If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop. That’s the sentence.
If the landlord doesn’t like that it may affect their investment, well… sometimes investments go bad. Might I suggest selling the house and investing in a market that isn’t built around the exploitation of regular people trying to not die on the street.
Just sayin’.
First off, fuck landlords - they shouldn’t have a say in whether you’re allowed to keep pets.
I do however think that people in your house should have a say with loud animals. There are few things more annoying to me than incessant barking - and even if that usually isn’t the case with a well-trained dog, you usually have little guarantee how it will turn out.
That’s not to say I’m absolutely against dogs. Someone in my house is a dog trainer, and they wanted to get one, and asked the house for permission. I agreed since they have the necessary knowledge - but if it were someone else I probably wouldn’t have agreed, because there isn’t much you can do once they own a loud dog.
Removed by mod
EDIT: I misread/misinterpreted OPs comment, but I’ll leave my reply - fuck penalising the poor for being poor.
I completely disagree. I’ll never get a mortgage because I can’t work. That doesn’t mean I can’t look after my cat - I take better care of her than I do myself! I wasn’t ill when I first got her - I had no idea I’d be permanently unable to work within a year of getting her. Should I have lost my pet as well as my health, my job, my future? Not if I could look after her properly, which I do. Here in the UK, the RSPCA help people like me who got a pet and then suffered an unforeseen change in circumstances. They offer heavily reduced vet care and vaccinations because being low income/disabled/elderly/not owning a freaking house doesn’t mean you can’t be a loving, responsible pet owner.
No one can see into the future or know what will befall us. Aren’t an alarming percentage of people just a couple of paycheques away from losing their homes? Should no one get a pet just in case something bad happens in the future? No. That’s ridiculous.
That’s not to say I’m not sensible about it. I really really want a dog, but I know that would stretch my finances too far. I will take in my mums cats when she passes away though - and they we be loved and cared for, despite my failure to own a house.
I think you misread the comment you’re replying to?
Ah, it’s not OPs sentiment, they were summing up the article? My bad.
No, the comment you’re replying to says “If you’re forced to rent because you can’t get on the housing ladder, you should be allowed to have an animal as a pet. Full stop”
They’re agreeing with you, I think you must have misread should as shouldn’t or something like that. It’s easily done :) I was just a bit confused reading the comment and reply.
This will be of limited value if they don’t also address leasehold restrictions on pets. “No pets” is written into my landlord’s lease (and every leasehold contract I’ve ever seen) so they can’t allow us to have a pet even if they wanted to.
Unless they outlaw agents / landlords asking if they have a pet, nothing will change.
Because you bet your ass they’ll be picking tenants without pets if they don’t want pets.
Leaseholds are a nightmare from front to back right? Why are they still a thing.
I agree they’re a nightmare, but how else do you deal with situations like a block of flats where you only own one bit of a building?
The block of flats would be council owned by the tax payer… taps-head.jif
Or the residents. And what if the majority of residents didn’t want pets?
Lookup allotments act 1950. Allows you to at least have a rabbit, or chicken if you really want to. Doesn’t matter what’s written in the tenancy agreement. The act overrides it and allows them.
Lettings agents like to pretend it doesn’t exist and then quietly give up when it’s pointed out to them or they check with their legal people.
“Abolition of contractual restrictions on keeping hens and rabbits (1)Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any lease or tenancy or in any covenant, contract or undertaking relating to the use to be made of any land, it shall be lawful for the occupier of any land to keep, otherwise than by way of trade or business, hens or rabbits in any place on the land and to erect or place and maintain such buildings or structures on the land as are reasonably necessary for that purpose:Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise any hens or rabbits to be kept in such a place or in such a manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance or affect the operation of any enactment. (2)This section shall have effect as from the time when Regulation sixty-two B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, ceases to have effect as respects England and Wales.”
Ah yes, I’m sure you’re right and the courts are looking at this because they somehow forgot.
Or maybe the right to keep small livestock on an allotment has nothing to do with keeping a pet in a home?
