UK Landlord Forum / Life

It'll depend on whatever the final version of the bill is like. Right now, you wouldn't have to protect the deposit in my scenario because the new tenancy is a follow on tenancy and s215b of the Housing Act 2004 explicitly says it doesn't need to be re-protected.

That section is currently not being changed (other than removing the word Assured, to reflect the abolition of ASTs).

Landlords are - obviously - going to focus on the negatives of this. No surprise. And finding positives might be like a needle in a haystack... but the idea of ongoing tenancies isn't a bad one (in my mind, due to how I work) because I will have removed the admin. burden around explaining to new-ish Tenants their choice about whether to sign a new fixed term agreement or let it go periodic, and I won't have to log in to the Deposit schemes to let them know it's going SPT either, and I won't have to remotely worry about the spectre of automatic unprotection (and the associated issues) ever again.

I can just worry about the cost of having my mountain bike serviced (and I do).

Oh, if I used an Agent, then the other positive is that I won't have to worry about an Agent bilking me for renewal fees (I hope).

Are you a MAMIL ?

I don't know what that means.

But no. 

Quote from: havens on September 25, 2024, 11:22:45 AMOn the positive side, I think allowing pets in rental properties is a great idea,

Good for you - but I doubt 90% of Landlords will agree.

Thankfully, it appears the Legislation will allow the LANDLORD to choose a suitable "pet insurance policy" which the Tenant would need to pay for.

So, a Policy with zero excess for anything, accidental damage cover of £100,000, all aspects cover........should bring a "landlord-agreed" Policy to around £5,000 per year.

Happy for the Tenant to pay that - especially as it will be the Landlord who takes out the Policy to ensure it remains valid (and perhaps the Insurance Company might offer a handy cashback offer to the Policy Holder too)

No - I won't be accepting pets and will do everything I can to stop it.

Pet insurance is a red herring.
You can't insure against normal behaviour by an animal, which is what people seem to be concerned about.

I do happily allow dogs if the property is suitable. The studios are not, but the current tenants  in them have cats and a hamster. That said, I think it is wrong to force landlords to accept any tenant that they are not happy with. I have never taken people on benefits,  and it now seems that right could be taken from me. 

I don' t see how an insurance policy would help.The commonest damage from pets would be pee on the carpets, and chewed furniture. Doubt if tenants would stump up the money either.

Conversely, I actually welcome people with pets... mostly they have been dogs.

Those people stay longer and have seemed more reasonable (once they figure out you're going to be totally reasonable with them) to me. The dog (all) is always said to be "quiet" and "no trouble"... how would I know, I don't live there!

A Landlord who doesn't own, or even want, a pet themselves is a cold, clammy person who likely takes some joy in forcing their sad world-view on their customers - all fundamentally wrong and a bad take on the balance of risk; but thankfully the law ain't on their side (or soon won't be). I chuckle when I imagine a pet-less Tenant moving in and using their newfound power to get a pet, and no more Section 21!

Even I have some chickens, and recently I was almost able to claim I had a pet spider - she was a wolf spider living in my bathroom, she'd built a web (more out of hope than anything empirical that I could discern) and I couldn't destroy it and move her on. I caught the odd fly for her, even some crane flies, and deposited them in the web... she was grateful (I could tell).

I evicted her in the end as she was being hunted (or so I thought) by another, larger, spider (giving a good impression of my home here)... and she was ejected out of the window sometime in August... it was only afterwards I pondered whether they could have been about to 'get it on'...

...cue Barry White over Sonos.

Quote from: Hippogriff on September 27, 2024, 03:59:45 PMI evicted her in the end as she was being hunted (or so I thought) by another, larger, spider... and she was ejected out of the window sometime in August...

You know you shouldn't intervene in disputes between tenants. What they do is not your concern.

Quoteand she was ejected out of the window sometime in August...

Admitting to a forced eviction!

Unless you are claiming that the spider was merely a lodger 

Quote from: jpkeates on September 27, 2024, 01:22:51 PMPet insurance is a red herring.
You can't insure against normal behaviour by an animal, which is what people seem to be concerned about.

Carpet was Condition A at the start of the tenancy but is now Condition B after the first 12 months due to stains from pet faeces - the same with Doors being chewed during the 12 months etc etc.

If the Policy does not include "all risks" then the Tenancy Agreement would include that the Tenant remains liable for pet damage - if they refuse to pay up, begin the eviction process due to non payment and property condition.

Thankfully, my properties are unsuitable for any type of pet and it's fairly easy to bypass certain Tenancy Applications anyway (Facebook etc usually gives a good indication of Tenant type).

IF my properties were 2 or 3 bed with gardens then I would definitely be seeking the most expensive Insurance Policy I could find for the Tenant to pay - 5 weeks Deposit, 1st months Rent plus £1,000 up-front Pet Insurance should encourage even the most die hard pet lover to look elsewhere.

Quote from: Hippogriff on September 27, 2024, 03:59:45 PMA Landlord who doesn't own, or even want, a pet themselves is a cold, clammy person who likely takes some joy in forcing their sad world-view on their customers

A little dramatic don't you think 

Ive never had a pet, but have been wanting to get a dog for many years - BUT I know I don't have the time and I know I don't want all the hassle and damage.

Unfortunately, the type of Tenant who doesn't give a damn about their Landlord is the same who won't give a damn what their pet does either.

IF we reach a situation where bad tenants are legally treated as such and not as vulnerable people in danger of becoming homeless, we might just see landlord attitudes toward benefits, kids and pets change.

Handyman,  I think that girl spider was fascinated by watching Hippogriff'  s inventive and unusual bathtime routine.   It'  s an image I have never been quite able to get out of my own head actually. 

South-   West,I can' t envisage a property that is totally unsuitable for any type of pet.  Would you not even allow a gerbil, a snake or tropical fish?  For people who love animals, other creatures turn a house into a home. That is good news for a landlord surely ?  My ideal tenant wants to settle in, make a nest/ cave whatever, and pay me rent in order to stay there.


I became a volunteer pet bereavement counsellor a year ago, and I can tell you there is a lot of loneliness out there in all age groups.   Our animal pals are doing   
a great job of supporting people through tough times. Depressed tenants can become problem tenants. Carpets can be cleaned, and if you let unfurnished as I do,  I don' t give  toss what damage they do to their own stuff.   

Quote from: South-West on September 28, 2024, 09:33:09 AMA little dramatic don't you think 

Not at all, read your own posts back - including this one.

The confirmation that you've never had a pet just filled-in what I'd surmised anyway. 

Landlords can have different views on pets, of course, and we do... I feel positive about the fact that my view is on the side of legislation (but that's just a bonus, really).