Dog size chart for tenants idea

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

  • Rewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by dazwalsh View Post
    Im pretty sure it was added to the unfair terms which comes under the consumer rights act 2015.

    i know the RLA tenancy agreements were changed from no pets to “any request in wiriting for a pet will not be unreasonably refused.” or something along those lines.

    to refuse with reason would not be difficult, so this means very little and is quite misleading.

    Imagine someone requesting they get a pet and it turns out to be the most unsuitable pet for them, their property and lifestyle. What about the behavioural issues that follow a lack of ownership knowledge.

    Its often an owner issue than the pets fault. What if they fail to house train said pet, plus they live in a 1 bed back to back, it's just not reasonable to simply say "a pet will not be unreasonably refused" you need alot more info which can become extremely complex considering every animal is different.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Originally posted by dazwalsh View Post
    i know the RLA tenancy agreements were changed from no pets to “any request in wiriting for a pet will not be unreasonably refused.” or something along those lines.

    I can't imagine anyone voluntarily using that agreement now. With friends like them... eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    I have had a look at the Act and cannot see anything in the list of "Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair" which obviously applies. An important provision though is the one which says: "A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract." This why I suggest above that if you want to ban pets you need to make it crystal clear at the outset. The point is that if you want to impose a restriction which is not universal and which a potential tenant may regard as deal breaking, you have to let them know early. It is of course best practice to allow the potental tenant plenty of time to read and take in the tenancy agreement.

    Leave a comment:


  • dazwalsh
    replied
    Im pretty sure it was added to the unfair terms which comes under the consumer rights act 2015.

    i know the RLA tenancy agreements were changed from no pets to “any request in wiriting for a pet will not be unreasonably refused.” or something along those lines.


    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by dazwalsh View Post
    I know we arent allowed to say “No pets” in adverts
    I am not aware of any law or regulation which says that.

    Leave a comment:


  • dazwalsh
    replied
    I have just taken back posession of a house used to breed pitbulls, this all despite a no pets policy. The damage is unreal. Starting with the outside the decking has been chewed and what was once a healthy grassed lawn pulled to bits leaving a muddy mess full of holes and dog muck. Brand new external composite doors scratched to buggery as dogs were left out all day long.

    Inside every ground floor door and frame chewed, kitchen units are going to have to be replaced as too every floor covering and im not entirely sure the smell will ever go. This house had a full overhaul less than a year ago and im almost back at square one after this.

    Beggers belief how people can live like that, 7 dogs there at one point. Police, council and RSPCA didnt give a hoot about the situation.

    I know we arent allowed to say “No pets” in adverts but if anyone enquires saying they have a dog they are getting told its already let sorry. Never again. Its another case of the minority spoiling it for the rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by JK0 View Post
    And Lawcruncher thinks we are cruel for not allowing pets!
    I do not thnk it is cruel. Rather I ask, as I do on other restrictions: Are you in BTL to provide homes or just places to live?

    Everyone can quote a worst case scenario, but the fact is that millions up and down the land keep pets with no greater problems than hairs and the odd chewed slipper. If you have a three bedroom house with a large garden is it reasonable to exclude all pets if owner-occupiers on either side are free to keep them? I have no great problem if a property is clearly adverstised as "no pets" and on an enquiry being made you emphasise that no pets means exactly that. However, I do have a problem if no mention is made and the day before the tenancy is due to begin you produce a tenancy agreement with a no pets clause.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rewolf
    replied
    How about allergies though ... I would not buy a house that had a cat living in it, would not be able to go in my own property to inspect etc without becoming rapidly ill and feeling dreadful for days. Even with antihistamines

    Years ago I went to inspect a property (not one of mine) it was full of cats and they had even clicked and torn out the gaskets on the double glazing, chewed the window handles and scratched every window cill. Not to mention the entire house was one massive cat toilet covered in hairs. Even the fridge freezer and oven were ruined by the cats. That's was the worst I'd seen. The second was a big house with a newly installed 20k kitchen, owners were not intending to rent it out but anyway they were tricked on the day they were emigrating by the tenant saying oh I forgot to mention I've a cat....they allowed her to continue with an extra bind of a few hundred quid, in fear of not been able to meet other tenants before leaving. That cat scratched all the kitchen cupboards and units ... Caused thousands of pounds worth of damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nikirh
    replied
    My son moved out taking his pets. Oh yes, one cat, but how many geckos, snakes, dart frogs and goodness knows what they have acquired since! Oh and they left one cat with me so I now have three instead of the one I originally wanted...

    Leave a comment:


  • zanorias
    replied
    Poor fish indeed. I feel sorry for animals that find themselves pets of irresponsible owners and people who see them as things rather than lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • KeepTheFaith
    replied
    Sorry about your laminate floor but also poor fish

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    The worst pet damage I've had so far was in a no pets house. A huge aquarium. A bike propped up against it. The tank burst and water soaked the brand new laminate that went throughout the dining room and hall. Floor ruined. Fish scooped up and put down the toilet.

    Second worst were a pair of birds that pooped everywhere, seeds everywhere and they chewed everything including walls and curtain poles.

    Leave a comment:


  • KeepTheFaith
    replied
    Originally posted by zanorias View Post

    You'll likely know better than most...
    Of course it could just be I tend to attract those types of pets... Just like JK0 tends to attract those types of tenants. 😂

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Cats "soften" where they sleep with their claws.
    You can't train them not to, and declawing is inhumane.

    You can't fully house train cats or dogs.
    You can be 99% confident, but once there's been an accident, that spot is then OK from then on.

    I keep dogs and cats (and used to keep rabbits in the house).
    You have to be realistic about them.

    Leave a comment:


  • zanorias
    replied
    Originally posted by KeepTheFaith View Post
    Yes many aren't trained properly or exceedingly difficult to train. Most of my clients are responsible pet owners who do their best for their pets. But they aren't dog/cat trainer experts so they don't have perfectly behaved pets.
    .
    You'll likely know better than most that - just like humans - cats and dogs vary as individuals. Just as some people will be hard to educate in school or work with, some pets will learn/behave better than others and no one say 100% that a cat or dog will or won't cause damage. Hence there will always be an element of risk with pets in properties and I guess it depends whether the landlord is happy to justify it.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X