x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
award
award award
award award

TODAY'S OTHER NEWS

End cruel bans on pets in rented property, urges Conservative MP

A Conservative MP is urging his colleagues in government to end “cruel” discrimination against pet owners by much of the private rental sector.

Romford MP Andrew Rosindell has introduced the Dogs and Domestic Animals Accommodation and Protection Bill in the House of Commons, urging a reform of rental laws allowing dogs and other animals to be kept in rented accommodation so long as owners can demonstrate their care for them.

“What makes somewhere a home is something where special moments are created, living with a family, friends or companions” Rosindell told MPs.

“Moving into a new home is a normal part of life, but what if every time you moved, you faced the threat of being separated from someone you loved. Can a house or a flat ever really be a home if you have been forced to abandon a family member just to be able to move in?

“And you will know more than anyone, Mr Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), as an animal-loving Speaker as you are, that animals are truly members of one’s family. And having owned two Staffordshire Bull terriers myself, Spike and Buster, I also know just how close the bonds can be between a dog and the owner and how devastating it can be when you lose them.”

Rosindell says his Bill - if successful - will be known as Jasmine’s Law, named after a Weimaraner owned by a renting family in Surrey.

“Dogs are more than man’s best friend, they are equal members of the family and, for most people, being separated from your dog is really no different than being separated from your brother or your sister” he says.

“But sadly, every year pet owners who move into rented accommodation are faced with the reality that their family could be torn apart because most landlords in Britain have unnecessary bans or restrictions on pet ownership.

“And for those people who depend on the companionship of their dog and who need that loving friend to be with them, especially those who live alone, such restrictions are nothing less than discrimination, cruel to both the owner and the animal alike.

“So my Bill brings an end to this discrimination, making it a right for someone to own a dog or another domestic animal to live in their rented home provided the owner demonstrates responsibility and care for the animal.”

His Bill now goes for a second reading in the Commons in late January - but this is only likely to happen if it wins government backing.

Poll: Pets - should there be a blanket ban or blanket acceptance in private renting?

PLACE YOUR VOTE BELOW

  • James B

    It seems to have been completely forgotten now in the UK who actually owns the property, landlords are treated like managers of government property now

    Mark Wilson

    Get used to it.

     
    Barry X

    As usual another sneering, imbecilic comment from our very own 'village idiot' (as I think of him) - yes, its Mark Wilson.

     
    Mark Wilson

    Barry I am just a realist. This platform predominantly contains rantings from fantasists.

     
  • Paul Singleton

    Will Andrew Rosindell reimburse the landlord if the property is damaged by the dog(s)? I was at a house yesterday where EVERY carpet was having to be replaced, EVERY wall painted and two doors replaced because the landlord had allowed dogs. The tenant has done a runner to Spain!

  • icon

    I have cats and dogs and allow dogs and cats in two of my properties. Pets are not permitted in the others because of the Head Lease.

    I always encourage landlords who want long-term tenants to accept pets IF their property is suitable. Dog owners are asked to bring their dogs/s to the viewing and to confirm who will look after them when the owners are at work. Yes, some pets do cause damage, so do some tenants and landlords, especially these days, need to take out insurance to cover those possibilities.

    In any case, Andrew Rossindale is an idiot who does not know that a blanket ban on pets is already classed as an unfair term. What a waste of Parliamentary time. No doubt Bozo Johnson, in another futile effort to chase the tenant vote, will be in favour.

  • Lenny White

    Most leases have a no pet clause. Without it pets causing nuisance to neighbours would be nearly impossible to remove because the nuisance would have to be qualified. No brainer, no pets.

  • icon

    When Andrew Rossindale has to clean dog waste from inside the house and bin most of the contents due to fleas and smell as I did once then he might understand why some of us are not so keen on his suggestions.

  • Raphael Phillips

    Who is going to pay for the damage?
    If it's a dog and normally the garden is completely wrecked from the wee and poo depending on the size can 1000's. Carpets and underlay would need to be replaced, what happens if the next tenant is allergic. Doors and floors scratched. I am an animal lover but as a landlord that's all you need is the additional cost of replacing such items.

    icon

    Don't forget replacing floor boards as these can hold the stink for a very long time and no amount of cleaning will get rid of it.

     
  • jeremy clarke

    How do these people ever get to become MPs? Most seem to have nothing between their ears apart from fresh air and some sort of device that makes them spout complete rubbish. I'm guessing that this particular clown has never been a landlord, never had to deal with neighbours complaining about dogs barking, never had to replace flea ridden shredded carpets?

    icon


    @jeremy clarke
    Politics is the last place a man with no discernible ability can make a decent living.
    This line has been posted before and I find it impossible to find any reason to disagree.

