Well Lee, you must be the poorest legal expert ever! Most people who could demonstrate your level of expertise would never have an issue with housing a pet… they would have secured a mortgage or bought a house outright!
1 Like
I allow pets on an individual basis, based on the tenant and the pet, they might cause extra mess but as a pet owner myself I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t. I charge a little bit extra, and cost up cleaning charge that up front and highlight in contract that deposit will be held to replace carpets if damaged. I don’t see why anyone would feel the need to trumpet how they don’t allow pets, it’s your prerogative but is clearly not impossible in general to reach financial agreement that would suit both parties, name the price and if agreed fix it in the contract (with name of the pet to prevent more pets without permission). If we landlords were more flexible maybe we wouldn’t get so much hate and anti-landlord legislation.
o yes we would .It would be something else they would pick on
2 Likes
James
You can’t charge for cleaning upfront or have any default cleaning charges. That would breach tenant fees act and puts you at risk of 5k fine.
It should be possible to come an arrangement but with current laws it is extremely difficult, particularly for new tenants that LL doesn’t know. For long term existing tenants where trust has been established then I would have no issues with pets, subject to freeholder allowing them.
1 Like
You’re right, Shows I haven’t had any new tenants this past year! Well would just have to be done by rent increase… Still I tend to view tenants with pets as more of an opportunity, they will be willing to pay much extra for garden etc, why would anyone ban by default…
Thinking about it now, this new law seems to be more about ‘up front’ costs. It does make some sense, as letting agencies were absolutely taking the piss, but yes major drawbacks for things like this. I think it would be absolutely fine to say put the the rent even further up for the first 6 months, to cover the cleaning costs - to reduce down afterwards, and have that in the contract - correct me if I’m wrong!
You can’t do that either, it would be deemed an illegal fee.
Only way around it I can think off for a long term tenant is to charge a higher rent and offer no rent increases for say 5 years. If market rate is 1000 a month then charge 1050 to allow pets. Assuming rent increases of 2.5% pa they would pay same over 5 years as starting at 1000 with annual rent increases. That way if they stay long term then great and if not you have the additional rent to cover costs.
Clearly you are unlikely to initially want to offer 5 years ast but can do 12 months ast which gives tenant right to extend it 12 months at a time if they fully comply with terms of AST.
Interesting, Im looking at the text here:
In the first year of the tenancy, you must not charge more at the start of the tenancy
compared to a later period.
And here:
Q. Can I ask a tenant to pay more rent in the first few months to cover the cost
of banned fees?
No. Under the ban, you cannot require a tenant to enter into an agreement that ‘front
loads’ the rent at the start of a tenancy i.e. by charging more for the first month(s) of
the tenancy. The amount of rent charged should normally be equally split across the
first year of the tenancy.
However, after the tenancy has begun, you can reduce or increase a tenant’s rent
without breaching the Tenant Fees Act if agreed with the tenant or under a rent
review clause in the tenancy agreement (provided that the rent review clause permits
both a rent reduction or increase according to the circumstances).
From the first, it sounds like you can set your rent higher for the first tenancy period of a year, and then review it afterwards - it sounds like you can verbally agree to a rent reduction down the line, but tenant would have to trust you would do that?
You would have to trust the tenant too that they will be looking after your property to an acceptable standard. You might find you can’t wait to be rid of them after 12 months let alone be stuck with them at a reduced rent. You could make promises and then incur unforseen costs and find you are not in a position to reduce the rent further after all.
1 Like
I am probably going to sound a bit of a hypocrite here. I am a tenant and I have a dog a small cavalier King Charles he’s very house trained and believe it or not he won’t even poo in the garden for some reason and as I’ve mentioned before I’ve always invited future landlords to come and view my property where I am residing and to call unannounced so they see it as it is. However I do sympathise with landlords and definitely don’t think they should forced to take pets as there are many bad owners out there! I’ve seen people have springer spaniels in one bed flats and they work all day and never give them the appropriate exercise needed and with no garden doesn’t have the luxury of even getting a run in a garden! This leads to dogs becoming bored which then makes them destructive like gnawing at walls and skirting boards etc which takes a skilled workman to replace which is costly! I have had cavaliers for 20 years and the reason I chose a cavalier was because at the time I worked and so did my husband and we knew that being a small dog he could do little damage and that he’d never be bored but we also had a dog Walker come and take him out 15 mins mid morning and 15 mins mid afternoon and never had a problem and neither has any landlord although I always paid a pet deposit and advised I would pay in full if any damage was done to the property I also give them my pet insurance details so they can claim legally if I refused to pay yes I get that would be a hassle and I’ve never had to use it or pay for any damage and always paid for professional carpet cleaning on leaving as a matter of respect for leaving a property as I found it. But inspire of this I certainly do not think it should be made legal for landlords to take pets because there are just too many irresponsible dog owners out there that couldn’t care less if the animal is happy let alone care where it shits 
I have many arguments out walking with other dog owners who let their dogs just poo in the street or in parks without picking it up! I also lived next door to someone who’s dog was never walked just let into the garden to poo and I had to report him because it was unbearable to sit in my own garden with the stench of the poo he never ever picked up! So NO landlords definitely should not be forced to take dogs and I accept I have lost out on property before because I own a dog and they didn’t want to take up my offer of spot check but I totally understand why because I wouldn’t just accept any dog if it was my property either.
1 Like
Well said… I just love those little dogs with their long ears.
I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic lol but they are beautiful dogs with wonderful temperament.
Not at all. I like 2 breeds .the King charles and the German Shepherd
1 Like
I do love GSD too big for me to handle but are beautiful 
I’ve found many pets disappear off without paying any rent, budgies are by far the worst!
1 Like
The canaries will tell you where they have gone !
Couldn’t agree more. I moved to a new area with my partner and we were trying to get a 6 month let whilst buying a property. It proved impossible. I have a small non moulting lap dog who can’t break the squeak of his toys let alone cause damage to a property.
My partner and I are both professionals and on days where we are not at home our pooch goes to doggy day care. I like you could not convince a landlord to take us on. Ironically we were renting in a student area.
I would happily have paid extra as I am sure a lot of dog owners would. We have stayed in numerous dog friendly hotels who have latched onto this growing market. In fact we ended up staying in a bed and breakfast who were happy to accept our dog with no extra charges.
I see as it a matter of time before landlords have to accept they are providing ‘homes’ for their tenants not just an investment vehicle for themselves. I agree that there should be additional landlord protection for damage and I am pretty sure that such vehicles will be available if this does ever become law.
1 Like
People who apply for rental property shouldn’t expect the Landlord to house pets.
To a Landlord a pet is simply hassle. I offer good accommodation to people not animals
2 Likes
The cost of putting things right after the damage caused by pets far exceed the benefit you get. If a tenant wants to keep a pet then he/she look for accommodation that allows this. Not to be enforced on landlords. I am frightened of some pets and would not be able to manage my property.
6 Likes
And if tenants treated the properties they are handed as homes instead of as someone else’s investment vehicle there wouldn’t be a problem!
But many don’t, regardless of how decent, safe warm and comfortable it is.
5 Likes