Pets causing eviction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • KTC
    replied
    The OP seems to implied that the landlord is a charity who had a change of CEO, and the new CEO don't want tenants to have dogs.

    Sure the agent not having told landlord is probably the most likely, but the alternative is at least plausible.

    Leave a comment:


  • blinko
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    I bet letting agent never told landlord about dogs before letting, and they only found out when they got the inspection report.
    Totally !!!! what landlord is going to honestly allow tenants to view property, agree to take them, agree to take their pets. THEN a few weeks later say no pets you have to leave!!!

    Agents didn't tell him plain and simple, sounds like they just said whatever they wanted to get you in the property. I would try to get in contact with the landlord and explain the situation, landlords are more sympathetic than you might believe.

    Post back here and we can help you

    Leave a comment:


  • KTC
    replied
    The court in a section 8 taking it as evidence that the tenant was in the wrong and didn't actually get permission, so award possession?

    Paying higher rent as you suggested?

    Leave a comment:


  • tatemono
    replied
    Originally posted by KTC View Post

    Err, how about not?... They should be the one receiving the apology, not the other way round.
    You're correct.

    But just because you're in the right in life, it doesn't mean you can't choose to apologise. I've often found it prevents a situation from escalating where banging on about your rights and who "should" do what only makes a bad situation worse. What has the OP got to lose anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • KTC
    replied
    Originally posted by tatemono View Post
    perhaps you could draft a letter apologising if there's been a misunderstanding and with an offer of compromise through higher rent and send it directly to the landlord. That would work with me.
    Err, how about not? OP made sure they requested permission, which was granted. Either the LA screwed up, or the landlord (as a corporate entity) changed their mind as a result of changes in human staff. There's nothing for the tenant to apologise for. They should be the one receiving the apology, not the other way round.

    Leave a comment:


  • tatemono
    replied
    if I was your landlord, I'd be furious if I'd discovered that the LA had not told me about the dogs prior to letting. I would sack my agent and take over the let or transfer it to another agent asap. I would also realise that your dogs are family to you (I hate dogs but feel the same way about our cats as you do about your dogs). Because of that, I'd see the silver lining and ask you to pay a reasonably higher rent as a compromise.

    It certainly wouldn't help me as a landlord to immediately evict you - that's a ton of hassle. Instead, I'd realise that I had a tenant who very much wants to stay and is willing to compromise to keep their babies. Win win.

    perhaps you could draft a letter apologising if there's been a misunderstanding and with an offer of compromise through higher rent and send it directly to the landlord. That would work with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by mariner View Post
    OP clearly stated they knowingly signed the TA that clearly said 'No Pets' and they clearly had as least 1 rottie.
    LL can evict and T may be liable for Hearing & baliliff costs. (£350 approx).
    What the OP said was: "The tenancy agreement does state no pets without permission from the landlord and as I previously stated we asked and were given that permission."

    Leave a comment:


  • alice123
    replied
    Did you pay any sort of dog bond ?

    Leave a comment:


  • KTC
    replied
    And "no pets" without any qualification is probably unfair and not enforceable, which would result in no restriction at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    The tenancy agreement does state no pets without permission from the landlord and as I previously stated we asked and were given that permission.
    That's not the same as "no pets".

    Leave a comment:


  • mariner
    replied
    OP clearly stated they knowingly signed the TA that clearly said 'No Pets' and they clearly had as least 1 rottie.
    LL can evict and T may be liable for Hearing & baliliff costs. (£350 approx).

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    1. Could you post the exact "no pets" clause?
    2. You cannot be forced to get rid of your pets, but LL can use S21 to evict you.
    3. Actions of the agent are considered to be actions of the LL.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Wiffle View Post
    We've requested a letter from the charity or letting agent giving us what they wish is to comply with, reason for the change to the tenancy, amount of notice to comply and formally requested a pow wow with all parties to see if meditation can bring this to an end. We warned the agent that we will be willing to take this as far as is needed (section 21) if resolve can't be reached through other means, they support us all the way.
    While it's helpful that the agent seems to be sympathetic, don't forget that they work for the landlord and owe them a significant duty to act in their interest.

    If the tenancy agreement says you can keep pets with the permission of the landlord and the permission was given (which the agent can do on their behalf), the only way that the tenancy can be ended is by serving a s21 notice, which doesn't have to give any reason, so that's the most practical resolution for the landlord.

    They certainly shouldn't put in writing any demand for you to get rid of your dogs (with or without a stupid deadline), so I'd guess they won't do that.

    I don't see their being any value for the landlord in mediation (there's no realistic compromise) or for any justification (as any documentation doesn't help the landlord).

    So the balls in their court, they'll either serve notice or they won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    When dealing with landlords and letting agents it is wise to assume, though it is by no means always the case, that their word is anythng but their bond. It has to be inviolable rule, and it applies to any contract, that you refuse to sign it if it does not record what has been agreed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Good luck!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X