Updating post from Reddit.
I always say yes to pets, they are an important part of life. Even just being practical, people feel more settled and stay longer with pets reducing void periods. Someone is going to point out a huge hole in the logic now I fear..
… replacing dog piss stained floors throughout £3450 +vat
And if they've been there several years the carpets getting replaced anyway. Believe it or not, most dogs don't pee inside often.
That’s extreme I allow pets Never once had to do more than mop the floorboards and the it was an in case rather than a need to do.
The thing I hate though is a garden full of dog shit. Take your bloody dog for a walk
But still it’s no biggie
my ex wife rented to a lovely woman in a little welsh hamlet, she wasnt allowed pets but it turned out she had 3 huskys in the house, you couldnt walk inside it was like nothing ive ever witnessed. that was 3450+vat to remove the floors and she wasnt allowed pets only there 6months
3 Huskys? - Did she go to work by sled?
TBH sorry I could have been clearer I don't doubt your cost but you were really unlucky
I only have one BTL property but I've rented it since 2008 and never had any problems - mix of cats and dogs
Maybe we are the two extremes
i had 14 and i would say youve been lucky in that market and i fear its only a matter of time. i even had squatters in one property on the continent and that became one hell of a story involving cannabis growers, gangsters and corrupt policemen
LOL Fair enough - funnily enouighj i (and i swear this is true - just coincidence) - I went round there yesterday and fairly new tenants so only met the Dog twice - I didn't even see it but he did a little pee and the tenant said "ooh he likes you"- yeah whatever - but this house is old victorian boards varnished so Im fairly hopeful again it 'll be bok (he mopped that one immediately) - we'll see
I got offered £3k a year over market rent to let a potential tenant grow cannabis I said no
yeah more like 3k a month is more what you would charge. but your tenant with the dog isnt training its dog to stop pissing, they are simply excusing it “he likes you” yeah i piss my pants when i like someone. tgats a dog thats been allowed to be over excited when it needs to be calm. regardless… its gonna piss everytime someone comes in the house
[deleted]
I don’t think he was expecting the dog to pay for the damage.
It still ends of the landlord to replace it.
What difference does it make other than that?
Ergo, the owner get insurance.
Can you get dog piss insurance?
Thanks for sharing this insight
yes. same point i made in an earlier reply, but whats your point here?
Fair argument however:
- The charge should be passed on to the tenant
- I expect 99% of pet owners are much more responsible
Pets should be allowed so long as the tenant agrees to cover the cost of any appropriate repairs. We just left a tenancy of 8 years and the carpet needed replacing throughout by the end due to wear and tear more than anything... I know floor coverings are expensive but I've yet to walk into a rental accommodation with high quality floors. It's as though all landlords look for the thinnest underlay and coarsest thinnest carpet they can find. Despite the carpets needing to be replaced we still formally cleaned and shampooed all the carpets and we left the property is in a better condition than when we rented it (not just from a decoration perspective but also replacing all the light bulbs to much brighter and more efficient bulbs, fixing carpentry issues with some poorly fitted skirting, rehanging several doors that were almost comically poorly hung to the point they barely closed, and even replacing some blown glazing units in the windows from when we moved in).
The landlord is still trying to withhold our deposit because 'we had a pet outside of the terms of the contract'.
So whilst I'm sure pet owners can be a hassle, it should also be noted that the quality of housing stock we're expected to pay for is abysmal and most renters deserve much better.
hmm you make lots of generalisations here. you may have shampooed the carpets, but as your landlord i would have already budgeted to replace them at the end of your term as thats a wear and tear item that i must pay for. yes you may be the best tenant, many are, but some are not and i will go further to say its a common issue not a rarity
I'm by no means the best tenant, I just had pride in my home. I suspect many tenants feel entitled to a property and don't think about maintaining it but I also think a large proportion will actively improve and maintain the property because at the end of the day we have to live there. I treated and maintained it as though it was mine.
Do you have explicit evidence that pet owners are more likely to cause damage than non-pet owners? Because if a pet owner allows enough damage to occur that you have to replace all the flooring I suspect they weren't going to respect the property and you'd have had to replace the flooring anyway. If you don't have strict evidence then your assertions are simply biased generalisations too.
