I agree with Ryan42, as a landlord I have found families with young children can cause more damage to any house than those with pets.
It’s part of the risk of being a landlord.
Do a property inspection and if a tenant is looking after it, you have to assume they will still look after it with a pet.
I have been here and been to leniant, I love cats and dogs. Every tenant has abused my trust, either piles of poo in the garden that the dog will tred into property or cats marking their territory in the house/ Scratching the furniture. No good trying to get compensation later, tenants will just leave without a care and the deposit scheme will not help you .
NEVER AGAIN.
Ok, we’ve had tenants with a cat and also refused a tenant request. Our daughter also has a cat and has rented but always had permission to have him. I’m sure at one of her properties she had to pay £50 excess for the cat. Having said all that, our properties are unfurnished and a cat wouldn’t damage any furniture. It also depends on whether the cats going to be indoor or outdoor. And how you feel about your tenant.
Hi Ryan, just one thing I’d say about the wee comparison; Childs wee doesn’t smell after being cleaned properly.
Because of tenants doing this (somehow magically forgetting they entered in to a “no pet” contract - but ask for a pet anyway) - I simply up all my rents (when advertising them) by £50 and allow pets across the board. I find I get 3 to 4 times more enquiries (meaning a pick from a big bunch - hence more chance of finding quality tenants). This way I’m covered £600 a year extra income for each property to cover damages (but my tenants are told they must fix any issues - so technically I shouldn’t need to spend that £600 on any pet related damages).
I don’t have trouble renting for the extra £50 a month because of the extra interest allowing pets generates. Also, because I get good quality tenants (thanks to having a pick from a large bunch) I have rarely had any pet damage apart form some hairs on a curtain that brushed off and a scratched door that needed sanding and painting. Also, tenants allowed pets generally stay longer (not always - but they do on average).
I would 100% be happy to pay an extra £50/month for pets.
this is so common since the rules were changed so we can’t charge pet deposits. the only people that suffer are the pet owners who can’t find anywhere to live. Most, with good pets, were more than happy to cover the risk with an extra returnable deposit. I suggest you tell them to write to their MP and complain… it really is the only way. no-one will ever listen to a landlord, but if tenants are suffering, our rule makers should know about it
the rule makers will not care, they are only after more taxes and their own interests. this I have seen over a lifetime
15-20% of people are allergic to cats. Unless you plan to replace all carpets and furniture, then on future lettings you need to tell people cats have lived there before or else you open yourself up to legal jeopardy from allergy sufferers. It would be like leaving peanut dust lying around in a flat.
So you also warn tenants peanuts were used in the house? Or gluten? Most allergies are mild enough they won’t be an issue.
If it’s unfurnished then a good clean of the carpet is usually enough and is reasonable between tenants. We’re allergic to cats and able to live happily with them.
If it’s furnished then yeah I wouldn’t allow pets in a furnished place.