Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Rental Properties

242 replies

Greenkit · 16/10/2018 14:39

AIBU to say, if you rent out your property, you shouldn't be able to stipulate 'No Pets, No DSS, No Sharers, No Smokers, and sometimes No Children (Although that may have changed)

If you are worried about damage then have extra deposit costs to cover.

After a marriage break down, I am having to rent and I am unable to take my 3 whippets with me as the landlord, doesn't allow pets. If fact its seems no one allows pets.

OP posts:
RTFT · 16/10/2018 14:42

It's shit but people can stipulate whatever they like, it's their house. I wouldn't rent to smokers or DSS but I would to dogs because I know what it's trying to find a rental when you have pets.

Extra deposit won't always cover things, smoking gets ingrained into everything, a few extra quid isn't going to rectify that

RTFT · 16/10/2018 14:43

It's always worth offering extra deposit though, you might get lucky. Or try looking at non agency rentals

Suomynona · 16/10/2018 14:47

I don't agree I'm afraid. We've just spent over a year cometely renovating a 60's house that we may rent out - we've put blood sweat and tears, very hard work, not to mention money into it, and so will be discerning around our tenants (although we of course accept there are no guarantees on how tenants will behave). It's our house that we have a lot invested in, and do think it should be our choice who lives in it.

BlueUggs · 16/10/2018 14:48

Ask the agent to speak to the landlord as often it's the agents that stipulate this. Landlords can sometimes be flexible, especially if you offer a larger deposit.

Poloshot · 16/10/2018 14:49

I think you should be able to rent to who you like

Celebelly · 16/10/2018 14:50

I was happy to allow pets, but then we were pet owners ourselves. There are landlords out there who are happy to accept them. Our last tenants had a dog and six degus and chinchillas! We are about to sell that house and there is no animal-related damage and no additional cleaning required (but it's all laminate flooring, etc.).

No smoking wouldn't be something I would budge on, though. Nicotine stains, and getting the smell out is really difficult. It also stains furniture, appliances, etc.

You might have to compromise a bit on what you want to find somewhere - sometimes some slightly more rundown properties in need of a bit of TLC can be a good deal and you can make some improvements in exchange for a cheaper rent.

thecatneuterer · 16/10/2018 14:51

The 'no sharers' thing is probably to do with the property licence. If the house isn't a licensed HMO then you can't have more than two non-related sharers living there by law (I think - something like that anyway).

No smoking inside is perfectly reasonable. It's a fire risk and causes damage.

No people on benefits - well sadly that's just statistics. For starters benefits are set to cover only rent at the bottom end of the local market, so by definition people on benefits won't be able to afford two thirds of properties. Then paying the rent direct to tenants is just asking for problems and indeed causes them. People on benefits are statistically more likely to get into rent arrears than people who aren't.

I really wish more LLs would allow pets though.

sirfredfredgeorge · 16/10/2018 14:53

You cannot take "extra deposit", since the amount of reasonable wear and tear that you would expect with three dogs is greater than the amount of reasonable wear and tear without.

You could ask for extra rent - but I imagine you don't want to pay that. YABU.

MrsReacher1 · 16/10/2018 14:53

The law makes it very difficult to get rid of tenants now. It is also illegal to inspect without permission, (rightly), so as a landlord you don't know until after someone has left what damage has been caused.

Local councils won't allocate council housing to people who already have a rental so it is in people's interests to be "evicted" and made homeless as they have a better chance of being considered for a council house.

Landlord insurance only covers certain things so you absolutely have to mitigate the risk.

Think about something that is precious or valuable to you. Would you lend it to just anybody? Or would be choosy?

I had to give my cat away when I moved into rental. He lives with ex DP though so we all still see him and he is very happy - but I would have rather kept him with me.

EssentialHummus · 16/10/2018 14:55

I allow most of the above, but not smokers or “DSS”. I started off allowing benefit recipients but had three consecutive bad experiences with them (for reasons not to do with UC or similar) and haven’t been happy to have them as tenants since. I’m sure it’s not representative, but I can’t take the risk again.

InertPotato · 16/10/2018 14:56

Are you kidding?

gendercritter · 16/10/2018 14:56

A lot of insurance companies won't let you rent to people on benefits.

No way would I rent to smokers. The smell permeates everything and won't shift. Why should a landlord have their house damaged when it costs thousands to keep a property in good repair?

I don't feel the same about saying no to pets and children and yes it's very tough if you're trying to rent with either but ultimately everyone should have the choice of rent to who they want to.

But equally I believe we should have longer term and more secure tenancies, penalise heavily landlords who put their tenants at risk or leave them living in squalor and have much more social housing available.