I ask because I'm fairly certain that there is evidence that an adult human causes more property damage requiring repair than pet ownership.
no, no evidence but i dont think pet owners are worth the risk. a family of 2 vs a family of 2 and a pet, im going to avoid the pet owner everytime.
Thus perpetuating your own internal bias.
It's your property and you can do with it what you will, but whilst situations like this can exist where frank discrimination without evidence can persist I'll continue to be unmoved by the removal of landlords perks. I suspect much of the housing stock would be better looked after if it was owned by those living in it.
yes it would but life is full of losers who cant buy a home. it is what it is. if it were not for landlords where would they live? because the government has sold off most of its social housing stock over the years and never replaced it, but look seasoned landlords with a decent portfolio will understand. you need to limit risk not increase it. pets are an additional risk so given choices you’d be mental to accept pets
How is someon automatically a loser just because they can't afford to buy a house? House prices are crazy. I agree with pretty much everything you said but it's tougher than ever for first time buyers.
its not tougher than ever, its always been tough…. but possible for anyone who wants it.. save a deposit, work on a career, buy a studio flat in a cheaper area than where mummy and daddy live, make it presentable, sell after 5yrs, earn additional equity, upgrade. its that easy. just need to be bothered to try. losers cant be bothered and would rather complain that its impossible than go and do it.
as a case in point, before retiring i had a large construction business, i would help and guide labourers on how to buy a first home, most of them would save a deposit within 18months and buy a home exactly the way i explained and all are doing very well. i helped 8 lads under 20 buy homes on labourer wages. theres no excuse
It's a scale of risk.
Bad tenants can only do so much without being malicious.
Bad tenants with pets can do a LOT more without being malicious.
I'm happy with pets for exactly these reasons! This is the way.
Fine with it.
I wouldn't deprive anyone of dog ownership. Just make clear they're on the hook for any clean up / damages.
None of my business. If the pet destroys the house, I'd take it out of the deposit the same as if the human destroys the house.
You do realise the deposit is less than the value of the property?
Yes. You do realise that a cat can't literally destroy a house?
Have seen a badly trained cat destroy 3 carpets with pee and clawing and multiple door frames they were using a like a scratching post.
A cat can certainly inflict FAR more damage than the deposit values. If you want to make an argument for pets then don’t make it that they cannot destroy the house. It lowers the conversation.
Pets are important to people. Mental health. Stability ect.
Personally I think the government should have allowed a larger deposit to cover pet damage but other than that it’s a risk I take most of the time. I much prefer tenants who already have a long standing pet I can meet ahead of time to requests for pets mid tenancy
That is the point of his reply.
A cat single handedly cause the extinction of a species of flightless birds. I’m sure a house wouldn’t be too difficult.
A house is not a bird and humans also cause extinctions.
Are you even a landlord?
You’re right, houses and birds are different.
Collectively, yes, but there isn’t a one example of a human single handedly causing the extinction of a species of animal.
Nor a cat? lol?
And you are also allowed to pursue costs in excess of the deposit through the courts.
Which also costs money, that the landlord will have to recover.
Then don't be a landlord. It's all part&parcel.
Also most of you confuse it with an actual job
It costs time and money.
Better to get a new tenant.
I've never taken a deposit that covers replacement carpets throughout a house.
How big are your deposits?!
Not big enough to cover the costs of all the damage a human or cat could do. That's one of the risks of the business. It's why I have insurance with legal cover.
My original reply was a bit flippant. I forgot I was on Reddit...
Generally speaking, pets improve quality of life, and happy tenants tend to take care of their homes, so see no reason to object.
Are you a tenant or a landlord? You seem to be sitting round a campfire singing kumbaya.
Landlord, are you having a pop? What is your point?
Would rather have pets then children
Came here to say this!
And parents are subject to your discrimination then?
wow
I rent to people with pets. However, I have a clause that states damage done by pets is not covered in wear and tear. Never had to utilise it though.
Damage is never wear and tear so I'm not sure what the point of doing that is.
Such like excessive scratching to wooden floors because of claws etc. I suppose I should have worded it differently. Maybe accelerated wear and tear.
It's a redundant clause. Damage would never be wear and tear.
Wear and tear is a form of damage.
