0:02 AM, 5th December 2024, About 3 weeks ago 38
Text Size
Pets cause less financial damage than tenants, according to new research.
A report by the University of Huddersfield reveals that while pets can cause damage, the cost is more than 50% lower than the damage typically caused by tenants.
Inventory Base is calling on landlords to take in pets after research finds only 7% of rental properties are pet-friendly.
According to a survey by Inventory Base, landlords appear to be most open to pet ownership in Glasgow where 11.3% of all rentals are described as being pet-friendly. This is followed by Edinburgh (10.1%), Manchester (10%), and London (8.1%).
Meanwhile, the least pet-friendly landlords are found in Newcastle where just 2.1% of available stock is being marketed as pet-friendly.
This is followed by Nottingham (2.9%), Cardiff (2.9%), Leeds (3.2%), Leicester (3.4%), and Bristol (3.9%).
Research from the University of Huddersfield shows that pets cause an average of £300 worth of damage per tenancy, compared to £775 caused by tenants without pets.
Siân Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Inventory Base, says it can be financially beneficial to landlords to take on a pet due to a reduction in void periods.
According to Inventory Base, half of pet-owning tenants stay in properties for more than three years, while just 31% of those without pets stay for this long.
Ms Hemming-Metcalfe said: “While pets might seem like they could cause issues in rental properties, it’s becoming clear that their impact is often much smaller than the wear and tear from tenants themselves.
“Being a landlord is no easy task. It can be both demanding and stressful. It’s understandable why many prefer to keep pets out, reducing at least one potential worry. However, we’re finding that being pet-friendly can actually offer significant advantages for landlords.
“By welcoming pets, you not only attract a broader range of potential tenants, but you also encourage longer and more dependable tenancies.
“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.”
Ms Hemming-Metcalfe adds an inventory process can help landlords manage tenancies with pet-owning tenants.
She said: “Landlords who are open to tenants with well-behaved pets can minimise most financial risks by implementing a thorough inventory process.
“The main risks of allowing pets in rental homes arise when there isn’t a solid inventory process in place at both the start and end of each tenancy.
“Conducting a detailed inventory at the beginning of a pet-friendly tenancy, as well as regular property visits throughout the tenancy, ensures that any damage caused by tenants or their pets is properly accounted for.”
The Renters’ Rights Bill will strengthen tenants’ rights to request a pet in their rental property, which the landlord must consider and cannot unreasonably refuse.
The Bill will permit landlords to require insurance coverage for pet damage.
Previous Article
Letting agents increasing rates after NI increase?Next Article
Property Redress celebrates 10 years with rebrand
NewYorkie
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:24 AM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by MasterG at 05/12/2024 - 09:46
That was my thought on reading the headline. Written by children!
Stella
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:32 AM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Clara Skye at 05/12/2024 - 10:48
I sympathise having had a similar experience.
The smell of urine soaked floorboards and a garden, flower pots and a bin full of faeces I will never forget.
We would need a crystal ball to predict who is capable of looking after an animal.
One of my tenants was a professional earning £130000 + bonuses and the partner was supposed to be a financial advisor and working from home.
Lomondhomes
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up11:34 AM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Personally speaking I'd be happy to have the pet and not the tenant as long as the rent goes in!
Ryan Stevens
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up12:11 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Lomondhomes at 05/12/2024 - 11:34
I think that is the way to go, one or the other, not both!
It just so happens that the report was paid for by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, so no vested interest there!
I haven't bothered to look at it in depth, but notice that 76% of landlords did not encounter pet damage, 73% did not notice discernible wear and tear and 84% did not have to deal with noise complaints. That means that 27%, 24% and 16% respectively did! Why take the risk?
Clara Skye
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:11 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
I love dogs and choose to have 5. When they crap in my house that's my business, or more accuartely theirs it's my responsibility to deal with. When a tenant's pet craps in my rental property, that makes it my business and ultimately impacts on my 'business', that's the difference!
Keith Wellburn
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:21 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
I’ve just had a glance through the report online.
The more I think of this assertion that the average damage cost for non pet owning tenancies is £775 - with no further breakdown or explanation as far as I can see - the more I come to the conclusion it is utter nonsense.
The market I was in for family lets was 2 or 3 bed Victorian terraceds from 1990 to fairly recently. Some pets some DSS, some tenancies running as periodic for 20+ plus years some giving notice at 6 months end of AST. Number of tenancies into three figures.
I don’t disagree that some of the tenants with pets were good tenants but the claimed figure for non pet damage is staggering to me. An average of £775 would mean would mean for each and every tenancy where the damage was less than £500 there would be another where it was over £1,000!
Who on earth have they been speaking to and do they know the difference between actual damage and normal wear and tear which is a known overhead. Even if they were including post tenancy refurb cost that isn’t damage, it wouldn’t be so much lower for pet owner tenancies.
This might go down well with non landlords, just look at the output of Shelter and Gen Rent etc, but most landlords would struggle to identify with this £775 damage per tenancy. My deposits in the later years weren’t even this amount and I rarely made deductions in any case as there was very little overall actual damage. That is not to say old houses owned for 20 plus years didn’t need money spending on them as any landlord will appreciate.
And these academics obviously haven’t included the property I am aware of in the town I operated in where the cat owning tenant of twenty years plus deliberately tampered with the gas supply and destroyed the property causing £100,000 plus of damage!
It’s rather a pity that this report seems to have weakened the case for renting to pet owners to anyone with practical experience of being a landlord.
Jason
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up13:50 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
I’m a pet friendly landlord, here’s a gold fish bowl, problem solved!
Alison Walker
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up14:05 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Jason at 05/12/2024 - 13:50
Until the goldfish bowl is upgraded to a full on tropical fish tank that leaks 🙂
Reluctant Landlord
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up15:08 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
surely if all tenancies are to be reduced to 1 month rolling as part of the RRB as min terms are not permitted, then an AST cannot by default be legally categorised as as a long term let in the eyes of the law?
If air BNB and hotels are not obliged to accept pets then why should landlords?
Stella
Become a Member
If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!
Sign Up15:26 PM, 5th December 2024, About 2 weeks ago
Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 05/12/2024 - 15:08
This is a very good argument for rejecting pets even airbnb can be as long as a month.