Having a Pet in Rented Accommodation?

Cry me a river, landlords are making absolute shedloads. I don't wish house damage to landlords and have a degree of sympathy for them when it does occur; but they've chosen to go down the route of snapping up multiple properties and filling them with tenants (and overcharging for that privilege).

Drumstick wrote: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.

Absolutely. Nothing good comes from renting in the private sector. I have never had a landlord who upheld his end of the contract (which is amazing since they are already so skewed in the landlord's favour). Since landlords do nothing but whinge about how awful all their tenants are I am sure they will be happy to sell to the government.

Drumstick wrote: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.

I agree with you that something needs to be done...it's waaay too expensive rent property, and that's creating a poverty/rich divide like nothing else. However, those that have recently bought a house to live in, would find themselves (possibly) in negative equity...the country could implode again...but the other side of that implosion would be a better place, I think. Also, who would be buying all these properties in that 2 year window? Not enough buyers, market prices would dive...and there's your crash. Too sensitive a market to make big changes like that. Good idea though, in principle.

The agency to me said no pets but when I spoke to my landlord he said it was fine. Just ask.

Our tenancy agreement states that one pet is acceptable so I guess we got lucky. That said, we've got one cat and have just got a kitten so I guess I'm gonna have to take a spade to one of them before the next house inspection.

Drumstick wrote:Cry me a river, landlords are making absolute shedloads. I don't wish house damage to landlords and have a degree of sympathy for them when it does occur; but they've chosen to go down the route of snapping up multiple properties and filling them with tenants (and overcharging for that privilege).

I wasn't asking for sympathy, I was telling you why the 'No DSS' is a thing.

pjbetman wrote:I wasn't asking for sympathy, I was telling you why the 'No DSS' is a thing.

I understand that (and actually I think my opening line there might have been a little harsh so apologies for that).

What I would like to know is, what are landlords going to do when an overwhelming majority of non-homeowners (i.e. the people relied upon to fill these empty homes) are on DSS in a decade's time?

I can understand that landlords have been burned due to being unable to claim back repair costs if the tenants are on minimal income, but I’m surprised it’s still legal to exclude them. You’re judging the pensioners, disabled and their carers in the same way as ‘junkies and deadbeats’. You’d never get away with not renting to Jewish folk, or under 40s so why is it acceptable to group people on low/supported income in such a negative way.

Again, animals may do damage, kids can do damage too, and humans can strawberry float up accidentally or very much deliberately.

They can afford excessive damage if they have a guarantor and they have paid the deposit. There are other ways of vetting tenants such as renting history and Landlord references. And there is no guarantee a wealthy tenant is not going to cause more or the same damage than a poor person. I would argue wealthy people have less reason to give a gooseberry fool about someone else's property, because they can pay to fix it or pay the fine. They can also afford to party it up. Example: guy in a BMW who permanently parks on the high street here without a local area permit because they can literally pay the penalty ticket every single day. There are plenty of rich kids out there who will willingly destroy properties and move onto the next one because they are getting bailed out.

Also, a lot of people (the vast majority in fact) claim in work benefits, including housing benefit - even if their wages would be enough to pay the rent, if literally nothing else. Totally excluding benefit claimants is classist, discriminatory nonsense and cuts people out of literally the only housing market in some areas, where the social housing list is multiple times the amount of houses available. Forcing people out of communities and exiling people for a single excuse - they are poor and so are probably bad. That is not a reason and so should be outlawed. It is even worse that agencies are allowed to do this.

If I have over 10 years of positive renting history and no arrears and no bad credit, why should the fact I need financial assistance from the state affect my status to live in a home I can't afford to buy?

It's important to understand the phrases landlords use.

"No DSS" = "You're poor? You don't deserve a roof over your head."
"References required" = "You've had financial trouble before? You don't deserve a roof over your head."
"Guarantor required" = "Your family are poor? You don't deserve a roof over your head."
"No pets" = "You may have passed all my ridiculous tests but still, subhuman renting filth like you don't deserve the basic companionship of an animal."
"Tenant's responsibilities" = "I will never do any maintenance on this property no matter how urgent and I will make you feel like gooseberry fool for asking."

The system is strawberry floated and it's the landlords who are the problem.

The only thing it's reasonable to ask for is evidence your income (including benefits) is currently high enough to pay the rent asked for.

EDIT: For what it's worth while I am clearly pretty annoyed about "landlords" as a group I don't actually blame any individual landlord for this, not even the frankly abusive ones I've had in the past. They are operating within a system that allows them to do this. It's all legal, so why wouldn't they? The system - the laws, the regulations, the relationship between "having a home" and private sector profit motivations - needs to be changed.

Karl wrote:
The system is strawberry floated and it's the landlords who are the problem.

The only thing it's reasonable to ask for is evidence your income (including benefits) is currently high enough to pay the rent asked for.

