Nicotrod   10 #1 Posted December 20, 2014 Hello,  A question for the landlords out there... I've recently been searching for a property to rent. During my search I came across a large number of adverts stating "no pets." Now I understand that not everyone is an animal person and understand that landlords who have fewer properties may be more emotionally attached to the place they are renting out. But what I don't understand is why children are often considered as less likely to cause damage than say... two cats.  This is in no way a judgement, just me pondering.  Also there were a lot of properties I enquired about through an estate agents. In the majority of cases I was told the landlird would not accept pets. I offered to pay a higher bond, provide a reference from my last two landlords and offered to have the carpets professionally cleaned when the tenancy ended (even though my cats are short haired and indoor cats due to their health condition).  The estate agents wouldn't even ring landlords to check. Which I find odd. Especially as a lot of the properties I enquired about are still empty. Is accepting pets from a responsible individual really worse than paying council tax/ a mortgage on an empty property? And as a landlord do you feel estste agents sometimes make decisions on your behalf and don't follow up a potential let?  Just interested... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Elphi 24   10 #2 Posted December 21, 2014 Hello, A question for the landlords out there... I've recently been searching for a property to rent. During my search I came across a large number of adverts stating "no pets." Now I understand that not everyone is an animal person and understand that landlords who have fewer properties may be more emotionally attached to the place they are renting out. But what I don't understand is why children are often considered as less likely to cause damage than say... two cats.  This is in no way a judgement, just me pondering.  Also there were a lot of properties I enquired about through an estate agents. In the majority of cases I was told the landlird would not accept pets. I offered to pay a higher bond, provide a reference from my last two landlords and offered to have the carpets professionally cleaned when the tenancy ended (even though my cats are short haired and indoor cats due to their health condition).  The estate agents wouldn't even ring landlords to check. Which I find odd. Especially as a lot of the properties I enquired about are still empty. Is accepting pets from a responsible individual really worse than paying council tax/ a mortgage on an empty property? And as a landlord do you feel estste agents sometimes make decisions on your behalf and don't follow up a potential let?  Just interested...  As a committed dog lover (we have 3) and seeing the experience of a friend from the US coming back to the UK with her family and dogs I know how hard it can be. We've put a property on the market where pets are considered (I'd like to interview the pet too!) providing the additional bond and professional cleaning is in place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Janus   28 #3 Posted December 21, 2014 If I had a property to let, pet(s) within reason would not be a problem. If it was a property that I intended moving back in to myself at some point it would deter me. I am aware of the problems that can be caused when a house is infested with fleas. They are not easy to eradicate.  As for kids doing damage, if they are likely to (or are allowed to) damage their home, it would say a lot about the parents wouldn’t it.  Just my personal opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sarahdu   11 #4 Posted December 21, 2014 I have a house I rent out and I too rent a house that I live in. We have a cat. The landlords we have used in the past have been ok with cats upon the proviso that you clean the carpets and pay a higher bond. However I have also let people with dogs rent my house, again on the proviso of cleaning carpets. I will never rent my house out again to someone with dogs. The fogs chewed every corner of the kitchen cupboards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
handypandy   14 #5 Posted December 21, 2014 The dirt on this carpet is dog hairs. This photo (just a bedroom) was taken just a few weeks after I had totally refurbished the whole property. The tenants had absconded. Pet hairs sometimes seem to weave into the fabric and can be a devil of a job to remove. Add to this, ruined doors and furniture and there is no wonder landlords are not keen.    . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Nicotrod   10 #6 Posted December 22, 2014 I would have thought that it came down to the individual though.... like a good parent would not let a child cause damage, a good pet owner should train their pet to not damage a property. I think there's an issue with landlords using agents and not meeting potential tenants prior to letting out a property.  ---------- Post added 22-12-2014 at 00:55 ----------  Handypandy... that picture is bad, no doubt about it. But aside from the hair they've left rubbish, not hoovered regularlyfor that much fur to be present and clearly aren't the 'house proud' type. I hoover every other day, shampoo carpets two monthly and want a home to be a warm, welcoming, clean and hygienic environment. I can assure you that some pet owners are cleaner than non pet owners and that the picture shared is not an example of all animal owners. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
handypandy   14 #7 Posted December 22, 2014 Handypandy... that picture is bad, no doubt about it. But aside from the hair they've left rubbish, not hoovered regularlyfor that much fur to be present and clearly aren't the 'house proud' type. I hoover every other day, shampoo carpets two monthly and want a home to be a warm, welcoming, clean and hygienic environment. I can assure you that some pet owners are cleaner than non pet owners and that the picture shared is not an example of all animal owners.  I agree totally, I have pets myself. I am merely pointing out what can happen. The photo was taken (and this is only one room) some nine weeks after my L/L client had spent around £10k completely refurbishing the house. There tends to be a lot of L/L bashing on these pages, trust me, its not all gravy.   . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Nicotrod   10 #8 Posted December 22, 2014 I'm not bashing landlords. Landlord's have to put their trust in a tenant and if it all goes tits up I know how hard it is to get a bad tenant out during the fixed term of the tenancy contract and I appreciate that landlirds face the risk of losing a lot of money. I actually have a grudge against bad tenants who make it harder for good tenants to get a place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mc55 Â Â 10 #9 Posted December 22, 2014 I would not rent to a family with children under 14, but would perhaps consider small dogs/cats. I'd have to have a chat about it - we have oak flooring throughout our rental property, so I would be concerned about potential damage to the lacquer. Â You are right about children - several of the agents we talked to advised that families generally leave properties in much worse condition than other renters with the damage attributed to the children Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
aliceBB Â Â 10 #10 Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Comparisons between children and pets are pointless in this context. Â If the contract says no pets, then it is probably because they can be destructive and smelly. However fervent the owner's protestations, you can always tell whether a home is shared with a dog, just by sniffing deeply on entering. To ban animals, full stop, seems unfair on all the responsible pet owners, but some LLs have very bad experiences of tenants with pets and simply want to avoid the grief. Â In the end, market forces will prevail. If there is a queue of pet-free Ts beating a path to the door, no LL in his right mind would let the property to someone with a pet any larger than a woodlouse. If, on the other hand, the dog-owning T is the only person who is showing any interest in the property and the LL is desperate to see it let, then he may be open to negotiation. Edited December 22, 2014 by aliceBB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared   268 #11 Posted December 23, 2014 It's easy to say 'no pets' people probably won't get too offended.  If you advert says 'no kids' then it's going to raise some eyebrows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Marx   10 #12 Posted December 23, 2014 If I were ever to let a property, I would insist the tenants were cat owners. As Mark Twain said, "When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...