Debate with Landlady – Right to have a pet

Reply to the comment left by "Colin Dartnell" at "10/10/2014 - 01:44":

Hope you don't get it on your face LOL 🙂
.

My wife adores cats and whilst at present we have no pets, my neighbours cat is sitting next to me as I write this, after just being chastised for pulling a thread out of my new mat while clawing it..... That's another £30 lost. Grrrr......

We have always owned our own house and had a range of pets. Each one has ALWAYS caused damage which we accept as the damage is done to our own carpets, curtains, walls, floors and furnishings so we are paying for it.

One kitten clawed every carpet corner inside every door in every room and destroyed a number of curtains, ripped wallpaper and pee'd/sprayed all over the place and to be frank, that is almost certainly what your kitten will do.

We let property out and now have a no pets clause as there are so many variables. A goldfish does little or no harm but if the tank bursts then there is damage. Cats and Dogs can do terrible damage as they almost always claw carpets, throw up on them when they are sick and often urinate to mark their territory. I have had some instances of horrendous damage done by so called "pets" to some of my properties as well as some terrible conflicts caused with neighbours over noise and it wouldn't be so bad if tenants were to actually accept that their animals can cause nuisance & do damage and immediately put their hand in their pocket to pay for it, but you wouldn't believe the arguments we have had with tenants who flatly refuse to accept that their little pug is the reason that fleas are hopping all over the place or that the great big claw rip on the bottom of the sofa is because of "Tiddles" playing. "Oh no, I think the fabric on your cheap sofa is just fraying" is the most popular "EXCUSE".

If you must have a kitten, try offering your landlady a further £1,000 deposit so that if that cute little "wild" animal (which is exactly what a cat is - and it's actually classified as such in law) should do damage and then be totally prepared to lose a large chunk, if not all of it as I can ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, CERTAINLY, WITHOUT DOUBT, GUARANTEE that considerable damage will be done - no matter how well you look after the kitten or how much time you spend at home. Those cute little kittens have razor sharp claws and need to exercise them to keep them in pristine condition so that they can catch mice, birds, spiders, flies etc and chew them up in the middle of the lounge, leaving the fur, innards etc., for you to pick up. Of course, a freshly butchered corpse loses a lot of blood that will end up in the carpet - a reason I would only ever now have hard floors in my own home.

You must be prepared to pay for a thorough deep clean and fumigation of the property if and when you leave as the landlady has to re-let the property and with the number of people suffering allergies these days, many decent people will not take a property with cat hairs and fleas embedded in carpets. Would you ?? Believe me, people are far fussier with rented property than they are with their own when it comes to things like this - after all, there are plenty of others to rent instead.

Better to buy your own place and then if you are happy to live in a house with scratched furniture, walls and carpets, the damage done is to your own property, not someone else's. My advice would be to stay pet free until then and save the money a pet will cost you toward buying your own place. Do like I am doing right now - pet the neighbour's pussy (oooh errr missus), and then push it out of the door when you've had enough or the dear little sweetie becomes sick and needs a couple of thousand pounds spending on it at the Vets. That is a win, win scenario.

I have several properties and I love cats - and dogs! I have 2 cats in one house, all nicely kept and clean and tidy. However, in another a cat was left by a tenant who left - saying she would take the cat and didn't - leaving it to me to look after. Next tenant was happy to take it on - so no problem there although I help out with food. However, she had a friend join her, with my permission whilst looking for accommodation who also bought a six week old kitten into the property - without permission, They had a row and the friend left. I tried to re-home the kitten but unfortunately it got run over and ended up costing ME £865 in emergency vet's bills and the poor thing had to be put down - moral here, NO PETS!!

Reply to the comment left by "r01 " at "12/10/2014 - 13:09":

Hi Ro1

I'm going to play devils advocate with you on this as it is a subject close to my heart.

Hopefully you will accept that both landlords and tenants are the same species and have the same emotions and senses of what is generally right and wrong, i.e. responsibilities?

Now lets suppose that a tenant could give you a £10,000 guarantee that any damage caused by a pet would be made good when they ended their tenancy and that they were good for the money too - would that change your thinking in terms of allowing them to have a pet? I suspect the answer is yes.

Now let's assume worst case scenario, i.e. that amount of damage is caused and you have to take them to Court to get them to pay up on the guarantee, which would include all work and any loss of rent whilst it is done. That's probably about as bad as it could get - right?