It's interesting to see if it would hold up if properly examined, the counter argument being that by accepting a pet in the property, the level of expected wear and tear is going to be higher. Same goes for young children etc
I suppose, yes. The protection schemes draw a firm line between the two, though.
I'd be very surprised if the clause was not struck out if ever enforcement was attempted.
I'm not a landlord but my Mum is - the number of tenants who have bought pets without asking is absolutely insane, probably more often than not. You can deny them, but most of them will do it anyway. She doesn't care as long as the rent gets paid. Carpet always needs replacing anyway.
theres a lot of people who dont train their pets very well and often bad owners make bad pets. me and my dog would be no bother in anyones home, but you get a tenant with a clever dog thats not stimulated and left alone too much and it will start chewing thinks for fun. i see many small dog owners seem to happily accept their little baby peeing in the house when ever it wants. that piss seeps in to floor boards for years and years.. you can but i wouldnt ever have pets. not interested in someone elses well being over my own
No problem
Fleas.
Also water damage from where water bowl was kept
Some things to consider
What absolute twaddle
It depends, a snake or a Hamster maybe, but generally I have a no pets rule. Saying that in one of the two properties I rent out, the tenant has a small bird, which I reluctantly allowed. I just hope it doesn’t bite me on the bum later.
My reasoning is; 1. pets cause damage, either accidentally or just through extra ware and tear. I’ve been into homes that HAD cats and they stank to high heaven, or homes with dogs and there are scratches and bite marks on everything. I have thought about allowing it and increasing the rent for people with pets but there wouldn’t be a fair way of calculating the cost, so I don’t.
- I’ve lived in both of the properties I rent out, and I didn’t have a pet when I lived there, due to the fact that they’re both small flats and I felt it wouldn’t be fair on any animal larger than a Rat to be stuck in there.
Really that’s it.
The rats come gratis as part of the tenancy right?
Cannot be unreasonably declined: write into the contract specifying professional cleaning of carpets at least, is required.
I've been stung too many times, it's stunning how much damage a small dog can do to a house.
I had a no pets clause in the tenancy agreement agreement. In truth i'm not bothered as long as they will actually fix any damage caused. I see cats as a more safe bet than dogs, but it depends. The problem is many tenants when they leave a property are more concerned about packing and getting their new place nice than correcting any damage they have caused.
I had tenants who got a puppy and it wrecked all the doors. With other issues the deposit didn't cover the damage. And it's the time and hassle of finding someone to fix such things that is annoying. In principle I would accept pets, but I'd stronger rights that I won't be out of pocket, like tenants having insurance.
This attitude that there is a deposit, so they don't think they have to fix damage is annoying.
Yes to pets, older dogs however and no puppies, because the piss is hard to get rid of cheaply.
And puppies destroy everything.
Nah - cat shit stinks up the house, and any pet will scratch my laminate flooring up also.
And it lingers for months, I’ve been to houses and flats that have been stripped out and they still stick of cat shit and piss.
It’s disgusting.
What's your plan when the RRB becomes law? You can say no all you want but if a tenant gets a pet against your wishes there'll be not a whole lot you can do other than evict if more than trivial damage is caused by the pet.
Just buy flats with no pets in the lease. Leases trump rent reform. In fact you can have a no pet clause added to any freehold which would involve solicitors and deed of variation. I do wonder if people will start to do this more.
Enforcing covenants is a long and expensive process. It's just not going to happen.
But it will be legal to say sorry no pets if there is one.
From the perspective of a tenant with two cats: any damage caused (absolutely minimal) came out of the deposit and we were fine with that. We settled in for a lot longer - one place we rented for 5 years and only stopped because the Landlady needed to move back into the area urgently.
Absolutely no chance. You obviously haven’t paid for new floor coverings and damaged walls. Do it once never again.
What will you do if a tenant ignores you and gets the pet anyway?
Section 21 for failing to comply with the tenancy agreement. After rent reforms it will be more checks.
Section 21 won't exist soon. More checks won't prevent tenants getting a pet in spite of your wishes.
Yes you’re right it won’t exist but section 8 will which if they have broken tenancy agreement you can file. You put on your tenancy you have expensive carpets and you don’t want it ruined etc. plenty of reason.
What if you have really cheap flooring?
