Doubt that would work, as insurance policy would only cover a single insurable event causing damage, not gradual wear & tear caused by a pet.
1 Like
Currently, the easiest way is to have a clause in your contract indicating rent may be increased if a pet is permitted without breaching TFA.
Tessa has a great addendum pet clause contract that I got the tenant to sign when they brought
in an animal without permission ( I refuse because of my allergies)
I increased it ÂŁ100 pcm for one dog .
1 Like
If itâs any consolation, I know of an agent whose policy is to charge extra ÂŁ100/mth if pets apply so that covers some repair costs, especially over two years plus. Another option would be to discourage a tenant by applying a justifiable penalty for each set of damages. I once had a uPVC door spoiled for all the claw marks on the inside of a door. If ÂŁ500 applied to door damage and ÂŁ1000 applied to wood flooring per room damage, I doubt many would want to take the risk.
3 Likes
To karl11 thatâs exactly the attitude - the place is the home. If you donât like letting to people with dogs landlords, then sell the house. Sounds like you would be a terrific landlord.
To mark10 if you want to make the standards go down by past owners with dogs peeing on floor boards and not bring the property up to spec either from your tenants damage or making good between the new tenant, then by the law of a competitive market tenants will just go to a landlord who clearly cares, and tbh this will be pretty obvious at the outset of the tenancy.
I am allergic too, to those with a chip on their shoulder , they want a place off a landlord but do not want to live by his rules. Buy your own place then
9 Likes
In market where there is a vast shortage of properties, standards slip. In a saturated market, the reverse happens.
If you want to have a dog, buy your own house.
7 Likes
I wish I had said that . I like it !!
3 Likes
Itâs when you knock the door and get a woof woof woof response you know youâre going to be in for an interesting conversation 
2 Likes
I would suggest that you should have a think about whether being a landlord is going to be right for you and if you are going to get into difficulty when the renters rights act comes in making it a requirement that you cannot refuse to let with tenants with dogs.
Also my sister has a dog and is a tenant - a whippet and she is one of the most well behaved dogs I know. In fact elderly people probably have more a chance of urinating on carpets or floors than she does.
1 Like
So when I have 40 applicants for a flat, each with very different pros and cons, some with kids, some with dogs, some UC, some professional, some students, some white, some black, some brown⌠you donât think each individual applicant has their own grounds for accusing us of discrimination? Say I get someone with a dog wanting to rent, am I going to turn down the foreign student? Isnât that discriminating against them in favour of a dog owner? You see, you can never prove discrimination as each individual person in our diverse modern society has a reason they can say they are being discriminated against. You can say I discriminate against you and ask who I did finally rent to, and I will show you a family of refugees from Ukraine, and you will have to stay quiet! Oh, and by the way I have a dog and love dogs!
3 Likes
I think you are misunderstanding discrimination law under The Equality Act (2010). I would read up about comparators in discrimination cases in terms of proof of discrimination - in order for someone to discriminate there has to be someone in a similar situation but doesnât have the protected characteristic. They are the comparator.
Characteristics which are protected are not âforeign studentâ but various categories in the legislation.
Yes, my point is that, particularly here in London, most people I meet during renting out flats have a protected characteristic. Almost everyone is of different national origin, then added on top of that race, sexual preference, disability, etc. These are the people I rent to. So then if someone white comes along with a dog and argues I am discriminating against them, but without any protected characteristic, how can I be? Because all the people I rent to do have such characteristics. You would be comparing someone with no characteristic to someone with such characteristic. My understanding is that if I were to rent to some other white person without a dog, and that the basis of me renting to them is that they didnât have a dog compared to the white person with a dog, then that would be a problem. But that would never happen in my situation.
You arenât understanding you have to relate people who are in the same situation but one of which doesnât have the protected characteristics. Discrimination doesnât happen between characteristics so far as what is discrimination under the equality act.
So how would someone prove it, without knowing the details of other people that had applied?
I do think that the Renters Rights Act will be a game changer in regard to this issue. Whilst the Government are not proposing to make tenants with pets or in receipt of benefits a new protected characteristic, the legislation proposed in the Bill will make it more difficult for landlords to reject such applicants without a good reason. I think we will all have to keep detailed notes of our decision making process in relation to whichever tenant we choose, including why we favour them over those with pets or on benefits. These decisions will be open to challenge and I believe that many of the most commonly discussed reasons for rejection will not be considered valid. I would advise all landlords to stay abreast of developments and expert industry opinion on the RRB or they could fall foul of the legislation.
1 Like
Iâm not sure I get your point. If someone has ptsd like me and that has restricted ability to work or have done so and they are on universal credit, discrimination would likely be tackled as âarising out of discriminationâ or âindirect discriminationâ. The comparator is someone in a similar situation who can equally afford the property but who doesnât have the protected mental health characteristic (others are in relation to race and so on listed under the equality act).
My point was equally if the tenant can afford the property but the landlord doesnât think so but the tenant still thinks the bar has been set high, thatâs discrimination hiding under a cloak of affordability because itâs directly related to the protected characteristic. Particularly if the landlord is unwilling to explain why, given all the circumstances of the tenants application to view and rent the property, and sticking to the financial x30 amount as it will be just a landlord like the mark guy who says âbuy your own place if you want dogsâ which is clearly dodgy and shows the guys cards heâs not a great landlord.
Typical, tenant canât have own way so resorts to labelling landlords who donât agree as âbad landlordsâ. 
Quoting out of context isnt doing you any favours.
4 Likes
But youâve already shown you are by saying such things as âbuy.a house if you want a dogâ. Donât get with the legislation or treat people like itâs their home while renting, donât be a landlord. Just go and play bad golf instead and sit on shares.
1 Like
and run and run and run Give up all
2 Likes