Seems to be the seem as the much hyped changes that have been around for years on the ‘model’ tenancy agreement, landlords can still refuse pets on any made up reason they like.
So they can’t advertise as “no pets” – but are free to choose a tenant with no pets from the applicants. So all this does is make people with pets waste time applying for homes that they have no chance of getting. But it makes a nice headline – which really does seem to be the only point of 90% of government initiatives these days.
What a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that pets increase the cost of maintaining the property to the landlord because of the increased wear and potential for neighbour complaints.
Purely in practical terms, instead of having to redo the floors every 5 years or so, you need to redo them after each pet-owning tenant. Instead of re-using the furniture, you usually need to replace it or at least refurbish it. You also need to pay for a deep clean (edit: at a level much beyond what would be expected for a regular non-pet-owning tenant) to get rid of any smells.
Likewise, if your pets are loud, the neighbours can and will complain, which may lead to sanctions for you or, even worse, having to replace the tenant.
Ultimately, I think most landlords would be ok with pets, if renters would be ok to pay, say 10% over market value for the property – purely as a means to mitigate for the additional risk and wear on the property due to the animals. However, no renter wants to do that, so that’s how you end up with “no pets” in the ads.
Simply put, it is a lot cheaper to rent to a non-pet-owning tenant.
I’m getting fed up of misreporting about the pets stuff. Nothing is really changing! All that is happening is the government updating their “model tenancy agreement”. Aka the one that nobody ever uses anyway because all landlords and letting agents have their own.
“er… So you know my 12ft python…. No, the animal… Yeh, it’s gotten out if my room… You didn’t actually want that cat, right?”
Given the carbon footprint of a pet is similar to a car, I don’t see why the government is encouraging pet ownership like this.
Do you have a pet?
No
(Turns up with pet)
You said you didn’t have a pet!?
I just got it.
Not sure how much it’ll change but it’s a step in the right direction. My partner and I have 3 cats and we’re looking to move this year, so anything that makes it easier for us to find a place to rent is always welcome news. We just need to find a landlord out there who happens to be a cat lover. 😂
Our cats are chill, they cause no damage and don’t even scratch the furniture. We give them plenty of scratching posts. That said I wouldn’t complain if we had to put down an extra £1-200 on our deposit to cover them. Our cats are more important.
For people who lie about pets – in the situation where a lot of damage is caused – especially in furnished apartments, it’s unlikely that the insurance the landlord gets will cover it as it wouldn’t have included pets – consequently it would be reasonable for the tenant to cover the full cost. Whereas if they were in a contract where a pet was declared – the landlords insurance should also be covering that clause
The bigger thing to me is the energy efficiency requirement. I’m very interested in how it will play out.
My flat assessment says it cannot go above a D. Will it cease to be rented out in 2028? I doubt it.
If they want me to open all doors and windows whenever the landlord or worker visits, they’d better pay my damn heating bill
Blows my fucking mind that landlords weren’t required to install carbon monoxide alarms.
Also, give tenants more control over decorating their housing. Not even being *allowed* to hang things on walls is ridiculous.
What’s wrong with refusing pets, they absolutely fuck a house up the majority of the time and the landlord wants to keep his house nice and undamaged.
The government messed up here when in the Tenancy Deposit Act of 2019 they removed landlords’ abilities to take pet-damage deposits.
That act was badly needed as too many landlords abused their power and took excessive deposits. But by not allowing pet damage deposits they made it far less risky for landlords in high demand areas to simply say “No Pets”, particularly as many of the common landlord insurance policies won’t cover pet damage.
What they should have done, and I think still should do, was limit deposits to 5 weeks but allow an additional pet-damage deposit to be placed with a deposit agency. This would be only used for pet-damage and not for landlords to try and dip into for any other reasons.
What does the carbon monoxide bit mean? All the ones I’ve used just sit on the side in the kitchen and last for 5-10 years on its battery. Why’s the article say install it on all appliances?
As a landlord, I guarantee that no landlord will ever be forced into accepting a tenant with a pet.
I guarantee it.
Part of the issue is the landlord gets to choose. I rent my old family home while I work abroad. I actually gave the option of pets allowed as I thought this is a reality of family life… Then had a slew of applicants. So when you have choice, having pets makes is much easier to choose the tenant without a pet.
Dogs are a pain in the arse from a landlords point of view – they don’t want neighbours constantly phoning up and complaining about barking all hours. Also, anywhere with communal grounds is a problem as no one wants their little kids treading in dog shit, or their cat or insert other small pet eviscerated by someone else’s huge hound roaming unsupervised. I live in an area with a lot of rental properties that have a complete ban on pets, and believe me, people have been evicted for getting dogs, despite the advice on here that no one will care and it’ll go under the radar. (People have also sneaked cats in unofficially but this is slightly more likely to get a pass as they are less noisy and/or intimidating than dogs thus less likely to garner complaints – damage to soft furnishings is the main problem, which can at least be offset by withholding any deposit).
Pets are a life saver to many people’s mental health. Disappointing that there’s still no obligation for a landlord to accept you with pets.
