OpenRent Community

Britain's Landlords and pets allowed5 or not and why exactly?

Hi All
There seems to be a blanket policy on not allowing pets even if the ad says pets considered etc.
Apart from the obvious flees etc. Surely the pet owner can take out insurance against damage from pets.,or a extra. month rent in advance.
It is so annoying to be told no pets children or smoking, I don’t smoke by the way something to do with Human Rights or allowing the people to have their own home comforts. The after all renting means it’s still your home though the Landlords property.
I once had a property returned to me in a disgusting state they had no pets 20 years and I still get angry. So I do understand and empathise, my remarks are not meant to anger anyone, it is so frustrating there seems no chance of my moving because of this issue.
Furthermore since over half the population of the country have pets, would it not be a more advantageous to make property more pet friendly less easy to damage walls and floor coverings. The That makes more sense plus having an extra months rent as insurance.
As a retired renter do not like the idea of paying rent for each pet on top of my rent, for one thing it would make it very hard if not impossible financially and feels very wrong to me.

I am hoping for some informative responses from Landlords and whether pet friendly properties could be a steady corner of the market if approached correctly to protect both parties.
Kind regards AOE

G

1 Like

What about the human right of the landlord to buy a property and set the requirements for a tenant to follow ?? The tenant risks very little, the landlords risks a great deal more

12 Likes

Hi

I do allow pets where I’m not restricted by the freeholder which does apply to lots of flats. It certainly makes places easy to rent out and I’ve had no issues so far. It is a bit of a risk but my carpets aren’t made of gold so in the scheme of things I feel the risks are ok and a happy tenant is lower risk overall than an unhappy tenant without a pet. I do only allow them for tenants who want a place long term to make a home as for shorter term rents the hassle isn’t worth it.

Rental properties do go through maintenance cycles and I understand some landlords reluctance where carpets are newish but for properties with older carpets I certainly think it is worth the risk.

Just a thought but how would anyone know that the pet insurance was still in place? Could they not cancel it and nobody any the wiser?

1 Like

WOW Colin , that was rather explosive please re read my post thanks as I was hoping for.
Information only
Kind regards Alayne

Hi Mr T
Thanks for your response, yes I suppose they could, being an honest sort myself that’s counter productive and it didnt occur to me .there must be a way round it

Perhaps taking the insurance out in the landlords name and the tenant paying it by Direct debit. I need to think about it.
Thanks for the feedback I would just like to see landlords feeling more confident in the sincerity of their prospective tenants.
Kind regards
Alayne

1 Like

I have read it… I will not take smokers . pets. or young children. nor males under 30 . That is my right. I have spent thousands on places… I can determine who comes in . No goverment will tell me who to take We have to gel with our tenants, i have some who have been with me for over 20 years. No one has pets. 95% are single. 66% are female. It works for me .There is no such a thing as a pet or child friendly home , both will cause damage or smell… I carpet all my places and well insulate them. most tenants have stayed about 7 years. all without pets

8 Likes

Hi Richard 19
Thanks for your response to my post I am really pleased as you seem to have all the issues in hand I do understand about short lets
Pet friendly properties do not need a 200% spec I dont want to rent a palace myself just a nice clean well maintained property with a good landlord who is fair probably what most pet owners are hoping for.
I wish there were more landlords with your views on this subject
Kind regards
Alayne.

Wow I have made you angry that was not my intention
Spending thousands on property to become a landlord is a business for them I presume while tenants should take care and respect the property they rent I feel that no pets no children no smokers no under 30 males I’m wondering what’s next on the list.
I do realise some tenants are a nightmare its disgusting that landlords have such difficulties evicting .

But if it works for you thats your choice.

I am not angry I am just saying it how it is for me. I have done ok and my tenants have good quality places Decorated and carpeted. eg young males dont look after a place as good as females , at least thats my experience, so I wont rent to them , Whats next on the list ? known alcoholics, known druggies. The list may be long.

