Requested permission to get a cat

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

    Requested permission to get a cat

    Hi all,

    Moved into this rental property last July.
    Tenancy states no pets without landlords written permission.

    A couple of months after I contacted Landlord about getting a kitten, he responded saying he would get back to me and never did.

    I'm a good tenant, never had any rent issues or really even been in contact with him at all since I moved in and everything is in great condition.

    Now I'd like to get a cat, but don't want to seem pushy, I'm assuming the non response is a no but I do feel it's unreasonable. I wouldn't like to get it without having permission of course.

    What would your recommendation be going forward?

    #2
    I would get back to him. There may be personal circumstances which have got in the way.
    cats may damage furniture, problem with toilet ing. Ask if he has concerns and could you consider solutions. In my experience respectful communication can solve most problems.

    Comment


      #3
      It would definitely not be unreasonable if you got a refusal.

      Perhaps offer a £150 or so extra rent each month, possibly to be moderated slightly a year later depending on the problems caused.

      Comment


        #4
        £1800 a year to keep a cat?!

        Comment


          #5
          The law of unintended consequences again. The ideal solution is a bigger deposit to cover any damage but that is no longer legal.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
            £1800 a year to keep a cat?!
            That's probably at the low end of the range of damage a cat can (and regularly does) cause to a pristine previously-cat-free furnished property. It's less than the cost of replacing one decent king bed, let alone a full recarpeting, door frames, curtains.

            Have you ever actually rented out a property Lawcruncher -- because frankly you seem to have no clue about the real cost of things.

            And then there is the small matter of what one does with the next tenant.

            Yes this property might be a tip and junk-hole to start off with - in which case the added cost of a cat might be small -- but here you are pontificating about the real costs of real things of which you seem blissfully unaware.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by royw View Post
              The law of unintended consequences again. The ideal solution is a bigger deposit to cover any damage but that is no longer legal.
              Quite so. Although that was never really the ideal sole solution (higher deposit) anyway given that a) accepting a cat means accepting, in large part, the damaged caused by said cat b) It means gambling on the sensible and realistic functioning of DPS arbitration which could leave you thousands of £ out of pocket even if the claim is valid c) Even 2 months of rent worth deposit would not be enough depending on the type of property, type of pet, and type of pet owner.

              Comment


                #8
                My last post was expressing surprise that you think anyone would be prepared to pay £1800 a year to keep a cat.

                Apart from that, I have been around a while and had the odd cat and known many people who keep cats. I have never heard anyone complain that their cat has caused hundreds of pounds worth of damage. The only complaints I hear are that cats present their owners with unwanted gifts. Googling suggests that around one fifth of households have cats. There would not be that many cats if they were a significant problem. I am not saying it is impossible for a cat to cause two grands' worth of damage, just that it is highly unlikely. A house is more likely to be trashed by a tenant or a member of his family who gets drunk.

                A deposit is a deposit to cover any damage. A tenant can easily do more damage than is covered by his deposit without having a pet. I never understood why keeping pets was singled out for requiring a larger deposit.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
                  I am not saying it is impossible for a cat to cause two grands' worth of damage, just that it is highly unlikely.
                  It's highly likely. But it depends how you measure damage. It is possible that a DPS adjudicator would say that L cannot get the cost of a full bed because a cat has ripped it apart, infested it and drops a few things in it. However the L would likely have to do just that. And £1800 might not even cover a bed, let alone a nice set of curtains or two.

                  I think the real problem here has to do with the autonomy of a business person to make their own assessment as to what things actually cost (for them). That assessed cost might vary wildly depending on the circumstances.

                  We don't say to a lawyer (or a barber, or a builder, or an accountant) - "your client can decide after the fact that your job is different to that which you contracted to do, and that you cannot assess what you want (or need) to charge for a changed service". And yet somehow it is OK to say to a landlord that the service he is offering has changed, and that he himself has no right to assess that cost (to him, not to a hypothetical property) or to prevent that service change. If the OP wanted a cat they should have obtained a different property. If they negotiate on the current contract then they need to accept the outcome of that negotiation. Anything else is really not good, fair or right - and this is not me speaking as a landlord - because the damage caused by this type of thinking is far greater to most tenants than it has ever been to landlords.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    As a cat owner I find it excessive to suggest a cat could do so much damage. I don't think Jessj would have a.cat running wild.
                    I repeat my first suggestion to discuss solutions with the landlord. Most people are polite and reasonable.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      My previously childless tenants have recently had a baby, unexpected when they took the tenancy 7 years ago. I expect it to do more damage than a cat so perhaps I should tell them to put it up for adoption??
                      Perhaps I've been lucky but I find the type of people who look after your property and have well behaved kids also look after their animals properly. So far I've had no damage from pets (touches wood).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Cats are feral and can damage to furnishings and introduce fleas.
                        AFAIK the LL can still charge an amount for granting permission.
                        Pet damage is not FW&T.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          As your tenancy said 'no pets without permission' perhaps you should not be surprised by the lack of a positive response.

                          I understand you are frustrated, as you deem yourself a good tenant, but as the replies above show you, LLs are very wary of pets because they can do a lot of damage.

                          Amongst other things, cats can damage carpets at closed doors by scratching at them - which is very difficult to repair because of the nature of the damage - and if they wee on the carpet this goes through to the underlay and cannot be removed easily by cleaning the carpet.

                          That said, I had tenants, like you, who wanted a cat soon after they had moved in.

                          You need to understand that the longer you stay in the property the better risk you become for the LL. I said 'no' to my tenants because they had just signed a tenancy that said 'no pets'. After a year they asked again. By this time I had an idea of the sort of tenant they were and how likely they were to stay. Short term tenants cost a LL more, so once I knew I had a good set of responsible tenants in, who wanted to stay long term, I agreed they could have a cat.

                          They have just completed 3 years, so any damage done by the cat will be mitigated by the wear and tear of 3 years rental and it is now a lower risk to me to allow a pet.

                          I suggest you wait until you have been there a year, which shows your commitment to the house, and ask again. You may still not get the answer you want but you may, particularly if you are committed to staying in the property.

                          A note of warning: if you get your cat and then decide to move you will need your next LL to accept a pet from the beginning and as the answers on this site show you, that might severely limit the properties available to you.

                          Good luck

                          Comment


                            #14
                            It would be a no from me. One of my tenants got a kitten without asking, I might add. The kitten ruined every bit of wallpaper it could reach all around the room it was kept in and had started on the plaster round the window. My daughter had a kitten and that climbed up the wallpaper in the stairs and landing right up to the highest part and ruined the wallpaper. Kittens also ruin net curtains, curtains, furniture etc by scratching, pooing and peeing and bringing in fleas. Another tenant's cat brought fleas into the house and the whole house was infested. Cats leave dander and fur and .... sick up furballs - gross. A male cat's pee absolutely stinks and getting rid of the smell is almost impossible.

                            So can a kitten cause £2k of damage over the duration of the tenancy? Very possibly. That's why it will always be a no.

                            My tenancy agreements say that pets, whether agreed or not will incur a charge of £25 pcm each and that includes stick insects (yuck).

                            Tenants who want a pet should find a pet friendly property.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                              It would definitely not be unreasonable if you got a refusal.

                              Perhaps offer a £150 or so extra rent each month, possibly to be moderated slightly a year later depending on the problems caused.
                              such hugely inflated rents might make Section 13 rent increases interesting probably easier to say no

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X