Right to keep pets? Is hiding pets okay?

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

  • Jon66
    replied


    Even after 13 May, I can totally understand someone’s reticence to visit a property to view it in person and if photographs were provided, it is completely reasonable for the prospective tenant to assume they were recent and representative of the current state of the property.[/QUOTE]

    You are far more trusting than me.

    Leave a comment:


  • alex1
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    The list in the regs is open to interpretation and is not exclusive.
    Between 26 March and 13 May, it was illegal to view a residential property in England.

    As originally enacted, regulation 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 made it illegal to leave one’s home without a reasonable excuse. Paragraph 2 of regulation 6 enumerated the reasonable excuses. One of these, subparagraph (2)(l), said in its entirety:

    (l) to move house where reasonably necessary;

    Subparagraph (2)(l) was amended by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. Regulation 2 subparagraph (3)(v) of those regulations amended the original regulations so that subparagraph (2)(l) now read:

    (l) to undertake any of the following activities in connection with the purchase, sale, letting or rental of a residential property—
    (i) visiting estate or letting agents, developer sales offices or show homes;
    (ii) viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or rent;
    (iii) preparing a residential property to move in;
    (iv) moving home;
    (v) visiting a residential property to undertake any activities required for the rental or sale of that property;


    Note subparagraph (2)(l)(v): viewing residential properties to look for a property to buy or rent.

    Now, they wouldn’t have made viewing properties legal if it was already legal!

    Even after 13 May, I can totally understand someone’s reticence to visit a property to view it in person and if photographs were provided, it is completely reasonable for the prospective tenant to assume they were recent and representative of the current state of the property.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    The agent should have pointed out the no pets clause at the very outset.

    Anyway, the OP can keep rabbits as the Allotments Act 1950 says:

    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 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Self sufficient
    replied
    I have seen someone who haven't got his pet but have plenty of visitors with pets. Will that still breach the condition of contract despite there is no pacific clause in ast prohibiting the pet owner guests.

    Leave a comment:


  • bertie57
    replied
    Miloarchie2016,

    I think you need to ask yourself how much you want the rabbits. If you had to choose between the rabbits and the house, which would it be? Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the landlord can simply turn around and serve notice at the earliest opportunity. However, based on the descriptions you gave, it doesn't sound like this property is overly attractive to tenants so the landlord may be keen to keep you. Of course, the agent may encourage the landlord to serve notice so they can collect another signing fee when they find new tenants. It's a gamble and you need to weigh up your options. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face!

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisDennison
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    Familiarise yourself with statutory law, you may find it useful one day.
    Thanks for the advice, I’m sure coming from you it will mean much to me

    Joking aside, all I meant was that it isn’t unusual that tenants have agreed tenancies during coronavirus times without physically visiting the property. It’s far from ideal, I certainly wouldn’t have done it - but I understand that many have done so, for what they deemed good reasons.

    No reason to become snotty, so back to professional conduct again please.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTL investor
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    The list in the regs is open to interpretation.
    Especially if you need to test your eyesight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    The list in the regs is open to interpretation and is not exclusive. In any case the poster did not have to sign up to a tenancy during the lockdown and could have delayed entering into a contract for the property until they had viewed it in person which was the most sensible option. I know that sounds harsh, but a poor bargain is exactly that. While it's sad that some landlords are misleading prospective tenants, the fact is it's difficult to get out of a tenancy at the stage where it has started.

    Perhaps the op should have jogged to the viewing with her rabbit. That might have covered it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    ChrisBusiness meetings between 2 people was permitted as was moving house. Familiarise yourself with statutory law, you may find it useful one day.
    A property viewing is not a business meeting.

    And, until the travel restrictions were loosened, it was not possible for the tenants to legally travel to the viewing, as their journey didn't meet the requirements of a reasonable excuse for travel under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    I also showed people round a property recently, keeping a good distance and disinfecting everything they touched afterwards (I kept all the doors open so there was very little that they touched).

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    ChrisDennison, yes but Coronavirus is not a reason to fail to view the property. I let a property in May and had viewings by giving the prospective tenants a key in the car park so they could view on their own. Business meetings between 2 people was permitted as was moving house. Familiarise yourself with statutory law, you may find it useful one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    My house has a garden which I used to rent, then bought it. One of the stipulations was that I couldn't keep livestock on the land. We don't know if a similar stipulation applied to the OPs garden.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisDennison
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    But why would you sign a contract to rent a property unseen, the tenant should have carried out due diligence. It's very difficult to establish the condition of a property from a video and after the event to complain the property is in a poor state of repair in order to justify breaching the tenancy conditions is not the way to behave. Op should have brought these matters up before signing a legally binding agreement. A poor bargain is just that.
    Heard of this thing called coronavirus?

    Leave a comment:


  • nukecad
    replied
    Originally posted by Macromia View Post
    The landlord may be completely unaware of the stance being taken by the managing agent,
    That's what I first thought.

    But if that were the case then why would the agent take a unilateral stance on 'no pets' when they could make an easy quick fee just for saying OK and writing a letter (an addendum to the TA) allowing them for this tenant?
    That tends make me think that it is an instruction from the LL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    But why would you sign a contract to rent a property unseen, the tenant should have carried out due diligence. It's very difficult to establish the condition of a property from a video and after the event to complain the property is in a poor state of repair in order to justify breaching the tenancy conditions is not the way to behave. Op should have brought these matters up before signing a legally binding agreement. A poor bargain is just that.
    Personally, I would not even consider signing a long term agreement without first physically viewing the property (and a rental agreement that is likely to be for 6 months or longer counts as 'long term' I.M.O.), however, it is important to remember that we don't know all of the details.

    Without meaning to be rude, I get the impression that the OP, who has stated that this is their first property, is probably fairly young and is very naive with regard to renting property, and it is therefore _possible_ that they have been taken advantage of by the letting agent. It sounds like the OP believed that the video/photos that they were shown were recent and showed the property in the state that it would be when they moved in. We don't know whether or not the OP + their partner asked to physically view the property or not, or whether they were told by the letting agent that this would not be possible at all due to Covid restrictions, but either way the letting agents had a responsibility to inform them that the video/photos they were seeing were not recent.
    Unless the OP _was_ told all of this, and has just omitted this from their story, they will have a case that that the agents misrepresented the property before the lease was signed (although it might be a difficult case to actually make).

    The tenant has also stated that they have sought permission to have the rabbits at the property and, if the clauses in the lease are quoted accurately, it would therefore be the landlord (via the letting/managing agent) who has first breached the lease - as we have been told that the lease states that permission for pets will not be unreasonably withheld, yet the tenants have been told that no pets are allowed at all (which is unreasonably withholding permission).

    Based on the details that we have been told, I do not consider any of the actions that the OP says that they have already taken to be unreasonable. I _do_ agree with what others have said regarding hiding pets (which would be a breach of the lease if permission is not first granted), and would advise the OP against doing this, but so far I would consider that it is only the actions of the landlord (via the agents who are acting for them) that have been unreasonable.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X