EssentialHummus · 16/10/2018 14:57

(And “bad experience” means “I needed to get fumigators and bailiffs in”, not “They put a few extra paintings up.”)

Original poster
Greenkit · 16/10/2018 14:57

Smoking, you could stipulate its only outside. But I do get that one

If you rent out your house, you are doing to make money, renters pay that money, so no you shouldn't be able to say no to pets etc...

If I don't find somewhere which takes dogs or change my landlords mind, then three dogs are going to end up in the dog home, plus a cat.

Its not fair

OP posts:
Tahani · 16/10/2018 14:58

i wouldnt allow smoking if i was a landlord, even outside, its horrible

Stonebake · 16/10/2018 15:00

Yes yabu sorry.

I’m sorry to hear how hard it is for you to find somewhere you can bring your whippets (my favourite dogs). Have you spoken to any of the landlords personally? I’ve heard that some of them will allow pets if you have a larger deposit, even when they say “no pets” in their adverts.

No smoking though, I definitely understand as that gets everywhere! The smell in houses where everyone smokes takes so long to clear.

No DSS... I don’t know why this is so common tbh.

I’ve never seen an advert saying no children.

JosellaPlayton · 16/10/2018 15:00

Our ‘rental’ is in fact our family home that we need to rent out to cover the mortgage whilst we’re temporarily overseas on an expat assignment.

I’m fine with kids and pets, smoking is none of my business although the contract doesn’t allow it in the house for obvious reasons, but the mortgage doesn’t permit us to take housing benefit (but if I’m perfectly honest i wouldn’t rent to HB receipents anyway as the government is so often fucking up payments I couldn’t be confident in getting the rent every month). I wouldn’t have an issue with 2 professional sharers either, I just have no desire to run an HMO as it’s our well loved family home that we intend to move back to soon.

MrsReacher1 · 16/10/2018 15:01

I used to work for a lettings agency and remember a very expensive property which had all new wood floors - and the tenants had two dogs! The floors were scratched to pieces. The bottom of one of the doors was scratched and the tenant would not pay for repairs. (The door wasn't expensive - just sand and repaint - but the floor was really, really expensive as the house was huge)

There was a dispute - the TDS ruled it was fair wear and tear. The Landlord swore he would never rent to people with pets again.

Kit10 · 16/10/2018 15:02

We may have to rent our house out (military family, could get posted away) as far as I'm concerned it's my house, I'm only renting it out to cover the mortgage and so we can afford the rent of our temporary property. So as it's mine I feel I absolutely have the right to say who can have what, we don't have pets so I wouldn't be happy with someone else's destroying my carpets. Sometimes no DSS is the stipulation of the mortgage company. That said if I struggled to rent it out I'd be more lenient, end of the day I'm not looking to profiteer from anyone, I'm just protecting my own family and finances. I understand the frustration more so with "professional" landlords.

Original poster
Greenkit · 16/10/2018 15:02

I would be happy to have an extra deposit tag on, say £500/£1000 to allow me to keep my dogs with me.

I also believe Landlords should have a legal right to inspect the property on an annual basis.

Also painting the property, almost every room in the house is pink, I would like to redecorate and make it a home. I guess as long as I returned all the rooms back to pink again before I leave Smile

OP posts:
Topseyt · 16/10/2018 15:03

As a landlord, I don't stipulate no pets if the property is suitable. I own a couple of leasehold flats where the lease does actually forbid pets so my hands are tied there.

I also have a couple of freehold houses. I am free to make the decisions there and haven't banned pets. However, I have found estate agents sneaking such clauses in and have pulled them up in it when I have seen it as it immediately excludes a large proportion of the rental market for such properties. Plus, I have two dogs of my own.

It may be the agents acting off their own bat. Start asking direct questions. See what happens. You might be surprised sometimes.

MrsReacher1 · 16/10/2018 15:03

People on benefits are at risk of having their benefits messed up. Then they can't pay the rent. That's why

Original poster
Greenkit · 16/10/2018 15:03

Oh I don't smoke

OP posts:
Suomynona · 16/10/2018 15:03

What @MrsReacher1 said..... Think about something that is precious or valuable to you. Would you lend it to just anybody? Or would be choosy?

Stonebake · 16/10/2018 15:03

i wouldn’t rent to HB receipents anyway as the government is so often fucking up payments I couldn’t be confident in getting the rent every month)

Oh is this why? I always wondered why nobody wanted tennants on HB. I was unemployed when dh and I had to relocate with his work. We weren’t in receipt of any benefits and we were able to prove that dh’s salary alone would cover the whole rent, but even then they weren’t happy with having an unemployed tennant. I had to convince them I’d be able to fairly easily find a job once we moved. Which I did.

Swipe left for the next trending thread