Allowing a pet mid tenancy

[Shyam]

My tenants have asked me if they can get a dog for their children. I thought about it overnight and I don’t really want to stop a family from enjoying life so happy to let this happen. I also think that if they’re asking, their minds are made up so it could ultimately cost me losing good tenants who look after my home and pay on time and me struggling to find a tenant for the next few months.

It’s a new build house, whilst unfurnished, my carpets and walls are less than 4 years old. Concern is the deposit wouldn’t cover additional wear and tear but knowing I couldn’t ask for more than 5 weeks deposit anyway, what’s the best way to manage the additional risk?

Should I set up a separate pet agreement? Should I issue a s.13 increase (tenancy has become a periodic) but by how much? Does anyone have any experience or examples they can help me with please?

thanks

[jpucng62]

I think if you are going to allow this you should consider the following:

1. If it's a puppy what flooring do you have? Before its is properly toilet trained you are likely to have puddles and this could ruin any flooring other than vinyl / tiles (I had a dog ruin a laminate floor this way)
2. Dogs (particularly puppies) chew - door frames, kitchen cabinets, doors etc
3. They also scratch - carpets, doors & windows in particular but also laminate floors.
4. Is the dog going to be left a home alone during the day? If so it may scratch & chew more & bark &/or howl.
5. Your garden may be destroyed &/or left covered in poo.
6. Dog hair / dander and fleas may infest your carpets.

I would ask you tenants what sort of dog they intend to get and advise them that all / any of these instances will result in charges when they leave. You can't ask for a pet deposit but you can increase your rent for extra wear & tear - but remember if you allow a dog then you are accepting wear & tear from a dog - but not damage.

Make sure they have considered all the above and the cost implications.

You don't say how long they have been there or how long they might stay - there is less of a risk with a long term tenant but with a short term tenant the risk is disproportionate.

My concern is the phrase 'for their children' - who is looking after it, walking it, cleaning up after it? You need to be sure they understand all the implications of owning a pet before you give permission. If you do, make sure they know it is for 1 pet not more or you may find 'we got another one because he was lonely'.

I hate to sound so anti pet but I have been burned, often by pets that shouldn't even have been there! Basically I like dogs but not always their owners!

Once they have the pet, make sure you do regular inspections to pick up on any damage early.

Good luck

[theartfullodger]

Good advice here..
https://www.letswithpets.org.uk/land...-for-landlords
- at least they asked.

IMHO tenants with pets (declared and allowed pets) tend to stay longer so lower expenses (re-letting), few voids.

As a father & grandfather my experience is that children's responsibility for pets ends about 2 seconds after the unpleasantness or real work is required.

[DPT57]

A deposit of 5 weeks rent is not the limit of the tenants liability. If their dog causes damage beyond that value then they have to pay it and you sue them if they don't. The issue isn't really the amount of your deposit its the quality of your check-in inventory.

[ash72]

Increase rent, to cater for new carpets, wood work, scratched things, pee, etc. that way when the tenancy ends, you've got some in your sinking fund to take care of it all.

Get proof that the dog has been jabbed for fleas by a vet.

[Section20z]

I'd say you are pleased the family are settling in and hope they are happy.
Then read every thread on this forum and see who causes the most problem ? Bad pets or bad tenants ?

You can carpet your whole house for less than a month's void if your tenants leave.....

[jpucng62]

Then read every thread on this forum and see who causes the most problem ? Bad pets or bad tenants ?

Unfortunately the two often go together

[nukecad]

I always see an issue with the 'increase the rent to cover it' (whatever 'it' is) suggestion.

My feeling/suspicion is that even though the rent has been increased to 'cover it' the LL will still be seeking full recompense at the end of the tenancy.

As a tenant I'd want something in writing to say that the rent increase is to cover whatever 'it' is, so as to avoid having to pay for 'it' twice - ongoing during the tenancy and then again at the end of the tenancy.

[ash72]

Need to slightly disagree, there are things such as rotten timber which may not be evident when you do your final checkout, due to the pet pee'ing on the floor if not house trained.

In theory, you may get a T, who will pay for all damages caused at the end of the tenancy, or they may fight it and most likely you will lose the arbitration with the organisation holding your deposit, this way you can release the funds when they leave all being well, and not have to wait months for a decision on whether or not the deposit will be yours to fix the issues.

[jpucng62]

As a tenant I'd want something in writing to say that the rent increase is to cover whatever 'it' is, so as to avoid having to pay for 'it' twice - ongoing during the tenancy and then again at the end of the tenancy.

As a LL I wouldn't ever do that! That's like tying both hands behind my back and giving you licence to trash my property!

I would suggest that the rent increase is for the additional wear and tear but damage over and above this would still be chargeable. The only argument would be where does wear and tear end and damage begin?

[Berlingogirl]

Having had every single tenants' pet cause damage it would be a no from me. The last people to move out( of the bungalow) left dog poo all scratched into two wooden doors and in the yard, so much wee that the laminate actually bent when I was removing it, chewed wood work and fur everywhere. The burst fish tank wrecked the laminate in the kitchen/diner. There wasn't enough money in the deposit to cover the damage and I've no chance of getting repaid because they were unemployed and relying on benefits. IMO it's cheaper to let a tenant who wants pets move to somewhere else. A void would have been cheaper than the damage the pets caused.

[jpucng62]

Working people and dogs don't really go together in my book - dogs need company or can be destructive &/or noisy. Non working people are not my ideal tenant so it is hard to see any situation where I think allowing a dog is a good idea

[Twohoots]

I have had dogs all my life but I do not leave them for long periods and I put a lot of time and effort into housetraining them. We have never had any damage caused by our dogs. As a Landlord I will not allow dogs in our property because I have seen first hand the damage untrained dogs can do. When we moved into our house the previous owners had allowed their teenage son to have a large dog. He then got bored with it and stopped taking it for walks and left it by itself for most of the day. the poor dog then went nuts and scratched all the kitchen walls and the back door to bits trying to get out. My friend lived next door to people who worked all day and shut their dogs in the garage. She used to see them hosing out the garage and flushing all the poos into the road. They also barked all day and annoyed the neighbours. Aside from worrying about your property, it is cruel to neglect dogs like this.

[nukecad]

I would suggest that the rent increase is for the additional wear and tear but damage over and above this would still be chargeable. The only argument would be where does wear and tear end and damage begin?

That is reasonable.

But as you say you then get into the question of just what any rent increase for increased W&T is supposed to be covering, and the question of what is W&T as opposed to damage is a major source of threads here.
So I'd still want a clear statement of just what the increased rent is indended to cover, at the very least a statement that the increased rent is to cover increased W&T which is expected to be higher than 'normal' W&T.