lee29: i am very interested to know about the “dog bond” you can negotiate on top of the deposit. would you please give a little more detail as its really a great point you are making here
Put simply.
It’s an agreed amount that is set aside for damage or destruction (as set out as a separate contract and what incidents are considered such) caused by an animal, if the owner has not put them right (at his expense) during the duration of the tenancy.
It’s considered, in my opinion, an act of goodwill.
1 Like
This may be considered a an unlawful charge. No pets at all !!!
4 Likes
A contract drawn up between two consenting parties is NOT considered unlawful.
As far as I’m aware the maximum tenant deposit that can legally be held by a secure holding company is equivalent to five weeks rent. Anything in excess of five weeks rent could contravene the legislation. There is no provision for pet or dog bonds within the legislation. But regardless, at the end of the tenancy the occupants would want the deposit back in the same manner they want the house deposit back regardless of damage. It’s yet another thing to argue about. No pets allowed is still the best policy!!!
1 Like
Lee. Explain to me your interpretation of how it’s “set aside”.
The only way an agreed sum of money could fairly be “set aside” is by paying it into a third party deposit holding company which could easily be construed as the Landlord taking an excessive deposit from the tenant which is unlawful and can carry penalties.
2 Likes
What if they have pets that disturb the neighbours? Dogs left at home all day barking?
3 Likes
Lee 29 It wont work.
1 Like
Actually contracts drawn up by two consenting parties are thrown out of court every single day and a landlord asking it can be seen as taking advantage of the tenant and landthem in hot water.
Are you a lawyer Ryan. Because you are talking rubbish.
A written agreement dated and outlining implicitly the terms of it signed by both parties do NOT get thrown out of court.
Of course, ones drawn up by idiots do.
No actually they get thrown out all the time and a landlord can get the book thrown at them for having their tenants sign an agreement that violates the tenant’s rights and tenancy law.
Imagine if your boss pressured you into signing an agreement that you would work below minimum wage. They would face SO many repercussions!
2 Likes
(and for the record “if you don’t sign this I won’t rent to you/I’ll evict you” IS pressure andis the reason landlords can get into such deep shit)
2 Likes
Ryan is correct. I have previously allowed pets when higher deposits could be taken but this simply isn’t possible anymore.
I would still consider pets as a good tenant with a good pet is far better than a bad tenant without one but with current deposit rules it is a big disadvantage so government would be far better allowing pet bonds and then more landlords would allow them. A lot of properties aren’t going to be suitable for pets but at least by having more flexible rules it would give tenants with pets an option of finding a pet friendly place.
Dear God Ryan. Violation? And as for your work analogy, well it’s bordering on stupid.
You’re incredibly naive. Whatever extra agreement signed can be looked over, witnessed and verified by a solicitor for £20.
Lee. You can agree to pay a higher rent. You can’t agree to have a separate deposit where the return of the money is dependent on the behaviour of the pet. That would mean landlord would be in breach of the tenant fees act 2019 which supersedes your AST or any other separate agreement.
2 Likes
Lee. an extra agreement is too risky for a landlord to take a chance on. A cunning tenant can turn this to the disadvantage of the landlord
5 Likes
You mention a dog bond.
Under the current rules a maximum of 5 weeks rent can be taken as a deposit, it is this fact as much as anything else which is driving landlords away from accepting pets.
Mike
3 Likes
Lee , your suggestion of a contract outside the original tenancy agreement would be placing the Landlord in a very precarious situation. Even though you suggest having a solicitor look at the agreement it’s down to how a judge would interpret an additional financial agreement which could be that the tenant was forced into compromising his tenancy.
The levels of deposit are set in law at a max equivalent of five weeks based on the calculated weekly rent.
Collin has outlined an important possibility that the tenant could turn such an additional agreement to their advantage claiming coercion should a dispute reach the level of court at anytime in the future and a sympathetic judge could command the Landlord to pay a considerably high penalty.
The best and safe policy for Landlords is to say NO to pets, and as I’ve said a number of times on here, People who live in someone else’s property shouldn’t have pets in the first place then there wouldn’t be an issue!!!
2 Likes
Mike. A “Dog Bond” is a private contract between the two parties.
It’s not mandatory or something signed under the duress of the tenant.
It’s an agreement between two individuals. Ignore other comments on here. A contract to form legal relations regarding anything (if it is set out correctly) can be made.
A simple example. We are friends. You loan me £500. We agree that I will pay you back once a month which I fail to do. I don’t, despite you sending me various messages. As long as it’s clear in writing, you have every right to recoup your money through a court.
It’s all about two responsible people agreeing a deal and having it documented in writing. Its a show of intent from the tenant (as it’s paid in full from the start) to prove they are responsible for damage as listed.
Ask any solicitor. There is nothing wrong with it.
I’m no solicitor and have no intention of seeking legal advice on this matter, but my understanding of the situation is that any “separate” agreement that relates to the tenancy would in fact be part of the tenancy agreement and wouldn’t be allowed.
At best it would be seen as an unfair document and unenforceable.
3 Likes