@Mark107 If a landlord asks the question: “do you have an assistance dog” and the potential tenant answers “no”, while they have an assistance dog, then how is this not false?
My point being, by not declaring an animal of any kind does not create a secure tenancy for the tenant. Lies from the offset does not equal harmonious long term tenancy, in the actual real world.
You actively encouraging tenants to lie is not good advice!
Speculative discussion equals evidence of nothing other than a discussion.
No as a Landlord I would never encourage tenants to lie. But if the landlord landlord asks that question and later refuses that tenant they should be aware they may be found guilty of discrimination and be liable to compensate the tenant. Your risk !
.
This does not apply to the majority of places of worship, and anyway is immaterial as rented domestic property is not a place of worship.
There may however be some consideration given to HMO’s where other tenants may have allergies etc and may be unable to share a property with an assistance Dog.
There is no exemption for landlords who don’t want dogs in their property.
PS I am a landlord who would prefer not have dogs in my property - but I also know the law in this point…
is actually the law. There is no legal obligation to mention it. It is not recommendation but simply a statement for fact of what you may or may not do.
A landlord can later argue that he cannot make an adjustment - but cannot make a decision whether to accept a tenant on whether they have as assistance dog or not - that is simply the law. They have a right to have them on your property
You may think the law is wrong or needs changing but that is what it is !
Once you have offered them the tenancy is the time to discuss adjustments - if you do so beforehand you are on very shaky ground.
[quote=“Nadia7, post:35, topic:56266”] their income via the benefit system which for me, is an automatic refusal.
[/quote]
Wow. I’m glad there are at least some of us here who consider each applicant as an individual and are open to helping the more vulnerable in society.
Please do not quote me without understanding my reasons for not accepting people who’s largest source of income is via the benefit system. It is not about not my not being open to help the vulnerable in society, I am human after all (believe it or not). But it is the current system of how benefits are paid out that concerns me. I understand housing benefits are paid to the claimants and not to the landlords and we are therefore at the mercy of the tenant to pass through the rental amount in full. I have heard of so many horror stories that this does not happen and then i’d be left with having to pay the ridiculously high mortgage interest without getting enough rental income to cover the cost, and my salary cannot afford to pay a second mortgage either unfortunately!
I am simply trying to do the best i can to protect my investment. Take that however way you like it.
Totally correct . When the benefits system pays the landlord direct without going thru the tenant and not rescinded, then there will be a different response from landlords
on one property 2 weeks ago 72 applicants .half on benefits . those in work well over four times the rent . went with the best.> !0 weeks ago said to benefits girl “its yours” ,she changed her mind . Rent to a rail worker now.> Latest property, lad on benefits plenty coming in . I said its yours if I can speak to your guarrantor Suddenly he did not want the place These experiences form your views
oh definitely. Been renting property since 1998. The one and only tenant I’ve ever had to ask to leave was last year and had the highest income of anyone I’ve ever rented to. He was a highway maintenance supervisor and was raking it in. He paid 2 rent for two months and then it all went to pot. He just could not sort himself out to pay after that. At four months, we signed a deed of surrender. I got the property back and let him off rent he owed in return. He was an utter PITA.
