Current pet confusion – pre tenancy?

Pet rents are probably the only way a landlord can recover any extra costs involved in allowing tenants to keep a pet. They are not illegal but are unpopular.

I wrote about this on my Landlord Law Blog here: https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2019/10/08/pet-rents-monstrous-greed-justified-precaution/

Having read Tessa's blog, there is a slight difference between Tiddles the furry ball and a kennel in one room of American XL Monsters? Are they to be treated in the same way? I haven't read the legislation (I might fall asleep?) but is the concept of 'reasonableness' to be found? Will LLs be done for racial (cat v dog) discrimination? We are living in an increasingly Kafkaesque world?

Landlords didn't create this situation.
Choose one of the many other applicants without a pet.

Reply to the comment left by Tessa Shepperson at 06/10/2023 - 10:10
thanks Tessa. I think the possibke way forward is to assess the pet's likelyhood of causing possible damage given its type and the cost of what that could be to put right. The rent will be adjusted as a result and the tenant offered a tenancy on this basis.

They can take it or leave it. Not my problem.

I may well actually send her a copy of Tessas info to make it clear where the legal position and highlight the very last thing...that having a pet in a rental property is an expensive luxury so one any renter should think about before getting a pet in the first place or when they propose to move.

Yes, looks an excellent outcome?

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 06/10/2023 - 10:36Personally not a good idea I think to tell any prospective renter that "having a pet in a rental property is an expensive luxury so one any renter should think about before getting a pet in the first place or when they propose to move".
Might as well tell tenants that an unlimited data mobile phone contract is a luxury; eating takeaways are a luxury; the 50"+ TV is a luxury; latest mobile phone is a luxury etc etc. Just asking for vilification in mho

If you do decide to allow a pet, make sure your tenancy agreement is amended accordingly. This is essential to protect your position.

We have a form for this: https://landlordlaw.co.uk/sales-the-landlord-law-pets-form/

I created an addendum to the tenancy agreement when my tenants wanted to have 2 house cats. I stipulated that litter trays to be in kitchen only, no cat flap would be allowed, any damage to be paid for and a professional clean at end of tenancy. I think cats are generally low risk but would be more reluctant to have a dog unless very small

Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 06/10/2023 - 10:34
Well said Monty, I have many notes on this but we can all remember when Landlords charged a higher deposit & it worked. A few tenants grumbled, now Govt stepped in & we don't take any pets now. Govt bafoons.

My repeated notes on this:

Gees, how simple was it when we could just charge higher deposit for Pet owners and those that did no damage got all money back. So so simple.
No better insurance than the tenants own money.
Now look what Shelter and Generation rent and the Govt have done. Made it MUCH MUCH worse for tenants yet again.
My text below I’ve done before.

Landlords: pets are okay if you pay for extra insurance to cover any damage.
Gov: in that case we will make it illegal to charge extra insurance.
LLs: well then we will have to slightly increase deposits for those with pets.
Gov: in that case we will cap deposits at 5 weeks rent.
LLs: okay well we can’t really allow pets anymore then.
Gov: in that case we will force you to take tenants with pets.
LLs: well then we have no choice but to increase rent across the board even for tenants without pets.
Gov: oh.
Tenants: why is rent so high??

Unbelievable isn't it. If the tenant was allowed to pay a higher deposit to cover potential pet damage. And if the pet caused no damage, tenant gets deposit back, job done.
That way only those that caused damage, ie. 10% would pay for THEIR OWN DAMAGE.
The way Govt have it now is, EVERYONE loses. And now this horrendous reaction of pets now losing their lives.
U would think the Govt and Councils would actually talk to us on ground level to ask what we think. As they ALWAYS get it wrong and us in the actual job get it right cause we doing it day in. day out.

We all know what happened with scrapping Pet deposits and we told em it would happen. Now ALL pet owners pay more rent whereas before, if no damage, no charge. Now an unfair charge on every pet owner. And they've got Shelter and the others to thank for that.
Again this shows Govt interference trying to appease voters, the renters thinks Whey Hey Great! Whereas we know they end up worse off.

We told em this was gonna happen.
If they let Landlords charge a riskier higher deposit just as insurance companies charge more for more risk, then let's say 9 out of 10 pets caused no damage. They'd all get their deposits back. And the 1 out of 10 who did cause damage, they'd be the only one that paid. So all pet owners get houses, 90% get their deposit back. And only the 1 that caused the damage would pay.
As it is now, cause Shelter supported banning higher deposits, Landlords are now charging more rent to ALL pet owners, so ALL pet owners lose. All pet owners pay.
They trying to stop this. So what's gonna happen and is happening? Landlords are just refusing ALL pets. So ALL pet owners suffer. When in reality, it's only 10% that cause the damage.
Landlords know how to rent houses out. Govt doesn't.
I've had £1000 stairs chewed apart by dogs. It's not nice.

And I used to take ALL pet owners. I don't now cause of this Govt interference.

Before the Pet Owner knew straightaway they wasn't having it. Now they get messed about & get told We looking at all applications, when in reality the agent or Landlord ain't taking them. That's what's happening now with DWP UC.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 06/10/2023 - 11:23
I used to think that if we paid MPs a proper boardroom salary and treated them and Parliament as a properly run business we might get a better result. We've never tried it yet.
But how would you design an exam to weed out the morons who strive to create the scenario Mick just described?
Perhaps try it the other way, pay them buttons and make them try life as a tenant but not allowed to change L&T law??
Whatever way you go, MPs must have had a job and some life experience before becoming an MP? Lowest age limit 30?