So ...... given that you are going to be handing over the keys to your property, and that level of damage and of rental void could be caused by somebody with or without a pet, surely it is more logical to base your decision on whether to let the property on the finances of the tenant and/or their guarantors as opposed to whether they have/want a pet or not?
.

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "13/10/2014 - 09:25":

Hi Mark, Devils advocate....? that's me usually - lol

Excuse the length and feel free to edit.

You say "..... tenants are the same species and have the same emotions
and senses of what is generally right and wrong, i.e. responsibilities?"

Well, whilst it may be true for some, in my 30 years as a landlord, for a small but significant number of tenants I think you couldn't have it more wrong. For many, it's more like "it's not my property so why should I accept responsibility?" Isn't it true that if you don't earn much, but work hard, do without many thing that others have and save your pennies over many years, eventually managing to buy that special item it becomes very personal and you look after it like a baby? Clearly, a tenant will not look after someone else's property the same as a person who goes through financial and emotional stress to buy their own property. In fact, I believe it would be naive & completely unreasonable of us to expect this. Unless maybe we are politicians and completely out of touch with the real world......

We can see in this thread about allowing pets that the questioner has got very upset that her understanding - the way she chooses to interpret it (rightly or wrongly), is different to the contractual meaning. The clause ".....only with the express written permission of the landlord..." in no way obligates the landlord to give that permission, indeed the landlord could be considered irresponsible if she allowed it in the wrong circumstances just to placate an adamant tenant.

Sadly, the tenant seems to believe that not being automatically allowed is somehow unfair, unreasonable or a miss-representation. This is often the way people react (or over-react, often without realising it) when they don't get their way.

Of course I accept that a tenant without pets can damage a property as much as a feckless tenant without children can, however, you must agree that the more people living in a property (and particularly the more pets), the more damage and nuisance risk increases along with greater wear and tear.

Yes, my lets are always based on tenant status, references, financial probity etc., but if I have two tenants interested in my property with equal financial/reference/personal status and one doesn't have pets, that's who I'll let to (reduced risk) - like many sensible landlords. I should point out that my properties are in easy let areas and I have never had a problem finding tenants without pets, but if I
did I'd clearly have to re-think. However, the first thing I would do is increase the rents in line with the added risks (plus ensure a large animal damage deposit is taken & restrictive agreement signed so they don't start breeding from home), unlike my present policy of charging just below the current rate for similar properties which means I am, thankfully, spoiled for choice. I believe a number have already made the point it might be more difficult for Lala to find satisfactory
alternative accommodation once she has a kitten and you yourself suggest she ensure any future landlord provides up-front permission for a kitten before signing another agreement (and I would add before giving notice at her current flat) which demonstrates that even ardent pet lovers acknowledge the risks & problems associated with pets.

If you had to accept a pet, a mature, neutered/spayed cat that sleeps most of the day would be a far better choice from a landlords perspective eh? Equally, a well trained quiet breed of dog used to being left for several hours rather than a boisterous untrained pup. And there are thousands who need homes, which is exactly the way "she who must be obeyed" and I have come across the cats who've owned us and allowed us to become their unpaid doting slaves over the years - they may be cruel, heartless, natural hunters with flick-knives on their feet, but they're ohhh soooooo cute when they roll over. Cute or not, they will still claw carpets - that's what all cats do - no ifs, no buts. I know this very well from a lifetime of personal experience wielding a watering pistol to try (but fail) to dissuade it..... And all cats (and dogs) do catch fleas, I have the scars.... and bet you have too.

My landlords methods (and views) have become refined over the years since I first started out and got terribly bitten (pun intended). I now have so few problems with lettings it is finally becoming a pleasure with my tenants staying for years and years. I handle my own lettings & intentionally choose the "person" nowadays as well as their financial and tenant status which works for me & them, so I must be doing something right. I have excellent tenants and they enjoy high quality, well appointed & cared for accommodation.

If I were greedier and prepared to accept more risks & hassles I could probably make more financially by cramming in large families with menageries of pets, maybe even the odd drug taking, alcoholic yobbo (sorry, not very PC - I of course meant "poor unfortunate"), but mine is the business model that works well for me and that's who I do it for.

Clearly I'll never go to heaven, so answering your advocacy on behalf of your ol'
pal The Devil is perfect. Can you reward my reply & ask him to save a seat by the fire for me please? I feel the cold these days.....