     
  • icon

    One thing that’s not being considered here is.. this would take away the option for tenants with allergies/conditions that need properties that have never had pets in them. All that’s happening is your transferring the problem to another area.
    In addition, some people who actually “own” their home’s don’t want pets, so why inflict this on a landlord.

    ...I’ve been there, done it, no pets!

  • icon

    Small pets - dogs or cats - can be fine as long as the tenant agrees to pay for any damages. Barking dogs can cause a nightmare for other tenants and nearby residents so I agree with what a lot of people are saying. If a tenant wants a pet and it's appropriate, I agree an additional bond - usually around £100-£150 - and addendum to the lease that covers the keeping of a small pet. Cat's can be useful sometimes for keeping bloody mice out of old buildings. I have one tenant who has a very good mouser cat who is clearing the place nicely lol :)

    BUT it should not be made into a law.

    Raphael Phillips

    Have you ever seen actual damage from a pet 100 - 150 will cover absolutely nothing.

     
    icon

    Make sure that "additional bond" does not breach tenant deposit law.

     
    icon

    Except its illegal to charge an extra £150 bond. The maximum deposit is 5 weeks rent.

     
    icon

    I used to do the same before the new law came in, 6 weeks rent, £150 extra for a pet, and the name and description of the pet so that it was clear it was ONLY those/that one allowed and they couldn't get a new one if it died.

     
  • icon

    My experience of pets has been a nightmare - for example a cat which ruined the sofas, scratched all the furniture, had hairs embedded throughout the property and gave the next tenants fleas (even when the property had been professionally deep cleaned twice before they moved in) - the damage was far more than the deposit - so my take is 'no' on pets unless the tenant is prepared to pay for deep cleans and damage caused by that animal - which in my experience tends to be throughout the property. For that reason I think pets are only viable if the tenant is staying for a number of years not just a standard AST - so extra protection should be put in for landlords because of the huge amount of damage that they cause to properties.

    Barry X

    Agreed... but it was years ago that we used to rent properties "furnished" - now we certainly do NOT provide sofas or chairs or any furniture at all.

    Also whenever we've refurbished properties we generally replace carpet with laminate as its popular, durable and more practical. (We still refurbish properties for now but won't bother after they finally abolish the s.21 etc and make all tenants "sitting" so you can't get them out and we're back to the bad-old-days of 1950's & 1970's legislation blighting properties).

    The government has made it less and less attractive for landlords to take ANY risks as we can't quite legally (as far as I know) have separate pet agreements or pet deposits anymore and - possibly - can't lawfully rule in the tenancy agreement that no "wear and tear allowance" will be available for any pet related damage, or infestations etc.

    And, yes, more and more people are developing allergies etc so its becoming important to consider not putting a growing number (one day perhaps the majority) of prospective tenants off by trying to help a minority, even if we want to and - as Lyndon rightly said above - people with pet are often excellent tenants who stay much longer and cause less trouble, *usually*.

    PS. I meant to add, Alix, that if you visit the homes (normally owner-occupied) of pet owners you notice that most of them are a bit too tatty and smelly to be the sort of properties that most people would be willing to rent. i think that says A LOT about it.... similarly with the owner-occupied homes of heavy smokers.

     
  • Matthew Payne

    This guy just wants his 15 mins in the sunshine. Just another hangover from the Tenant Fees Act they hadn't considered which they are now triyng to address with their sqaure peg approach after the event. None of this will be enforceable as with the DSS cases, it is only a matter of presentation and communciation on these blanket approaches.

    On top of which, the obvious weakness and loophole will be certifying a tenant is a caring owner or an animal is well behaved. Apparently, Andrews' plan is to have a tenant have this certified by a local vet with a piece of paper they can wave in the air.

    Clearly someone will need to underwrite that certificate to make it reliable, like a gas safe engineer does with a gas cert, otherwise it wont be worth the paper it's written on but I can't see the vetinary industry wanting that responsibility or liability. Any owner can appear caring, any pet well behaved in a 10 minute meeting. Any proper assessment would take weeks, home visits, medical etc etc. I can see all the vets when challenged for these guarantees quickly losing the appetite to get involved, unless the government plans to foot the bill for the industry wide insurance policy they would require to participate. If I was a vet, I wouldn't touch this with a very long bargepole.

    icon

    I have two rural Landlords that won't accept dogs, as previous Tenants let their dogs run wild in fields, and one of them killed sheep. That is a perfectly valid reason to not allow a dog in a property, and let's not forget THE TENANT DOESNT OWN THE HOUSE! If the OWNER does not want pets in there, then pets are not in there. I don't allow my parents or brother to bring their dog into my house, as my husband has allergies, and as it's my house, it's my rules.

