Topic: WHY WON'T MANY HOME OWNERS ALLOW PETS INTO THEIR RENTED PROPERTY? (Read 23218 times)

Mouse2 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2009, 11:48:05 AM »

I find it very difficult to find a rental property that accepts animals. There is a few websites that rent out pet friendly properties.

http://www.petfriendlyrentals.co.uk/

Bryony84 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2009, 11:42:27 AM »

With our maisonette, it stated no pets in the clause, we asked the landlord in all cases and we now have 2 cats, a hamster and 3 fishtanks. It certainly helps to have a private landlord you can speak to. All we had to do was agree to have the carpets steam cleaned, which we would have done anyway, and pay for any damage they do.

There is a piece of carpet in the hall that may need to be replaced, but we're happy to pay for that. Thats the only damage that has happened though.

MrsR · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2009, 08:50:42 AM »

When we rented we always asked before we went and viewed a house - it was us and the cats thats it - found land lords who were fine with it as long as in our contract it was written that any damage that cats made we paid for - the cats never made an damange of course.

Pinkbear (Julie) · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2009, 01:41:55 AM »

I have heard of some landlords who will bend their own rules and accept pets within reason. Sometimes they say maximum of 1 dog, or 2 cats. But part of their conditions are a deposit to pay for fumigation when the tenant leaves or a letter from the tenant's vet confirming Frontline has been purchased.

On the whole, though, round here it's really hard to find pet friendly accomodation. I know whole agencies who refuse to even take details of pet owning potential tenants.

blackcat · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2009, 19:18:35 PM »

Nixy, just cos the lease says no pets, doesn't mean you can't negotiate - as others on this thread have shown ... Always worth a try if you really like the place ...

Nixxy · « **Reply #19 on:** January 14, 2009, 19:16:53 PM »

I could be looking for a new house/flat to rent in the near future and one of my top priorities is that it's pet friendly. Some of the houses I've seen are unfurnished and have gardens but still seem anti pet. I get the feeling that most landlonds/letting agents just put that up as standard but you may be able to negociate.

Debsymiller (Rufus' mum) · « **Reply #18 on:** January 14, 2009, 18:29:16 PM »

The first thing we said to both agents when we were looking for a new place was... must allow pets and must be on a quiet road... and subsiquently, we were only invited to view properties that fitted that. We found it really easy to find the perfect place for us. I would never move anywhere that wouldn't allow me to have my babies and I know we would find the right place even if we had to look around a lot. We signed on with every letting agent in the area which meant that we would have a good range to look at. Letting agents want your business so if it comes to it, they will help persuade landlords if they can't find any of their properties that already allow pets.

Wibblechick · « **Reply #17 on:** January 14, 2009, 18:22:26 PM »

My daughter rents her flat .....

She has two cats who are as well behaved/mischevious as any other pair of cats. She also has references from past landlords/ladies for her cats! Its proved very successful in persuading "No animals" landlords/ladies to change their minds

She has just moved into a lovely new flat in Manchester, where originally there was a "no pets" ruling ......

All is now OK

bunglycat · « **Reply #16 on:** January 14, 2009, 18:18:25 PM »

Mine is private landlord- but - its all my own furniture and carpets .

Pudding · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2009, 18:04:17 PM »

I bought a flat in London where the lease originally said no pets. I said I would only by the flat if the lease was changed - and it was. Equally I have rented a 3 bed part furnished house which said no animal or smokers. I mentioned the children card and said that with the best will in the world my smoking and two cats would not be able to inflict as much damage as children and they changed the agreement again.

I think you would have a better chance with a ptivate landlord as there is less red tape and'policy' to get through.

Marcia · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2009, 17:20:42 PM »

The old flat i was in wouldn't allow cats because the landlady said that cats are destructive, sly animals

I wouldn't have had cats at that place anyway, it was right next to a main road.
The place we're in now allows cats thankfully. And the place we're moving too in a few months also allows cats. It helps when it's my mother that i'll be renting from and she loves cats

I couldn't bear the thought of giving up my moggies. I would much rather find another place that does accept pets.

bunglycat · « **Reply #13 on:** January 14, 2009, 17:09:57 PM »

I have always rented and only ever gone where i could take my cats safely .
In fact when i have been looking to move and have been offered a place -( this has happened twice now- with housing association ) i have always ask first if i can take my cats -when they said no -i ask why -then they say about being destructive etc excuses - i then say " do you allow children" -"oh yes" they say -i then reply " well my cat/cats are less likely to cause damage than someones children do !" when they still said no - i replied in not polite terms and told them where to stick there flat !
Some of them seem amazed you wont take it if you cant have your animals - morons

JackSpratt · « **Reply #12 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:30:06 PM »

I think it all depends on if people are willing to challenge the standard clause. (Or "claws."