R

Reply to the comment left by "r01 " at "13/10/2014 - 19:09":

Being pet owners and having been tenants ourselves in the past my wife and I have not changed a bit in terms of our awareness of our responsibilities.

I have chosen pet-owners over non-pet-owners many times, even on the basis of them both ticking all other boxes in terms of referencing. This is because I know that pet owners stay longer and are prepared to pay a bit more, all because most landlords don't think the same way as I do.

Yes I take additional deposits/guarantees etc. but they expect that.

I too have generally have a good selection of potential tenants to choose from because I market my properties at sensible prices and maintain them well.

I also find that pet owners who are worthy of renting to are far more forthcoming when it comes to me asking them if I can visit them in their home and review their personal bank statements. If they refuse these requests or if I see any evidence of abuse of the property they are exiting(or they have fulfilled their responsibilities to make good any damaged caused by pets) this makes my decisions very easy to make.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no push over when it comes to accepting pets and I say no more than I say yes. However, I do keep an open mind because what I want are three very simple things:-

1) Tenants who pay on time and stay long term
2) Tenants who respect my property
3) Tenants who respect their neighbours

...... and some pet owners make much better tenants than none pet owners.
.

Has Lala updated Property118 on the outcome of her meeting with her Landlady last night? (ha ha!!! can't believe this - it's like a soap & I'm waiting for the next installment!)

Yes Mark,

"…… and some pet owners make much better tenants than none pet owners". I wouldn't know as I've never found them, but I'm happy to take your word that they do exist.

I'm not saying it will happen to Lala, but many (particularly flat dwellers), find they have to move & simply cannot find an affordable place that will take their pet, so end up dumping/leaving/giving them away. Unfortunately, agents don't take the vetting care you do, so it's something that works for you given your controlled policy. In general I would reverse your comment as sadly, we only have to see the number of mistreated & abandoned animals in shelters to see how many don't make good pet owners, let alone good tenants. Pru Counsell's post immediately after mine & some others emphasise this point.

Mark, don't get me wrong - I am as much an animal lover as you, which is why we currently have no pets of our own. Sounds strange?? No, it's acting responsibly, which my original post was alluding to. I'm retiring soon and as we plan to spend a couple of years travelling the world we considered it unfair to take on any further pets after our beloved "Marley" passed away. When we return from our travels we'll give a good home to one or two rescue dogs/cats. We both must agree a pet is not just for Christmas, so for now it's all down to petting the neighbours pussy.....

I fully endorse your policy of visiting potential tenants with pets in their current home - very wise and I'd certainly do just that if I considered a tenant with pets (I'd also look at the rear garden to check for breeding kennels, scratched/damaged fences, doo-doo, etc.) & advise all landlords to do so "personally" if they want to avoid potentially serious problems.

With regard to bank statements. I find all "genuine" tenants with or without pets are perfectly happy to provide them. As a policy (and I think I've said this in a previous thread), I never contemplate an AST with any potential tenant until I have personally seen their original passport (British as well as EU or foreign), plus sight of at least three months "original" UK bank statements, not because the law says I should but because I want to know exactly who I'm dealing with. The liars, con merchants and cheats beat a hasty retreat and I simply say "NEXT". This is the most important area where agents fail in my humble opinion.

I had one prospective tenant, a very attractive, well dressed, articulate young Romanian lady in her mid 20's (before they were EU citizens), who surprised me by providing her bank statement and despite claiming she was employed, it showed no regular income, only large sums of money coming and going through her account - more than enough to buy her own property and when I asked what they were she said the company she worked for used her account to pay money in on properties they sold. WHAT????? Drugs, money laundering, tax evasion or sub-letting was my suspicion and I said "NEXT". I found out later that she was placed by an agent that had applied for and accepted her false references and guess what?, I don't need to tell you the rest, suffice to say her landlord paid a heavy price.

Hopefully our posts will help others see some of the potential pitfalls, pets or no pets and if Lala is still following the thread maybe she can now understand why many landlords have to be so careful.

R

What a pity Lala hasn't updated us on what her landlord said and her justification for whatever the decision was 🙁
.

Unless there's a very good reason for Lala not updating us, I find this sadly sometimes reflects what level of respect tenants have for landlords. If it had been any of us, we would have posted the outcome of the meeting or even if the outcome is not yet known or the meeting with the landlady was postponed, we would have posted an update to this effect. C'est la vie!!