GRcade

My main issue would be that depending on the pet (and the owner) it’s the damage that a pet could do to things like carpets, hard floors, skirting boards, doors etc

Fade wrote:But if we're getting a hairless cat how would hair allergies be relevant?

We're going to get it either way so my girlfriend reckons it would be better to get it and not ask, then ask, risk him saying no and then do it anyway.

Especially since we already have a pet, and the flat we are moving into was on the market for a long time, so much so that we managed to haggle the rent down. So even if he does find out I figure that he'd rather just sort something out with us rather than try and find new tennants.

I would obviously rather ask but my girlfriend is set on getting a cat and she went through a rough breakup where her ex took her cat, so I can understand what this means to her.

It's a protein in cat's saliva (I think it's present in their sweat too) that causes most people's cat allergies, not the actual hair itself. Sphynx cats do still have hair but it's very short.

I wouldn't risk it without checking with the landlord first.

I asked per your guys advice and the letting agent said the landlord does not wish to have pets, which doesn't make any sense because our lease literally says that pets are allowed with permission from the landlord, and we already have permission for another pet

As if the landlord doesn't have enough to deal with what with ants and new shower heads needing to be sorted out.

Did you specify it was a cat? They're probably happier with a tortoise who won't scratch the gooseberry fool out of the wallpaper.

How does it not make sense? They gave permission for the first pet and are now not giving permission for the second pet. Seems like exactly what the lease says.

Judging by last post (and I don't wish to judge), you're thinking of doing it anyway. From the outside it looks like this:

You want to make your girl happy with the thing she wants (sphinx cat which is a bit of a fad at the moment)
My girl would probably want a house more than a cat (even though she wants a cat AND is alergic, and like you we already have a reptile)
If you go against landlord's instructions you are willingly ignoring and breaking the contract
They have a right to evict you because of that, even though they can evict you anyway, because it speaks of dishonesty
You will have a bad landlord/agent reference on your next application
Your girl probably wants a house more than a cat
Plus you will probably be stuck with the cat, as there's only one thing worse than what you can't have, it's having it and then losing it

So I say you need to say it's out of your hands and you can't have the cat. These days renting requires a record of good standing with letting agents if you want somewhere good, and I wouldn't risk that.

Scummy landlords ought to strawberry float off and let people have pets if they want. People pay a fortune to live in a home, they should be entitled to a normal home life, which includes pets.

Any damage should be paid for by the tenant, but landlords should not be able to block people having pets.

Moggy wrote:Scummy landlords ought to strawberry float off and let people have pets if they want. People pay a fortune to live in a home, they should be entitled to a normal home life, which includes pets.

Any damage should be paid for by the tenant, but landlords should not be able to block people having pets.

Are you talking about OP because they've got a tortoise

Dual wrote:

Moggy wrote:Scummy landlords ought to strawberry float off and let people have pets if they want. People pay a fortune to live in a home, they should be entitled to a normal home life, which includes pets.

Any damage should be paid for by the tenant, but landlords should not be able to block people having pets.

Are you talking about OP because they've got a tortoise

They are the strawberry floating worst. Pizza, weapons and mutant rats everywhere.

Moggy wrote:Scummy landlords ought to strawberry float off and let people have pets if they want. People pay a fortune to live in a home, they should be entitled to a normal home life, which includes pets.

Any damage should be paid for by the tenant, but landlords should not be able to block people having pets.

Agreed. I also don't believe it should be legal to require a reference or a guarantor, or to refuse people on benefits.

If it were down to me I would nationalise all spare housing stock.

I don't think it's nice at all as I love animals but unfortunately I've come to understand that you are better off being a good tenant than pissing the land barons off. We have a nice place quite probably because our renting history is really good, that's more important than keeping a fuzzy animal.

I miss my cat.

Karl wrote:Agreed. I also don't believe it should be legal to require a reference or a guarantor, or to refuse people on benefits.

The sheer emotional pain I had to go through just to admit and check the box saying "Are you in receipt of benefits" was revolting when we applied for current place, as it's quite common in this town to say "No housing benefit please". Why the strawberry float not? Who's business is it where the rent comes from if it is paid? strawberry floating scum.

I think we spent over £450 on referencing for the same agent when we already had 3 years of renting history and referencing done on the same file for another property. ... Which we were moving out of because it was inherited and then immediately sold. Apparently this was required because it's "new property, new file". And all the referencing details were exactly the same. And they couldn't sign off on the same references, or produce them manually, the landlord apparently required they be done by the same external agency (something I don't believe one bit). Again.

It's the most evil gooseberry fool in this country.

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:Scummy landlords ought to strawberry float off and let people have pets if they want. People pay a fortune to live in a home, they should be entitled to a normal home life, which includes pets.

