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
    • worldtraveller
    • By worldtraveller 14th Feb 18, 6:31 AM
    • 11,742Posts
    • 23,402Thanks
    worldtraveller
    Tenants should have 'default right' to pets.......
    • #1
    • 14th Feb 18, 6:31 AM
    Tenants should have 'default right' to pets....... 14th Feb 18 at 6:31 AM
    ....according to Labour.

    Labour wants to strengthen the rights of tenants to keep a pet in their properties as part of a package of proposed animal welfare measures.

    Some rental agreements drawn up by landlords insist on no animals.

    Tenants can seek permission to keep pets but Labour wants a default right for them to do so unless there is evidence their pet will be a nuisance.

    BBC News
    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...
Page 3
    • Ozzuk
    • By Ozzuk 14th Feb 18, 4:30 PM
    • 1,319 Posts
    • 1,948 Thanks
    Ozzuk
    Woof woof!

    Think someone needs to think the detail through: One well-behaved stick-insect in a glass aquarium is fine, but 7 incontinent rottweillers with behavioral issues might be regarded as a nuisance by neighbours...

    Fraternally yours..
    Originally posted by theartfullodger
    I love my dogs to bits, but they aren't conducive to a tidy house and have at times caused some quite expensive damage. They are worth it though
    • googler
    • By googler 14th Feb 18, 4:35 PM
    • 14,777 Posts
    • 9,692 Thanks
    googler
    ... Labour wants a default right for them to do so unless there is evidence their pet will be a nuisance.
    Originally posted by worldtraveller
    How is the LL expected to be able to gather such evidence, having had no contact with the tenant prior to this?
    • googler
    • By googler 14th Feb 18, 4:38 PM
    • 14,777 Posts
    • 9,692 Thanks
    googler
    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.
    Originally posted by Out, Vile Jelly
    What about other tenants/owners with (severe) allergies in flatted properties, who don't want dog or cat hair in the communal areas?
    • Carrot007
    • By Carrot007 14th Feb 18, 4:38 PM
    • 1,143 Posts
    • 985 Thanks
    Carrot007
    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.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 14th Feb 18, 4:42 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by Carrot007
    oh that made me laugh...
    • worldtraveller
    • By worldtraveller 14th Feb 18, 4:59 PM
    • 11,742 Posts
    • 23,402 Thanks
    worldtraveller
    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!
    Last edited by worldtraveller; 14-02-2018 at 5:03 PM.
    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...
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 14th Feb 18, 5:04 PM
    • 4,366 Posts
    • 6,249 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    I knew there was one with a goat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owlx2_L24u8
    Last edited by Cakeguts; 14-02-2018 at 5:44 PM.
    • worldtraveller
    • By worldtraveller 14th Feb 18, 5:11 PM
    • 11,742 Posts
    • 23,402 Thanks
    worldtraveller
    How is the LL expected to be able to gather such evidence, having had no contact with the tenant prior to this?
    Originally posted by googler
    I've no idea. Maybe ask Comrade Corbyn or his mate Comrade McDonnell!
    Last edited by worldtraveller; 15-02-2018 at 6:14 AM.
    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...
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Feb 18, 5:13 PM
    • 16,690 Posts
    • 41,277 Thanks
    FBaby
    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).
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 14th Feb 18, 5:18 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    Comms69
    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).
    Originally posted by FBaby
    The main problem is s.21 - there's really nothing else for it.


    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)
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 14th Feb 18, 5:55 PM
    • 16,690 Posts
    • 41,277 Thanks
    FBaby
    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)
    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.
    • moneyistooshorttomention
    • By moneyistooshorttomention 14th Feb 18, 5:59 PM
    • 15,630 Posts
    • 43,370 Thanks
    moneyistooshorttomention
    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).
    WAY TO GO IRELAND! - WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY

    • Murphybear
    • By Murphybear 14th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    • 3,586 Posts
    • 7,357 Thanks
    Murphybear
    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...
    Originally posted by Cuilean
    Are worms pets ?
    • Cakeguts
    • By Cakeguts 14th Feb 18, 7:08 PM
    • 4,366 Posts
    • 6,249 Thanks
    Cakeguts
    How many landlords would allow tenants to bury their pets in the garden of a rented house?
    • Blueday
    • By Blueday 14th Feb 18, 7:17 PM
    • 695 Posts
    • 1,953 Thanks
    Blueday
    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
    • By Davesnave 14th Feb 18, 7:46 PM
    • 25,061 Posts
    • 92,623 Thanks
    Davesnave
    Are worms pets ?
    Originally posted by Murphybear
    They are till I take them out and drown them.
    'It's a terrible thing to wait until you're ready…..Generally speaking, now is as good a time as any.' Hugh Lawrie.
    • bris
    • By bris 14th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    • 7,593 Posts
    • 6,615 Thanks
    bris
    Except Labour are also looking to scrap non-fault s21.
    Originally posted by anselld
    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
    • By AvocadosBeforeMortgages 14th Feb 18, 11:54 PM
    • 44 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    AvocadosBeforeMortgages
    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.
    Originally posted by Pixie5740
    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 incompetent 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
    • By Mahsroh 15th Feb 18, 7:50 AM
    • 339 Posts
    • 330 Thanks
    Mahsroh
    In that blog it says that a premium tenancy is created when one of the following is charged



    Does this mean that my incompetent 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.
    Originally posted by AvocadosBeforeMortgages
    If I was you, I would consider moving house!
    • Niv
    • By Niv 15th Feb 18, 8:43 AM
    • 1,600 Posts
    • 1,377 Thanks
    Niv
    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.
    Originally posted by Out, Vile Jelly

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

    Target: Mortgage free by 58.
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

553Posts Today

5,631Users 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