relevant




    It depends on how the property is returned!


    Obviously.......that's the posters worry, hence the question and thread. - Which has been answered about 50 times...




    You clearly have no idea...


    I would be more worried you say its your living. - I didn't say that. However that said, I'm being accurate. Your playing a moral violin.




    seriously take an hour, read G_Ms threads, then come back


    Cheers.............yep..........just confirmed what I have already said......
    Originally posted by scd3scd4


    if you say so pal
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:46 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    No, this was put in my mind by individuals on here making suggestions about money laundering and drugs because of the tenants' high disposable income/some apparent fibs about employment, which I do not entirely believe is likely but has added to my worries. Also because I don't know if they have a connection to my very suspicious agent which is possible. I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is. If they are so well protected by law I don't know why she just didn't tell me the truth, dishonesty does not bode well!
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Probably she's not yet aware of her legal position....
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 4:49 PM
    • 315 Posts
    • 480 Thanks
    leslieknope
    i would have hoped you had realised that posters were exaggerating about drug rings and money laundering as a very worst case scenario, perhaps in reaction to how absurd some of your allegations have been. and again you seem to be focused on what the tenants are doing wrong instead of how your agent has s----ed the pooch and you have in fact not ensured the rights the tenants have to a protected deposit and quiet enjoyment of their home.

    the most likely scenario here is yes, tenants have a dog and thought they would be okay to just quietly enjoy their tenancy and then get things cleaned when they move out so you're none the wiser. and your lone agent has approached you with this deal, preying on your naivety in order to gouge you for 40% of the income, and has cut corners in order to maximise profit. he has also likely charged your tenants for referencing and checks and then not completed them.
    CCCC #33: 42/240
    DFW: 4355/4405
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 4:51 PM
    • 820 Posts
    • 700 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    Indeed. And its not legally relevant


    It is and that's why you have a deposit.


    Your playing a moral violin.


    No violin but a dog.




    if you say so pal


    I do and I have geezer...
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 4:57 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    Indeed. And its not legally relevant


    It is and that's why you have a deposit. - the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is 4,000.


    Your playing a moral violin.


    No violin but a dog. - as I said, not relevant




    if you say so pal


    I do and I have geezer...
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    you're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it's not helping the OP. You're wrong and sharing incorrect information.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 13th Jul 17, 5:25 PM
    • 820 Posts
    • 700 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is 4,000.


    You are trying to change tact. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear.


    People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. Most don't need explaining why. If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good.


    However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example.


    If he has done something illegal with the deposit, that is he's look out.....we can have more than one view point of a post.

    Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 13-07-2017 at 5:30 PM.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 5:31 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    the OP medical conditions have no bearing on the tenancy. That is the law. I honestly don't care what you think or feel it should be, it is what it is. Since the OP broke the law by not protecting the deposit, they can try to deduct from it, but automatically owe the tenant ATLEST 1x the value (and upto 3x the value of the deposit) which in this case is 4,000.


    You are trying to change tact. - explain. No one is talking about medical issues or not protecting the deposit. Dog hair.........is dog hair and not wear and tear. - you are the only person talking about wear and tear. Everyone else is focusing on the bigger picture. (p.s. dog hair is not damage either and can e rectified very easily)


    People ask for no dogs/pets or smoking for a reason. - and that reason is not relevant Most don't need explaining why - most such clauses are unenforceable . If the tenant decides to keep pets and then leaves the house as if there was no pets that is one thing. All fine and good. - indeed. And until the tenancy ends they can do as they wish.


    However knowing human nature they will not clean all the carpets and make good. - oh you're a psychic? My friends dog scratches the back door every time it wants to go out. - your friend could repair or replace the backdoor in a few hours. Or in the case of smoking, clean the sofa, curtains and so on of smells. I see no issue or reason why a deposit would or could not be used in that example. - it could be, was it to be protected correctly.