I want to cover myself as much as possible when renting out a property that one they will pay and keep paying every month and on time, two that they are not going to wreck the place and three that they are decent people who are not going to cause problems for their neighbours, it’s a big investment buying and renovating a property to rent out so no I don’t think I as a landlord am doing anything wrong in asking for certain checks to be done, I have a problem with “rouge” landlords that cut corners and offer substandard living conditions and a problem with tenants with no respect, when you have a good landlord and a good tenant then everyone is happy,

If you'd ever had to tearfully explain to a letting agent that you can't get a guarantor because you only have one family member and she doesn't have any money, and then get told that rules are rules and it's "unfortunate" if you become homeless but that's that, then you'd see how damaging those so-called "background checks" are. I found a workaround (paying a ridiculous deposit up front) but not many who end up in that situation can. I once read a heartbreaking BBC magazine article about an orphan who simply couldn't get accommodation at Uni because of a blanket "no students without guarantors" policy.

I'm not going to engage with you further because you aren't ever going to see this from the perspective of someone who isn't incredibly well-off and privileged.

When trying to find our first place together (although I'd rented 4 places before that) we also had that. No students at all for any properties with one agent. I had finished my final semester and was about to graduate and my partner was still studying. We both had guarantors and renting history, on time and in full with no deductions. She graduated with a first class bachelors degree and we went somewhere else. That was Surrey.

I had to take out a £1,750 overdraft to pay for the fees and the referencing fees, the deposit and the rent advance, that I am still paying back six years later, 2 properties down the line that I have also had to pay fees and renewal fees for.

Also, the second place we went to rent in Sussex, we both had jobs, working a combined 60 hours. I was previously paying 100 quid a month less with the same job, and only job. We still had to have a guarantor, and we had to pay for extra referencing for that. I'm estranged from the only person who can guarantee us and dragging it up creates a lot of distress.

This isn't even before I had to leave my job for health and company reasons that weren't my fault and so had to get help. Now I'm not allowed to rent some properties because I qualify and get that help, within my rights as a citizen. But that isn't good enough for some landlords, even though they would get paid double what their mortgage probably is, if they even still have one.

You can see how it is made as difficult as possible to obtain a place to live comfortably by these checks and by no stretch of the imagination is it a fair system.

It may cost large sums of money to invest in property in order to make more money, yes. But day to day it is probably actually more expensive to rent.

My dad once figured out that the money we have spent on renting represents interest on a loan for £200,000. So one might ask why not spend that money on a house instead? Well the thing is we would, the trouble is we have already spent it on merely living. It wasn't just sat there. It's gone, and it's never coming back. So where has it gone? Supporting landowners lifestyles. I.e. strawberry float all. That, right there, is wealth creation and guess where it's coming from. Hint: wealth.

A friend of mine managed to argue a landlord round on pets.

They said not pets but kids were OK, she argued that a child will do more damage than a cat and the landlord came round and allowed it.

Alright no kids either then, bitch.

RichardUK wrote:
Karl wrote:
The system is strawberry floated and it's the landlords who are the problem.

The only thing it's reasonable to ask for is evidence your income (including benefits) is currently high enough to pay the rent asked for.

I want to cover myself as much as possible when renting out a property that one they will pay and keep paying every month and on time, two that they are not going to wreck the place and three that they are decent people who are not going to cause problems for their neighbours, it’s a big investment buying and renovating a property to rent out so no I don’t think I as a landlord am doing anything wrong in asking for certain checks to be done, I have a problem with “rouge” landlords that cut corners and offer substandard living conditions and a problem with tenants with no respect, when you have a good landlord and a good tenant then everyone is happy,

It is a big investment, but buy to let landlords are going to get very little sympathy from the majority of the population that has been priced out of the market by the wealthy buying up all of the properties and then being priced out of the rental market by those same landlords charging high rents/deposits.

Sky high rents and big deposits are enough to cover any expenses that the landlords might have. It’s a very rare thing for a tenant to do so much damage that it hasn’t been covered by the deposit and I would imagine most landlords have insurance. The only thing a landlord should be allowed to demand is proof that the tenant can afford the rent. Anything else, whether pets, children or the person being on benefits is a hazard of being a private landlord and they should not be allowed to deny people a home based on it.

I'm in social housing and it took me 2 years with my medical history and a growing kid to get a place. I tried the private sector but they were expensive and a nightmare. None of my family are well off so getting a guarantor was out of the question. I saw one place and loved it, only to be told "oh the landlord has changed his mind on DSS tenants now so either you need to get a guarantor by Friday or pay up 6 months rent in advance". It really upset me at the time but it was probably for the best.

When I got the keys to this place I was told I could have up to 2 dogs living here with us. Which i found a little odd as I live in a first floor flat, and they only mentioned dogs. There's a load of cats on the estate though so I'm guessing she must have meant all pets when sure told me that!

Obviously the lack of social housing has the most influence on private sector renting. Many people who are eligible or meet the criteria for discounted social housing would be so far down the waiting list for one, they’d never actually get foot in one.

Which is total gooseberry fool. You get a better guarantee on rental period with local authority housing (I’m waiting for the landlord to tell us he’s selling up) and more flexibility in terms of pets, kids, decorating etc. It’s easy to blame immigrants or tories like the Daily Mail, but there’s many factors. Blended/separated families, lifetime tenancies and longer life expectancy also add to demand. But it’s awful that private rentals can’t have the same standards as those ‘lucky’ enough to be given social housing.

Skarjo wrote:Alright no kids either then, bitch.

Having a Pet in Rented Accommodation?

Who is online

Affiliates