4 Likes

Hi Colin
I actually agree that you have to be selective with tenants. Nobody needs the upset inconvenience and expense that the categories of tenants listed can cause.
And it is your choice being in your position I would have a similar list. Why because it’s the safe way to go.
It is also true that you gel to a certain degree with your Tennant.
I have watched a couple of Nightmare Tennants, they are unbelievable. Eviction should be easier there are those the law need to protect more in some respects that is the landlord. The amount of money in rent etc that is lost is a travesty.
Alayne

1 Like

Hi Alayne
I agree it’s a shame about pets being an animal owner myself.

I think the trouble stems from what you said about ‘being fair to all’, and most landlords have not had an experience of the law being fair but biased in favour of the tenant regardless of what has occurred.

Animals or not it’s my experience tenants don’t want to pay for damage. I am in one such dispute at the moment and just want out.

We put vinyl down instead of carpet for a prospective tenant with a dog.

I really hope you can find somewhere.

A landlord on here did say a while back that pet owners may well be nicer people!

1 Like

Hi Mr T,
Thanks again for responding to my post, you are right in all you say, thought Tennant’s not wanting to pay for damages is out of order it’s no wonder I am having no luck with my move.
As a person of my word I could not in good conscience not take responsibility for any damage by myself or my pets. Although the type of tenants you have problems with would say anything to be successful in gaining a tenancy.
Maybe pet owners are a nicer type of people ,I had a strict upbringing do right by people, that’s what I try to do in my own dealings,not meaning to be holier than thow.
Kind Regards Alayne

Hi Paul
Thanks for your comments.
How refreshing to hear, there are good and bad in all, I just wish someone would give me the chance to rent with my pets.
Having to consider the re homing is too painful an option, and I committed to keeping them safe for their lifetime so their welfare is a priority to me.
I know many will think I m a sad case, and that is my sincere choice.
Kind Regards
Alayne

1 Like

We have let in tenants who don’t tick all the boxes so really hope you do find somewhere. Just need an app to match good tenants and landlords.

Blame the Government. They are steadily painting landlords into a corner where they no longer have the flexibility to accommodate anything more than an iron-clad risk. Caps on bonds do not allow us to take additional security for pets. Scrapping of section 21 and protracted eviction processes lead to increased exposure to risk if things go wrong (e.g. problem tenant or pet), and the tax squeeze means less margin and less profit, so there is less money to go towards repairs or replacement; not just damage, but fair wear and tear. As such, I’d rather let to a low-impact tenant than a household full of kids and pets. We could charge pet-rent, but the Guardian is already on to that one calling it an “unfair practice”, so won’t be long until this is also banned.

What the Government fail to see is every time they increase our costs or restrict us further, we pass it on to the tenant through higher rents, or leave the market altogether resulting in less supply - and higher rents. Either way, the tenant is the loser. And the likes of Shelter who push the landlord bashing agenda are really not the friend of the tenant, because their interference just ends up costing the tenant more in the long run.

8 Likes

You are lucky you have made money. Some end up out of pocket though especially in areas where rents are low but building costs still equally as high. Also easier to make a profit if things done more cheaply in the first place. Not every ‘Rental Owner’ does that.

Very frustrating if you know you are an honest tenant though and can’t get a foot in the door.

3 Likes

Absolutely spot on.

Honestly don’t know why the government don’t see this is not helping good Tenants.

1 Like

the goverment can pass all the laws they wish on pets, kids , smokers , benefits etc. as long as we dont voice our thoughts to a tenant, we cannot be taken for discrimination

5 Likes

No doubt pet owners can be considerate otherwise they would not want to look after animals. You only have to have one bad pet owner in your property and it sours you for all of them

3 Likes

My last rerental was going good until the last moment.I have a question and answer sheet that prospective applicants have to complete. On this is a question about pets, it came out that this prospect had 2 gun dogs.She hadnt told me previously, WTF no way they would wreck anything. Next prospect have a jack russell, I visited the old home and met the dog,the owners where very clean and looked after the property so I let to them,they have been model tenants and bailey the dog is lovely.Its not the dogs that are the problem but the owners.

4 Likes