Any damage should be paid for by the tenant, but landlords should not be able to block people having pets.

Agreed. I also don't believe it should be legal to require a reference or a guarantor, or to refuse people on benefits.

If it were down to me I would nationalise all spare housing stock.

I am not sure about nationalising spare housing stock, but I agree with the rest of it.

Being a landlord has so many rewards, they ought to damn well be forced to put up with the risks.

Here's what I don't get

Deposit of £1k+

What damage do they actually expect? That is going to cost that much?

Also the flat we are moving into has cracks in the walls, so them citing potential damage makes absolutely no sense.

And the situation is more complex than it seems, I would be fine leaving the cat but my girlfriend really needs it.

In the past I understand the pets thing because renting was a choice, now? You have no choice but to rent, so not only do landlords take away your choices they take away your freedom.

Well, it is possible to rent somewhere and have a pet. It's just 90% of the case it's a blanket clause in a contract literally downloaded from the internet.

I have seen cats gooseberry fool everywhere and rip stuff up in somewhere my mum had a lodger in, where my eldest brother moved to because he had issues, it's not nice, but certainly can't see any reason why the damage or cleaning costs couldn't be debited from the tenant's deposit at their own risk.

I've also had my cat piss everywhere mostly because of spraying which smelt rank but then also because he got sick and had liver issues. You can't predict all these things.

Unfortunately some people really don't know how to keep a pet healthy and will literally let it gooseberry fool in the house and not even clean it up. Tenants are expected to be lowest common denominator kind of people. The "class" of individuals that will take care of a place because they would probably otherwise want to buy somewhere (although I really don't, not yet), are best off building favour with a landlord/agent to at least get somewhere that is worth taking care of rather than some shitheap. That's about the best of a very bad deal.

You could try making an emotional plea to the landlord about therapeutic need etc., they're not all monsters, but I'm not sure it's worth the stress.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Fade wrote:Hey guys

Long story short I want to get a hairless sphynx cat, but live in rented accommodation, and as we know 90% of these places say no pets.

Now we have a tortoise and they are fine with that (he lives in a vivarium though) but I was just wondering if anybody has asked their landlord in the past about owning a cat and if they did how did they react?

Thanks

Im a landlord and I've had one renting couple who had a dog and 2 rabbits. The house strawberry floatin stunk from the dog, and the rabbits molted like a strawberry floatin yeti. I'd never allow a dog or rabbits again. However, I have 3 cats and I would class them as clean animals, but they can damage furniture etc., but the deposit would probably cover any of that.

Anyway, what have you got to lose by asking the landlord (except the landlord searching your house for evidence of animal ownership)?

He already asked and they said no.

Also you might want to consider renting somewhere with floorboards (not the old style with massive cracks in them as that's just as bad but modern laminate/panel flooring) in the future as that would considerably improve the argument for having a cat. And have your own furniture.

If it was up to me, any couple, commercial entity or individual owning more than two domestic properties in this country would be illegal. Citizens with multiple properties would have a certain amount of time. (2 years IMO) to sell up or be forced into selling them to the government for 80% of the market value. Said plan would end up lowering house prices to seni-affordable levels at worst without crashing the market or the economy.

Of course, nothing like this will ever come to pass because some of the people that abuse the housing market are MPs and they're making more money off that than their salaries pay them.

Green Gecko wrote:I don't think it's nice at all as I love animals but unfortunately I've come to understand that you are better off being a good tenant than pissing the land barons off. We have a nice place quite probably because our renting history is really good, that's more important than keeping a fuzzy animal.

I miss my cat.

Karl wrote:Agreed. I also don't believe it should be legal to require a reference or a guarantor, or to refuse people on benefits.

The sheer emotional pain I had to go through just to admit and check the box saying "Are you in receipt of benefits" was revolting when we applied for current place, as it's quite common in this town to say "No housing benefit please". Why the strawberry float not? Who's business is it where the rent comes from if it is paid? strawberry floating scum.

I think we spent over £450 on referencing for the same agent when we already had 3 years of renting history and referencing done on the same file for another property. ... Which we were moving out of because it was inherited and then immediately sold. Apparently this was required because it's "new property, new file". And all the referencing details were exactly the same. And they couldn't sign off on the same references, or produce them manually, the landlord apparently required they be done by the same external agency (something I don't believe one bit). Again.

It's the most evil gooseberry fool in this country.

The problem is that people on benefits can't afford to pay for excessive damage. Most landlords will have been stung by abusive tenants at some point (I have) and wont entertain having anymore 'DSS' tenants. You can sue someone who is working, but you cant sue skint people.