19 comments
Seems to be the seem as the much hyped changes that have been around for years on the ‘model’ tenancy agreement, landlords can still refuse pets on any made up reason they like.
So they can’t advertise as “no pets” – but are free to choose a tenant with no pets from the applicants. So all this does is make people with pets waste time applying for homes that they have no chance of getting. But it makes a nice headline – which really does seem to be the only point of 90% of government initiatives these days.
What a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that pets increase the cost of maintaining the property to the landlord because of the increased wear and potential for neighbour complaints.
Purely in practical terms, instead of having to redo the floors every 5 years or so, you need to redo them after each pet-owning tenant. Instead of re-using the furniture, you usually need to replace it or at least refurbish it. You also need to pay for a deep clean (edit: at a level much beyond what would be expected for a regular non-pet-owning tenant) to get rid of any smells.
Likewise, if your pets are loud, the neighbours can and will complain, which may lead to sanctions for you or, even worse, having to replace the tenant.
Ultimately, I think most landlords would be ok with pets, if renters would be ok to pay, say 10% over market value for the property – purely as a means to mitigate for the additional risk and wear on the property due to the animals. However, no renter wants to do that, so that’s how you end up with “no pets” in the ads.
Simply put, it is a lot cheaper to rent to a non-pet-owning tenant.
I’m getting fed up of misreporting about the pets stuff. Nothing is really changing! All that is happening is the government updating their “model tenancy agreement”. Aka the one that nobody ever uses anyway because all landlords and letting agents have their own.
“er… So you know my 12ft python…. No, the animal… Yeh, it’s gotten out if my room… You didn’t actually want that cat, right?”
Given the carbon footprint of a pet is similar to a car, I don’t see why the government is encouraging pet ownership like this.
Do you have a pet?
No
(Turns up with pet)
You said you didn’t have a pet!?
I just got it.
Not sure how much it’ll change but it’s a step in the right direction. My partner and I have 3 cats and we’re looking to move this year, so anything that makes it easier for us to find a place to rent is always welcome news. We just need to find a landlord out there who happens to be a cat lover. 😂
Our cats are chill, they cause no damage and don’t even scratch the furniture. We give them plenty of scratching posts. That said I wouldn’t complain if we had to put down an extra £1-200 on our deposit to cover them. Our cats are more important.
For people who lie about pets – in the situation where a lot of damage is caused – especially in furnished apartments, it’s unlikely that the insurance the landlord gets will cover it as it wouldn’t have included pets – consequently it would be reasonable for the tenant to cover the full cost. Whereas if they were in a contract where a pet was declared – the landlords insurance should also be covering that clause
The bigger thing to me is the energy efficiency requirement. I’m very interested in how it will play out.
My flat assessment says it cannot go above a D. Will it cease to be rented out in 2028? I doubt it.
If they want me to open all doors and windows whenever the landlord or worker visits, they’d better pay my damn heating bill
Blows my fucking mind that landlords weren’t required to install carbon monoxide alarms.
Also, give tenants more control over decorating their housing. Not even being *allowed* to hang things on walls is ridiculous.
What’s wrong with refusing pets, they absolutely fuck a house up the majority of the time and the landlord wants to keep his house nice and undamaged.
The government messed up here when in the Tenancy Deposit Act of 2019 they removed landlords’ abilities to take pet-damage deposits.
That act was badly needed as too many landlords abused their power and took excessive deposits. But by not allowing pet damage deposits they made it far less risky for landlords in high demand areas to simply say “No Pets”, particularly as many of the common landlord insurance policies won’t cover pet damage.
What they should have done, and I think still should do, was limit deposits to 5 weeks but allow an additional pet-damage deposit to be placed with a deposit agency. This would be only used for pet-damage and not for landlords to try and dip into for any other reasons.
What does the carbon monoxide bit mean? All the ones I’ve used just sit on the side in the kitchen and last for 5-10 years on its battery. Why’s the article say install it on all appliances?
As a landlord, I guarantee that no landlord will ever be forced into accepting a tenant with a pet.
I guarantee it.
Part of the issue is the landlord gets to choose. I rent my old family home while I work abroad. I actually gave the option of pets allowed as I thought this is a reality of family life… Then had a slew of applicants. So when you have choice, having pets makes is much easier to choose the tenant without a pet.
Dogs are a pain in the arse from a landlords point of view – they don’t want neighbours constantly phoning up and complaining about barking all hours. Also, anywhere with communal grounds is a problem as no one wants their little kids treading in dog shit, or their cat or insert other small pet eviscerated by someone else’s huge hound roaming unsupervised. I live in an area with a lot of rental properties that have a complete ban on pets, and believe me, people have been evicted for getting dogs, despite the advice on here that no one will care and it’ll go under the radar. (People have also sneaked cats in unofficially but this is slightly more likely to get a pass as they are less noisy and/or intimidating than dogs thus less likely to garner complaints – damage to soft furnishings is the main problem, which can at least be offset by withholding any deposit).
Pets are a life saver to many people’s mental health. Disappointing that there’s still no obligation for a landlord to accept you with pets.