    Stop trying a straw man argument you are not helping and just stroking your owe ego to be right.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4


    What straw man argument, I'm talk about this specific example!
    • Soundgirlrocks
    • By Soundgirlrocks 13th Jul 17, 5:58 PM
    • 487 Posts
    • 733 Thanks
    Soundgirlrocks
    Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point), it would be raided and shut down and the guilty parties prosecuted and taken into custody.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    So? You still can't take back the property until the tenant or court surrenders it. The tenant getting nicked doesn't end the tenancy. http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/prisoners/keeping_your_home_when_in_prison
    • moneyistooshorttomention
    • By moneyistooshorttomention 13th Jul 17, 6:08 PM
    • 15,589 Posts
    • 43,305 Thanks
    moneyistooshorttomention
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    It's ok, I didn't believe in reincarnation the last time, either.
    • Guest101
    • By Guest101 13th Jul 17, 6:21 PM
    • 15,118 Posts
    • 14,796 Thanks
    Guest101
    When running a business it's best to understand all possibilities. Then there's fewer surprises.
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 13th Jul 17, 6:51 PM
    • 315 Posts
    • 480 Thanks
    leslieknope
    where has anyone said tenants have all the rights? you can look and see countless threads from tenants who have to move for various reasons, but the landlords have exercised their right to charge them for the remaining tenancy. some landlords that leave houses in unfit states just because they can - need we remind everyone that the government voted against legislation to make every private rental fit for human habitation just last year? so a landlord has to provide a gas safety certificate, yes, but can rent a moldy property with no ventilation.

    both sides have rights. there's pros and cons to both. there's good and bad landlords. good and bad tenants.

    people in this thread were just pointing out the various rights tenants have because the OP wanted to evict tenants for maybe having a dog. which is not the law.
    CCCC #33: 42/240
    DFW: 4355/4405
    • gingercordial
    • By gingercordial 13th Jul 17, 7:25 PM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,191 Thanks
    gingercordial
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention
    As a tenant I'm very pleased that you (and others like you) might draw this conclusion.

    I would not want a landlord who thought they should have the right to control my family planning! My god...

    I'd rather properties remained in the hands of landlords who have a clue or were released onto the market for first-time buyers. So please, if you end up considering this in real life, sell up for all our sakes and invest your money elsewhere.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 13th Jul 17, 7:28 PM
    • 2,522 Posts
    • 4,020 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog and that it is not there
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 13th Jul 17, 7:58 PM
    • 2,662 Posts
    • 7,123 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    Has it struck anyone that all this talk about "Tenants have all the rights/are totally free to break any agreement they make/etc/etc" isn't doing decent tenants or would-be tenants any good at all?

    Reason being - would-be landlords/ladies will read threads like this and think "Well - if that's how the cookie crumbles = then I'd better invest my money someplace else than a buy-to-let - in case I get tenants like these and everyone supports the wrong person and/or the law supports the wrong person".

    It's certainly been a "last straw" to me as to whether I would ever let out a house if I had the money to have the chance to. I've gone from "maybe/possibly" to "most definitely not - just in case if this sort of thing happening to me".

    That "be on the side of the wrong person - and they can use the law to help themselves too" way of thinking must have caused rather a lot fewer rented places to be available than otherwise would be.

    ....and it's a shame from the pov of decent/law-abiding/contract-abiding tenants
    Originally posted by moneyistooshorttomention

    Having fewer amateur BTLers out there is no bad thing at all!
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 13th Jul 17, 8:00 PM
    • 2,662 Posts
    • 7,123 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Maybe its their friend Schrodinger's dog?
    • higgledypiggledy_pop
    • By higgledypiggledy_pop 13th Jul 17, 10:08 PM
    • 148 Posts
    • 49 Thanks
    higgledypiggledy_pop
    They have admitted that they have a dog, but it isn't theirs and it isn't there? In what way then have they admitted they have a dog? I know plenty of dogs than are not mine and are not in my house, I don't really feel I "have" them.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    The actual quote was, "I KNOW that they have a dog because the woman has admitted it to me, she just claims that it isn't legally their dog (I will add a comma here to make it clearer), and that it is not there when I have directly conflicting evidence that it is."

    I.e. perhaps obviously, I know that it is there, because of the unasked-for but constant stream of alerts and photos from my neighbour showing otherwise. Couldn't care less if it is 'owned' by her or someone else or if it has come from the woods of its own accord to huff and puff and blow my house down, if it is there inside the property
    • Riggyman
    • By Riggyman 13th Jul 17, 10:56 PM
    • 177 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    Riggyman
    Let's say they were running a brothel in there (I am deliberately exaggerating to make a point), it would be raided and shut down and the guilty parties prosecuted and taken into custody.
    Originally posted by higgledypiggledy_pop
    Wouldn't end the tenancy and give reason for eviction though.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,630Posts Today

6,466Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin