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

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

Ending pet ban part of “mission to improve life for tenants” says minister

The government - which over the weekend made a surprise move to try to stop landlords banning tenants from keeping pets - says the controversial measure is only one of a number of moves being made “to improve life for tenants.”

A statement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government says that the overhauling of the tenancy agreement - which will be made public later this year - is merely “part of this new government’s mission to improve life for tenants, recognising that more are renting and for longer in life.”

The MHCLG says measures already undertaken include “banning unfair letting fees and capping tenancy deposits, saving tenants across England at least £240m a year” with the pledge that the government “will continue to take more steps to secure a better deal for renters up and down the country.”

The statement goes on to say: “The government will be bringing forward a bill to update the relationship between tenants and landlords as well as to introduce a Lifetime Deposit scheme, to make moving between properties easier and cheaper.”

Letting Agent Today readers reacted in hostile fashion when we broke the story on Saturday, a short while after the surprise announcement on overhauling the tenancy agreement was revealed by MHCLG. Of thre 30-plus comments made about the story, the overwhelming majority were in strong oppositon.

The ministry says total bans on renters with pets should only be implemented where there is good reason, such as in smaller properties or flats where owning a pet could be impractical. 

You can see the full details of the proposed new tenancy agreement here.

  • James B

    Absolutely pointless action so far
    Nobody is going to use this template anyway and I doubt anyone ever has
    But let the councils and HAs press on and take pets and get their properties trashed they are a bottomless pit of cash anyway to repair them

    icon

    That bottomless pit of cash is OUR bottomless pit.

     
  • icon

    Government keep on making rules up for landlords when they don't even own the property or pay the mortgage on it. They should buy their own houses and have what rules they feel like, not make rules on our houses that they don't even own!. Clear Message for the government: MY HOUSE MY RULES!

  • icon

    Sorry if the government recognise more and more tenants are renting for longer than why are they making new regulations in the favour of tenants at the detriment of landlords. Surely if more people are renting for longer, the government should be thinking of initiatives to make landlords want to buy more buy to let properties and keep the ones they have. Instead all they seem to be doing is making things fairer for tenants, not thinking of landlords and the way tenants treat their properties, the costs for landlords and reducing profits so landlords are selling or considering selling. If we have less landlords, there are less properties for tenants to rent, have the government thought of that? It doesn't look like to me! How about tougher regulations for tenants that trash properties and don't pay their rent leaving their landlords out of pocket by thousands of pounds?

  • Lenny White

    Pointless - most leasehold properties have a no pet clause within the leases

  • icon

    Little wonder the PRS is such an adversarial place with comments like this. As a landlord, it may well be your asset, but it’s home to the tenant and it’s your job to make their home as secure, safe, enjoyable and as happy as possible. It’s what professional landlords do. They do it because they recognise being a landlord has a wider responsibility and that happy tenants and an equitable landlord/tenant relationship gives better returns. Anyone who thinks ‘My house my rules’ has any place in the 21stC is not fit to be a landlord.

    icon

    If you seriously believe that load of drivel that you've written then you're a fruitcake. Show me a tenant that takes the landlords perspective, risk, investment and wellbeing into account, and I'll show you a landlord who believes it's his 'job' to make sure his tenant is happy. A landlord's responsibilities stop and start with themselves and their familes, just like everyone else. Their responsibilities to the tenant are in law, and nowhere else. You can preach about 'wider responsibility' all you want, it doesn't exist. Individuals (including YOU, however much you try to virtue signal) put themselves and their own interests first, always have, always will. It's normal, human nature. Why not ask tenants why they don't have a wider repsonsibility to be more productive? then they could benefit the economy, take some of the strain off higher tax bracket payers and maybe afford their own property? Oh, and trying to indicate that common sense is outdated makes you look as stupid as you sound.

     
  • Paul Singleton

    There speaks a man who doesn’t have any rental properties! The reality is that pets often cause damage to properties and with such high demand for rental properties why on earth is there a need to house tenants with pets when there are plenty of tenants without pets. Why take the risk?

  • icon

    I am in favour of having pets in my properties for 2 reasons. There are fewer properties available so the tenants tend to stay longer and you can charge more money for that same reason. Also in Wales you are allowed to take an extra Pet Deposit. Private Landlords are not a charity.
    The government will just shoot themselves in the foot as there will be fewer landlords available as the changes in tax and ban on tenant fees is making it un-viable to have a mortgage and let a property. The only ones able to make any money out of letting will be those with too much cash. There is a housing crisis. They need to make it easier for landlords, at least until they have their social housing programme back on track,

  • Noel Wood

    I've had my legs bitten by cat fleas, carpets smell of dog even after a professional clean meaning they have to be replaced, doggy do in the garden, chewed door architraves, floorboards wet with urine, once had a snake left behind in a property- it goes on. When a tenant vacates it is impossible to recoup the losses so the risk has to be mitigated at the START of the tenancy. No pets, I'm sorry but I have seen and paid for too much pet damage over the years to take the risk any more.

  • icon

    The MHCLG says measures already undertaken include “banning unfair letting fees and capping tenancy deposits, saving tenants across England at least £240m a year” just shows how out of touch they are.
    Banning tenant fees has pushed up rents. Agents are facing increased costs from property portals - ours has just increased by £50 pcm so who do they think will have to pay? Landlord will, as I have done, increase the rents to compensate. I have a tenant who signed the tenancy on a Saturday but by the Monday decided he didn't want to continue with the tenancy for "personal reasons". I have tenant insurance so he is aware until he is replaced he has to pay rent, council tax etc or the insurers will go after him. I still have to pay for the new tenant to be referenced, check in and out feers etc plus my time!

    Mind you, it could have been worse, Commie Corbyn could have won the election.

    icon

    Don't be quick to assume they're out of touch. They know it pushes rents up, they just don't care, it's a vote winner. You can't trust a thing any of them say, no matter what your political persuasion. Still, you're right, Corbyn would have been a disaster. My Grandad, who left communist Yugoslavia to come here, always used to say 'at least a Tory looks you in the eye while he's screwing you'!

     
icon

Please login to comment

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit
sign up