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

New rules on fees that can be charged to tenants and pets

36 replies

decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 12:25

I have some friends who have rented their property for the past four years. Unexpectedly my friend's mother died and she "interited" her cat. Luckily their current landlord had no issues with this and simply charged an additional pet deposit of £100.00.

They now need to move house as they are relocating. They cannot find anywhere that will accommodate pets. It appears that landlords who were previously happy to take a chance on this and charge an additional deposit for the pet are no longer happy to do so because they can only take a deposit which a maximum of five weeks rent.

AIBU to think that there is possibility that many pets will need to be rehomed because of this issue? I don't blame the LL for this at all by the way. It just means that they are less likely to take a chance on someone/a family with pets because of the new rules on deposits.

OP posts:
Original poster
decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 12:25
  • Inherited
OP posts:
floraloctopus · 30/05/2019 12:27

They will put the rent up to cover the cost of pets.

Hoppinggreen · 30/05/2019 12:27

Yes I think that this is an unintentional result of the deposit charge rules.
Don’t know what the answer is though

Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 12:28

They can always take a separate non refundable deposit for pets.

Original poster
decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 12:28

Unfortunately my friends have been told, by several different agents, that it is now a blanket "no" to pets.

OP posts:
peanutash · 30/05/2019 12:32

They could put a pet clause into the lease and agree to carpet cleaning at the tenancy end (at tenants cost). Most landlords are reasonable people however if the market is good and they receive multiple offers they'll go with the least wear and tear.
Hopefully the cat doesn't need to be rehomed!

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 12:33

They can't! The new rules preclude that. There is a limit on the size of a deposit and non refundable payments are not, and never have been, deposits.

www.propertyreporter.co.uk/landlords/could-the-tenant-fee-ban-see-rents-rise-for-pet-owners.html

As many people tried to say when input was requested (not a lot and very late in the process) the changes won't fix the real issues and will make a few more.

Original poster
decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 12:34

I'm hoping not. She is so sweet. She is also exceptionally lazy so can't be bothered with scratching things and she definitely would not wreck anyone's house. Unfortunately I can't help as I'm in a rented flat that doesn't allow pets. I would rehome her if I could.

OP posts:
Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 12:35

MN is so fixated on “the rules”! A tenant and landlord can make any informal arrangement they like.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 12:36

I think there will be an additonal clause drafted for LLs to use. They would be daft to add one without a lot of legal input and ARLA etc will, if there is a recognised need, soon put a new one out for use.

Many individual LLs round here are looking at is a an opportunity to find longer term letters! Keep looking, maybe not only at agents or more with the smaller ones.

DobbyTheHouseElk · 30/05/2019 12:39

Such a difficult problem. I’m a LL and I personally love animals. However I do have a blanket ban on pets, because twice I have had tenants get a pet and not tell me, then I find out and the pet has caused damage.

I have in the past allowed a cat, but the tenant assured me all would be ok, and it was fine.

I don’t have the answers. I’d love to allow tenants to have their pets, but unfortunately when there as been damage caused by the pets, they’ve refused to pay for it.

I will always view it on case by case, but I don’t appreciate being lied to. When I do an inspection and find a pet it’s awkward for me when I have made it clear, no pets.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 12:40

MN is so fixated on “the rules”! A tenant and landlord can make any informal arrangement they like. Yes, and at the end of the tenancy either side can renege on it if it isn't properly contracted. You could be talking hundreds or thousand of pounds for pet damage. If there is no proper agreement the LL could have to find that without recourse to insurance, which wouldn't cover pets without a proper agreement!

It is because damages are such a sticking point that this is a pererennial question and the new laws haven't clarified the situation. Deposit schemes will, over the next coupe of years, but even that will be by accord, not law!

Original poster
decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 12:43

I think if my friends have to rehome the cat they will be devastated but obviously they have to house themselves and their two children, which is their priority. They don't want to lie about the cat to get a house and then have to sneak around whenever there is an inspection and remove all evidence of said cat so they don't get caught out. They have been upfront about the cat but all of the agents they have approached have said no pets.

OP posts:
OKBobble · 30/05/2019 12:56

MN is so fixated on “the rules”! A tenant and landlord can make any informal arrangement they like.

Actually they can't because if they took any further deposit other than the 5 weeks allowed by law they would have to return it were they to have to issue eviction proceedings for a notice to be valid.

Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 12:58

There would need to be evidence it was ever paid in that case.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 13:02

Also you don't understand. The rules are changing. A pet deposit is no longer a 'thing' and as deposits are capped the only way a LL could recoup any loss would be to increase the rent... as happened in Scotland. A very small increase over longer tenancies recoups a lot of moneyu. So not quite what was intended.

Or maybe you do get it. As that is twice you have suggested something that is illegal, underhand, immoral!

leckford · 30/05/2019 13:03

Sadly tings like this happen when changes are made to things that have worked fine in the past. No one will let to people with pets now, unless they pay a higher rent to cover possible damage.

Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 13:30

I do get it. It’s certainly not immoral if it suits both parties.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 13:36

Ah! The great "I won't read the details of your posts" response.

I hope you aren't a landlord. And if you are a tenant, I pity your landlord, they have much to lose!

MereDintofPandiculation · 30/05/2019 13:41

I will always view it on case by case, but I don’t appreciate being lied to. When I do an inspection and find a pet it’s awkward for me when I have made it clear, no pets. Well, of course they're going to lie if they'd be evicted. They might be more inclined to ask if you indicated that you might be prepared to take a pet by individual arrangement.

Original poster
decisionsindecisions · 30/05/2019 13:46

leckford This is the problem. Even if you have rented a property with a pet for years there is always the chance you may need to move, or that you get given notice to leave. Tenants will then have to try and find another property that accepts pets. It appears that an unintended consequence of the deposit cap and the fees that can or cannot be charged is that LL/letting agents are just saying no pets, because there is no easy way around this problem.

The upshot could be pets either being rehomed or sent to an animal shelter.

OP posts:
Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 13:56

Not agreeing with you doesn’t mean I haven’t read your posts.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 14:01

OK. Then why continue to ignore the changes in the law and suggest behaviours that I have explained can seriously backfire on landlord and tenant alike?

Alsohuman · 30/05/2019 14:15

Firstly I’m not ignoring changes in the law, on the contrary, I acknowledge them. I am suggesting they can be circumvented if both parties are agreeable. You may not approve of my suggestion but that isn’t the issue.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 30/05/2019 14:17

I give in! I am sure I typed up the possible consequences of doing as you suggest. It simply isn't sensible.