They can be sentimental value too. Or one of a kind. Say the house isn’t suitable for dogs. Say you plan to live in it at some point and don’t want the smell of stinky dogs in the walls. Plenty of reasons.
It will damage more and eaiser
Surely if you discover a pet and it's done 0 damage it'll not only be expensive to evict with long waiting times but court is less likely to go through with it unless you have some serious damage done?
A court is never going to evict for a pet clause breach where there's no damage or nuisance.
It doesn’t always have to go to court though. Section 8 is an eviction notice by itself. If they are reasonable tenants who wish to carry on renting then they will be shooting themselves in the foot if they get forcefully evicted or get a bad renting history. Not worth it.
It's scary how little landlords know about their industry. A Section 8 eviction would have to go through the court to be enforced and, in the case of pets, it won't be enforced just because the tenant has a pet against your wishes.
Of course the recourse is through the courts I’m saying a tenant can still leave. And in most occasions probably will because you have been given notice. It’s enough of a deterrent for 95% of cases and they don’t want to wreck their future renting prospects.
What would wreck their future renting prospects?
I think if a LL was evicting me over a pet that had done 0 damages, I would take my chances.
Imagine what kind of relationship you would have with a landlord. Is it really worth all the hassle for a pet that you shouldn’t have had in the first place?
A pet that I already have and couldn't find anywhere to accept me, yes. I know I'm causing no damage, pay my rent on time and keep the place clean etc so it is absolutely worth it. Is it really worth the LL to evict/take to court? Would rather pay a little more PCM or whatever is required.
There's a roughly 0% chance of a successful Section 8 eviction for a trivial breach of a tenancy agreement. In the absence of the pet causing a significant nuisance to neighbours or damage, it's not happening.
[deleted]
I'd say that's a fair bias to have. We've had three applications within the last 12 months from potential tenants with XL Bullies. Needless to say, all declined. Lots of children playing out on the road and only short style fences.
I'm not at all happy about it, it's almost the worst of the potential changes for me. At least for cats and dogs. I'm not fussed about fish/birds/reptiles.
Pet owners, by which I mean cat and dog owners, have a peculiar tendency to be blind to the impacts their pets have, accepting it for themselves yet expecting everyone else to accept it as if they were the other people's own children.
Typically for me, this is exemplified by dog owners who watch with amusement as their pet comes and bothers me having a sandwich on the beach "Oh, don't mind him, he's just being friendly". No, he's being annoying, and you're being rude.
It's that kind of attitude I don't want in someone responsible for the condition of my property. So, no pets thanks.
I've not had a problem with accepting pets (within reason) before, just making sure that there's sufficient deposit coverage to mitigate any likely damage. I used to have a cat when I lived there myself, so it would be pretty hypocritical to say the tenants couldn't have one or (as they currently do) a small dog.
I've no issue with it
But don't start bitching to me about the cleaning fee since it you want to get animal hair out carpets your basically there on your hands and knees with a delinter.
Yes to dogs, no to cats.
Dog piss smell is a million times easier to remove from a property and far less likely to be an issue.
I had some tenants a few years ago, glowing references, credit checks all fine etc. Partway through the tenancy, they got a cat.
When they left 12 months later, I had to replace every carpet plus the kitchen vinyl (brand new at the start of their tenancy). The blinds were torn in 4 out of 5 rooms, I had to fill and repaint archatraves and had to replace oak veneered fire doors. The kitchen end panels had all been clawed too.
I did most of the work myself, but it still took me a couple of weeks, plus the cost of materials. I don’t care if 9 out of 10 pet owners are responsible, that 1 bad owner can cause far more damage than it’s worth.
You can't possibly know which tenants will be good pet owners and it's not like there’s a shortage of tenants who don’t have pets, so why put yourself in a position where you only have something to lose?
It’s a hard no from me.
You won't be able to hard no once the reform laws have passed.
I have no problems with pets. The house even has a cat flap. We have had minimal damage from pets - the teenage sons on the other hand …….
what about fish its hardly considered a pet
I'd say the tenant has to get clear insurance. You do have pet insurance, but I ain't paying.
My landlord came to meet my dog before we agreed the tenancy and us of course but it was a great way to give assurance because he saw that the place we were living in wasn't destroyed by him and saw the dogs temperament.