Called allotments act but the way it’s written is more broad and applies. There’s a few articles on it, but so niche hardly anyone knows of it
And you’re not linking to any of them because they’re FOTL-style nonsense and you know it?
https://www.property118.com/landlords-must-let-tenants-keep-chickens-and-rabbits/
https://www.propertymark.co.uk/professional-standards/consumer-guides/tenants/renting-with-pets.html
http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/archive/index.php/t-331287.html?s=5982f6b904ea05b81116ed15791b87b3
Took me a moment to realise what fotl might mean. Is it that sovereign citizen type thing?
Surely it should be a case of “do what you want in your flat as long as you don’t cause damage”? What’s the issue? Landlords are such fannies.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The new bill “requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent”, leaving a new ombudsman for private renting, and ultimately the courts, to decide what is reasonable – creating a new grey area in landlord-tenant relations.
“If they want to have a pack of Great Danes live there, that should be their right, but they will also be liable for costs if the dogs tear the place up,” said Tom Darling, the coalition’s campaign manager.
The bill will also ask courts to rule on cases of antisocial behaviour, as the government plans to give landlords stronger powers to turf out badly behaved tenants.
The same survey showed a majority of the public supports ending no-fault evictions and banning inflation-busting rent rises, and renters are due to protest outside parliament on Monday, warning MPs: “Vote down popular rental reforms at your peril.”
Angela Rayner, the shadow housing secretary, said tenants have been “left paying a heavy price for the government’s inaction with tens of thousands threatened with homelessness and receiving visits from the bailiffs”.
“Labour welcomes the long-awaited second reading of the renters reform bill, but we will look to strengthen it to ensure it meets the scale of the housing crisis this Conservative government has created,” she added.
The original article contains 846 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s a tricky one in flats where you are literally living on top of each other, as you not only have the issue of noise and, potentially, mess but I know at least one person who had to move because someone in another flat got a dog and they are terrified of them (and another person was in the same boat but didn’t have the option of moving).
How would this be any different if you owned the flat?
Landlords can currently deny tenants who want pets, and some have charged “pet rent”.
Well, it does bring extra issues for the landlord, so I suppose that having a pet fee is reasonable, but it sounds like there’s a fair argument that the demand is undersupplied today.
This is for the US, but I wouldn’t be surprised if numbers hold.
https://www.tenantcloud.com/blog/pets-in-rental-properties-a-guide-for-landlords-and-tenants
After surveying 1,000 tenants, it was found that approximately 90% of renters have pets. On the other hand, around 69% of landlords do not allow pets in their rental properties due to concerns about potential pet-related issues such as odor, property damage, lack of training, noise complaints, and the property’s suitability for pets. In a competitive rental market, landlords may choose not to risk losing potential tenants who don’t have pets. One solution to this issue could be for renters with pets to pay an increased deposit to cover possible damages. However, around 88% of pet owners have never had any complaints or caused any damage to rental properties.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the pros and cons of renting to pet owners to better understand the implications of such a decision.
Pros:
-
Increased Demand: Allowing pets in your rental property can open up your pool of potential tenants, as many pet owners struggle to find pet-friendly housing.
-
Higher Rent: Pet owners are often willing to pay a higher rent or a pet deposit, which can increase your rental income.
-
Longer Tenancy: Pet owners tend to be more settled and stay in one place for longer periods, which can reduce tenant turnover and vacancy rates.
-
Responsible Tenants: Pet owners are often trustworthy and caring and most likely will treat your property with respect and care.
-
Emotional Support: For some tenants, having a pet can be a source of emotional support and can aid mental health issues.
Cons:
-
Property Damage: Pets can cause significant damage to a rental property, including scratches, stains, and odors, which can be costly to repair.
-
Noise Complaints: Barking dogs and meowing cats can be a source of disturbance to other tenants and can lead to noise complaints.
-
Liability Issues: If a tenant’s pet injures someone or causes damage to someone else’s property, you as the landlord may be held liable.
-
Cleaning Costs: Even well-behaved pets can shed hair and dander, which can require additional cleaning and maintenance between tenants.
-
Lease Violations: Some tenants may try to sneak in a pet without your permission, which can lead to lease violations and legal issues.
it sounds like there’s a fair argument that the demand is undersupplied today.
This is the only argument in my mind. The supply of housing is far too restricted. This is allowing landlords to gouge. If government really worked for the people, then it would have done something about this years ago.
-
