x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Fees Ban: tenants with pets could see 4% rent rise, warns agent

The JLL lettings agency is warning that the five week deposit cap enshrined in the Tenant Fees Act is likely to prompt an increase in rent paid by tenants with pets.

JLL says there’s been a 25 per cent increase in tenants letting with pets in the last five years because of a general increase in cat and dog ownership, relaxed quarantine laws and a broader trend for longer tenancies. 

But Lucy Morton, head of residential agency at JLL, warns: “Landlords who allow tenants to keep pets usually do so by charging a slightly higher deposit which would cover any damage or additional cleaning should it be required. With the five week deposit cap, landlords may be deterred from letting to tenants with pets or forced to charge higher rents to cover any potential losses.”

JLL says the increase would depend on the rental value, but it anticipates a rise of three to four per cent. It suggests that a London property with a rent of £700.00 per week could potentially rise to £725.00 per week to make up for the shortfall.

“With a host of regulations that landlords must adhere to, as well as the changes to mortgage interest relief, the fee ban and five week deposit cap is adding yet another cost. This gives landlords no choice but to increase rents in order to see a return on their investment and they will need to hold firm on asking or renewal prices” explains Morton.  

“Whilst some agents were charging unnecessarily high fees to tenants, I do think the government should have capped fees rather than scrap them altogether or made allowances for landlords letting to tenants with pets.  

“The government needs to be careful not to completely deter buy to let landlords – they are an essential part of the overall housing market, providing a home for those who choose to rent, and people with pets shouldn’t be made to lose out.”

Poll: Is it fair that tenants with pets pay more?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • icon

    It is clear that pets cause damage.
    Why should I, as a landlord, pay for their damage?
    If the tenant owned their own home, they would surely pay pet damage themselves.
    Why not so when they rent?

    The cost has to be paid from somewhere and in the normal world, he who does the damage pays for the repair.

    Perhaps pet owning tenants should be forced to take out pet damage insurance?

  • icon

    Very very simple, Do Not Accept Pets into Your Property.

  • icon

    Let's kill all pets
    Don't smoke
    Only fart if you have an air freshener
    Only rent if they have a dyson
    Change all light bulbs to candles battery ones just in case of fire
    Removal all carpets floorboards only
    Or
    Just stop whining
    Sell your house and get a job
    Let the council take over your property and they will look after it properly ie
    Gas/ele cert
    Dripping taps
    Roof and proper insulation
    Money money money that's what it's all about and the renters have to pay

    S l
    • S l
    • 19 March 2019 19:31 PM

    tony, if one cannot afford it, then dont rent. Its all about affordability. The Landlord worked hard to get the property and at least are doing their bit instead of living off the council or country. All the renters are doing is expecting freebies. . thats rather unreasonable to put out such a statement, dont you think. Anyway, the council are doing a rubbish job of it and throwing our hard earn taxpayers money down the drain with losses from their management of properties and rental. havent you heard? This is just the council and MPs fobbing off their social responsibilities to the private sector and expect them to fork out the bill. outrageous to say the very least

     
    icon

    Oh how I laughed,...
    Let the Council take over your property and they will run it better.
    Thanks for brightening my day with a chuckle ;-)

     
  • Paul Barrett

    Unfortunately for Govt and Councils LL are becoming increasingly fed up with the treatment they are receiving from the PTB.
    As a consequence of this many LL are giving up and selling up or severely reducing the numbers of properties they own and let.
    This is the opposite of what the PTB need.
    They need LL to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the absence of sufficient housing of all types of tenure.
    It is truly bizarre that by Govt and Council action LL are giving up at a time when they are desperately needed.
    The way the PRS is being treated is truly bizarre.
    It seems the PTB imagine that the PRS will remain or even increase in size to meet the failings of Govt and Councils.
    They couldn't be more wrong.
    They seem to consider that LL won't give up and will remain in the PRS no matter what s### is thrown at them.
    Clearly they have misunderstood the PRS mindset.
    A tipping point has been reached and LL are giving up.
    The PRS will become a vastly smaller sector at a time when the PRS really needs to grow larger.
    Muddled thinking of the PTB is something that does no favours for tenants.
    Tenants need LL to be LL.
    Unfortunately for tenants LL DON'T need to be LL.
    Govt and Council policies towards the PRS have been nothing short of chaotic.
    Unfortunately it will be tenants that will suffer the most.
    Scarce rental supply and ever increasing rents are all tenants have to look forward to.

  • icon

    What's that crap about.
    I own a property, I maintain it to a standard as if I was Iiving in it.
    But I have rules, the same rules for 3 decades, no Housing Benefit ( universal credit). No pets, No single Mums, No Daily curry eaters, No 6 month/12month in advance unless students with government sponser letter, No one without References/bank statement proof of earnings proof of job, previous written signed landlord reference, clear credit search. 6 month to begin with and stating within TA 2 months notice at 4 month stage. Any arrears more than a day home visit with termination letter unless rent paid same day and written will not happen again.
    Simple rules if dont agree dont rent.

  • icon

    That's just crazy Steve sykes
    Your knacked then soon as no dss becomes unlawful racist no curry
    I rent never missed a payment
    BUT now unemployed due to car crash not my fault still not missed a payment but am dss but your rules stink

    Paul Barrett

    Unfortunately for you it will never be illegal to decline a DSS tenant.
    Being a DSS tenant is NOT a protected characteristic.
    A LL is perfectly entitled to discriminate against DSS tenants.
    Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the eviction process as this will give you a clue as to why LL decline HB tenants.
    Your situation is indeed unfortunate.
    However unless you are never able to work again and so can't be sanctioned then you are a risky tenant type.
    There is also the issue that the benefits you would receive would be insufficient to meet your requirements.
    I would ban ANYONE who engaged in continuous noxious cooking as such behaviour can severely degrade the internal fabric of a property.
    A LL has the perfect right to exclude certain tenant types if he feels they are not compatible with maintaining the property in good order.
    No aspirant tenant has the right to dictate to a LL that the LL has to take them on as a tenant.
    You may be an excellent rent payer currently.
    Unfirtunately that counts for nothing when a LL is trying to evict you for rent arrears.
    Being a HB tenant makes such a situation extremely problematic for the LL.
    Until Govt changes the system then unfortunately you will not be wanted by many LL.
    That as they say is just TOUGH!!

     
icon

Please login to comment

valpal
submit
sign up