I have 2 dogs and 2 cats. My tenant had a dog, destroyed the garden , chewed up floor, had to replace floor and doors in every room. Grass has never recovered. Cost thousands.
No more dogs. Next tenant , can I have a cat? yes. What does cat do? Destroys the new floor and all the doors. Had to replace again. All the curtains/blinds were snapped. House stunk of wee. No more pets allowed.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I think it's just a supply and demand economy. When supply is higher than demand, the sellers are more flexible and when demand outsrips supply, the buyers make the compromises.
If there was an abundance of empty rental property, the landlords would probably let you bring your pet horse into the house. As it is, most cities have a shortage, which gives the landlords more freedom to pick and choose who they want. Pets aren't necessarily a problem, but the only way to guarantee not having pet problems, is to not have pets.
Theres quite a nice, balanced article on it here: https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/blog/quick-guide-on-landlords-and-pets/
Anything but a cat as I am allergic and want to move back in at some point. Otherwise yeah enjoy your fluffy friend.
I prioritise tenants with pets. Alongside some basic minor things I offer, like actually responding to your texts within the hour and arranging handymen ASAP but only after confirming when is convenient for you, I find it makes tenants stay longer.
Are you forfuckingreal? 🤩
We ask to meet dogs at the viewing and decide if we think they are suitable and well behaved then. We’ve found allowing pets allows us to charge a premium on market rents.
Yes, to most,depending on the tennant but a hard pass on cats mostly due to the damage they cause due to clawing at furniture and walls.
Check an earlier post of mine. Someone wanted to bring a Doberman. It’s a flat and while I have and love dogs, it’s IMHO not a suitable place for them. They were dismissed on the grounds of their CCJ but I hope they rent somewhere not so urban so doggy can have some space. Otherwise pets welcome
Cats and dogs are a no for me. This is why thorough vetting is essential.
Some tenants are akin to animals anyway.
I won’t allow dogs as I rent out a flat and am considerate towards neighbours but my current tenants do have a cat which is fine. I issued an addendum to the tenancy which stipulated that they’re responsible for any & all damage which may be caused by the cat just to cover it off.
As long as there is a damages clause. However, I had a tenant with indoor dwarf rabbits that left one hell of a mess so wary of larger animals.
This thread shows why private landlords are better and shouldn’t be penalised/pushed out of the rental business.
Much more human/sympathetic replies mostly.
When it’s just conglomerates that take over, a computer decides the amount of profit is not work risking by allowing pets and people have no choice.
I can’t be without my dog so I wouldn’t expect anyone else too. If your such a shit pet owner that you’ll let the animal wreck the house, your probably not going to take care of the place if you didn’t have a pet. You’re either gonna look after the place or not, the pet is fairly inconsequential.
As a tenant, and once a former dog lover :
I utterly despise dogs.
Not just my current downstairs neighbour, but the PREVIOUS one also had a dog. What’s the problem with dogs? Shithead owners who fail to give any attention or train their dog.
The result? A dog with separation anxiety and will bark and wail itself literally hoarse in the throat because it’s lonely. The impact? Me getting woken up at 9am after going to bed at 7am fr the precious night shift.
Then the sheer mental trauma of having to ‘relax’ in a flat where the sound echoes and reverberates through the building as this horrible horse high pitched barking rebounds and coalesces into your skull.
And yes, I am literally listening to it right now. This happens every day, Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. It’s maddening, it says no pets on the contract, it was one of the reasons we moved in here - and yet upon telling the landlord, she didn’t give a shit, she spoke with him and while agreed to take his dogs with him to work (he doesn’t) she had the gall to mention “he complained about noise in the night” which is in no way near the same level.
This has become something of a cathartic rant but we’re just going to move someplace else now, it’s not livable for anyone sane. The next place we look for? We’re definitely asking PLEASE no dogs. Because now I hate them
I've got a couple small parrots and a dog. I sought permission as a courtesy with the expectation of the landlord agreeing, but I would have got my pets regardless of their answer. Landlords can say no but ultimately, there's not a whole lot they can do other than Section 21 the tenant and that's getting repealed.
You freaks shouldn’t be allowed to say no pets
Yes to Pets, no to cats