)

Two of the rented properties I've lived in originally stated no pets. I talked to both landlords/letting agents and explained that any damage done by my pets I'd find a way of paying for. I assured them their properties wouldn't be at risk of becoming trashed by the cats and both times they relented on the rule. I sometimes think it's just a case of people not pushing hard enough for their animals to stay with them.

clarenmax · « **Reply #11 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:28:38 PM »

I think every standard tenancy contract/advert states no pets, the same as it quotes no sharers and no benefits most of the time.

I've lived in 4 different rental houses now, (not blocks of flats which can be more difficult), and have not had any problems so far. All the places have been let unfurnished, so its my stuff Max destroys

, and I have a clause to steam clean all the carpets, dry clean the curtains, and the standard deposit lodged with the agents in case of any damage beyond standard wear and tear.

I've done a lot of searching to find the right places for Max to live, being an indoor cat we've always insisted on stairs for him to get exercise.

It is possible, but I guess it depends on where you are looking and budget as well.

Ela · « **Reply #10 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:25:24 PM »

Quote

Sounds like a pityful excuse then Ela, sorry

I would agree.

Ela · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:21:48 PM »

Quote

I am afraid I would be asking some hard questions about why they had chosen to accept accommodation that did not suit their pets needs -

You cannot do that in rescue because the next thing you know the phone would be put sown on you and the only thing to suffer could be the cats who may be either dumped or taken to be PTS.

Gill (sneakiefeline) · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:18:38 PM »

Sounds like a pityful excuse then Ela, sorry

Ela · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:17:22 PM »

Quote

I think in the UK the cost of repairs/damage would be taken from the deposit,.

That is the way it should be. I am also not taking about furnished accommodation in these cases, so cats cannot do any damage there. Where there are the 6 to come in there is not even carpets.

blackcat · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:16:53 PM »

It is a standard clause. People who are renting know this. I find it difficult to understand why they would be using it as a reason for offloading their pets unless they found themselves suddenly forced to move into rental accommodation. It is a similar arrangement in most blocks of units, even for people who buy there ... I am afraid I would be asking some hard questions about why they had chosen to accept accommodation that did not suit their pets needs - unless it is urgent then you shop around till you find what you want ... Sorry, very littel patience with that attitude.

Dawn F · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:07:51 PM »

my in laws london flat (which they owned) had a no pet clause as do my friends who live in a flat on the south coast - I think managing agents for owners and people renting just think animals in the block might be hassle

Gill (sneakiefeline) · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:04:15 PM »

I think in the UK the cost of repairs/damage would be taken from the deposit, if it was real damage and not imaginary like on one of our recent success threads.

blackcat · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2009, 16:02:10 PM »

Wearing my former landlord hat, the reason is that not everyone keeps their pets as well as we do. For me, with my house with a tiny back garden, I did not consider it appropriate accommodation for a dog and so refused to take tenants with dogs. I did, however agree to allow the tenant who was living there to take on the ancient dog that belonged to a sick sibling since, clearly the dog needed somewhere and did not have the same exercise requirements of a younger dog.

Wearing my tenant hat, I have had cats in some properties I have rented who have destroyed a sofa (which was much admired by the owners who were only away temporarily and this despite the said cat had never touched furniture before) and others who have left scratch marks all over the windowsills (which fortunately I was able to cover with paint).

Normal wear and tear clauses in contracts and insurance coverage that a land lord might hold do not cover this sort of damage so there is a cost imposition that is not recoverable as it is rarely upheld by tribunals when the landlord seeks to retain some of the bond(at least in Australia) so unless it is gross damage there is little one can do.

Landlords, like anyone else in business, are in it for the money. A tenant has a choice as to what accommodation they accept and so should seek accommodation that allows their hobbies and pets to be accommodated.

Gill (sneakiefeline) · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2009, 15:54:58 PM »

I think its just a standard clause that letting agents use and probably they convince or dont even ask the owners of the places.

And its been shown on Purrs that if the question is actually put then with either exra deposit or something terms can be agreed, but reckon most dont ask.

If all the people who had cats and were refused to be allowed to take their cats with them, I am sure this practice would become less.

I would never move anywhere where i couldnt take my cats

Ela · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2009, 15:43:11 PM »

It is becoming a nightmare, more and more times each day I am being asked to bring in cats from people who are moving and the landlord will not allow pets. Yesterday one owner alone had 6 cats. Just a few mins ago a man phoned me up and he asked if I could take his cat in as he has moved from a less than salubrious place to another which is equally as salubrious but has needed to leave his cat outside roaming and just goes there each evening to feed it. I won’t sleep tonight thinking of that little one so I will make space here. I will place a pic on our site tomorrow and hopefully find her a new home soon.

Author Topic: WHY WON'T MANY HOME OWNERS ALLOW PETS INTO THEIR RENTED PROPERTY? (Read 23218 times)