     
  • icon

    Good grief!

    Listen to the moans about pet owning tenants - anyone would think that pet-free tenants always leave the property in an immaculate condition and no evidence that they had even lived there.

    Cleaning, damage, redecorating are all part and parcel of being a landlord and need to be factored into the rent. IF you have genune reasons for banning pets, fair enough, but a blanket ban could cost you long-term tenants. Meet the dogs, assess their obedience and, if still worried, increase the rent to cover potential damage.

  • Barry X

    How about start by ending the cruel attack on landlords and agents and our businesses first, before worrying even more about pandering to the lives of our tenants.

    I like cats & dogs and we DO allow pets in SOME of our properties, where appropriate, i.e. not in leasehold properties where the lease bans them anyhow and/or where you'd have to walk your dog through a building with communal carpets etc.... its mostly in freehold houses or maisonettes with gardens where pets can be allowed.

    IF it weren't for the various rules on tenancy deposits and the ridiculous idea that you can only charge for the two or three things THEY deemed "permitted" (I'm thinking here of course of the ridiculous Tenant Fees Act 2019) THEN a few more landlords might consider it too.

    Allowing pets just adds to the already excessively over complicated minefield of being a landlord or agent. given how heavily everything has already been stacked against us - and its still getting worse - why should they expect us to chance it?

    The harder they make it for us the more cautious those of us still brave (or stupid) enough to carry on trying to make a living from rental accommodation will have to be.

    icon

    Well said, Barry.

     
    icon

    Yes Barry well said.

     
  • icon

    I am completely speechless. These idiots don't seem to have any understanding of the laws. Firstly there is a Headlease which all Landlords as Leaseholders have to abide by. So its not the Landlords refusing its the Lease. Secondly this government has changed the rules the maximum deposit is now 5 weeks so whereas historically we could hold an extra 3 - 6 weeks damage deposit that has now been changed. I think all these suggestions come out of complete ignorance and someones child or grandchilds refusal so they then use their position to lobby. However, the first way to do that is to understand the rules you have instigated in the first place. Just fed up with it.

  • icon

    Just had a tenant leave who had sneaked a cat in. Took FOUR attempts to de-flea the property. Delayed the move in by 3 weeks. That's 3 weeks loss of rent for the LL. Extra work for us. New tenant had to change their plans and got bitten all over. Why take the risk? Why assume all tenants are model citizens? And as has been said before, whose bloody property is it anyway?

  • icon
    • 17 October 2020 09:53 AM

    Tenants know they can do pretty much as they please..
    Very little a LL can apart from evict and we all know how long that takes along with what will usually be rent defaulting til evicted.

    So that sneaky cat could cost the LL thousands getting rid of the tenant.

    In such cases it is probably more pragmatic for the LL to accept the situation as a fait accompli.

    Hoping that there aren't remaining pet occupation issues when the tenant and pet vacates.

    Sometimes LL are forced into financial pragmatism.

    Really annoying but there you go........it comes with the territory!!

  • icon

    There is a old fashioned saying 'the burnt child fears the fire'. Having had several really bad experiences where dogs wrecked houses and gardens (which incidentally were immaculate before canine vandalism took place) costing me time and money of course, I am totally pet averse.

    I am increasingly becoming politician averse too!

  • icon
    • 18 October 2020 14:41 PM

    @markwilson

    I think you will find that you are the fantasist here.

    We LL operate our businesses how we choose.

    You seem to think that we should allow others to dictate what they can do in and what they can have in our property assets.

    I think you will find that you are WRONG.......................again!!!

    There are no rants on here just cogent and logical responses to experiences etc.

    To ignore such details is patently illogical.
    You really do need to get with the programme and understand how bonkers legislation is compromising the PRS business model ultimately resulting in a far smaller sector which will be a disaster for current tenants who depend on LL for accommodation.

    All this bonkers legislation is gradually and inexorably reducing the PRS stock.
    This cannot be good for tenants.

    LL can cope as most of them don't even need to be AST LL but tenants desperately need them to remain in the AST sector.

icon

Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up