Landlords encouraged to accept pets as they cause less damage

Clearly written by someone without experience and the impact on future tenants

And tuberculosis is less deadly than the plague.
But I'd rather have neither.

This is a moron's aregument. Taxpayer paid someone to come up with this rubbish at the University of Huddesrfield. I hope we didn't waste too much of taxpayers' money.

“Pet owners are typically very mindful of their pets’ reputation for causing damage, so when it’s time to move out, they often leave the property in excellent condition to demonstrate that both they and their furry friends are responsible.”

hahahahahaha! Not in my loooong experience.

Tennants are essential to the business, pets are an extra avoidable cost in damages. Never in my property.

Tenant causes a x 2 damage
Pet causes a x 1 damage
Tenant + pet causes a x 3 damage.

Or are they suggesting I rent my property to a dog as the sole tenant. 🤔

The figure for damage by non pet owning tenants doesn’t ring true for me. I had perhaps 300 students across five HMOs for the best part of twenty years and up to ten family lets in a market where I took pets and DSS since the 1990s.

No students had pets and very little damage. Some pet owners OK but they become ‘nose blind’ to their pet.

And of course the survey is looking backwards - under the RRB and making pets the default will mean tenants don’t hunker down in a property that allows Fido. Some people just don’t have the mindset to begin to understand the potential risks a landlord accepts. I wasn’t too bothered about replacing pet damaged carpets after a long term tenant left if they were a good tenant in other respects and having a sensible appreciation of wear and tear which would mean they were nearing the end of their life anyway.

If a landlord is obliged to take pets and tenants have the right to give two months notice on day one as will likely be the case, that is plenty of time for a pet to potentially cause £1,000s of damage on top of the utterly ridiculous situation of having provided Air B&B lite and having to shoulder the set up costs for a new tenant.

Pets. are great. it's the owners who are to blame. One bought a Collie ( working type ). poor thing is going so distressed with no walks.

I very much doubt if the report is 'encouraging' landlords to accept pets.

A pet will cause damage IN ADDITION to that caused by a tenant, Why do I want to risk having damage from both?

And what if the next tenant is allergic to the previous tenant's pet?

My ex-tenants had 2 dogs and a cat, they said they wanted to 'make it their long-term home'. They changed their minds after 12 months and moved in with family, so they aren't bothered about a reference. I have never seen a property left so fitlthy. The carpets stank of pet urine, mostly cat urine. The tenants cat-egorically deny (excuse the pun) that their pets were responsible. Every wall was filthy, particularly the bedroom walls, not just from the pets but other damage above that level too. Tenants are claiming that this is 'pet fair wear and tear'. There's another issue here that the deposit doesn't even come close to covering the cost of the damage and the time and expense required to put it right. As the delightful 'ex-tenant' emailed me 'you chose to be a landlord, so you only have yourself to blame, no one's forcing you to be a landlord.' No more pets in future, lesson learnt!

Hotels have smoking and non smoking rooms, my flats are all no pet and no smoking, like lots if other establishments.