To ask why unfurnished rental properties still don't allow pets?

[Coffeebiscuitsrepeat]

My sister is having terrible trouble trying to find a place to rent with her two cats. I can understand furnished properties due to scratching sofa etc., but why do so many unfurnished places not allow pets? The one she was viewing didn't even have carpet, just laminate flooring!

The LL may be concerned about the cats scratching up the flooring and walls.

No idea but it is ridiculous

I don't know, but I'm not allowed pets and it makes me sad.

My sis has two dogs and found it difficult to find a rental that would allow them. She got round it by offering a double deposit.

Cat pee stinks and cats who are out of sorts because they’ve recently been moved from their old familiar home are wont to pee in all kinds of places. I like cats, I’ve had several, but when they’ve peed on wooden floorboards or up a wall that smell is hell to get rid of.

Because some landlords are petty control freaks.
The no pets clause is considered an unfair clause in England/Wales.

Her cats are very good and don't scratch (granted, agencies/landlords don't know that). I don't see why a 'pet deposit' isn't more of a thing in the UK. She would be more than happy to put down a few hundred pounds at the start of her let, and then if there was any damage, the agency/landlord would be able to keep it.

If she had a baby, it would probably make far more mess... yet that wouldn't be a problem! I think not allowing some compromise at least is so unfair. 🙁

Cat per
Scaratching door frames
Scratching floorcoverings

Fleas, wee, soiling, damage to floors/walls etc

A long time ago we rented a place and asked getting a cat- it was allowed but the requirements upon vacating were quite a lot including paying to replace carpeting and any damage to walls etc. Fair enough really, but We decided the risk and potential costs wasn't worth a pet at that time.

Cat pee that should be

Pet owners do become nose blind to smells their pets leave

I also rent and am not allowed pets. It's a furnished property and so I half understand, but unfurnished just seems ridiculous!

They end up leaving residue all over the property. We moved into a house that had clearly had a cat in it at one point but had been empty for at least a couple months (was already vacant when we first viewed it). DH (who is allergic) was suffering for months after we moved in.

What @seaclaidte said. Potential to scratch walls and cause damage.

It is the landlord's choice at the end of the day. If I were a landlord I'd say no to pets because I'm allergic and if I ever had to visit the house I'd have an asthma attack. I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that I could never visit my own home safely for whatever reason. There might be similar personal reasons the landlord hasn't mentioned and the house does belong to them.

I'm sorry your sister is having a hard time though

no, boring old truth is that tenants can ask permission to keep a pet, which a landlord cannot refuse without good reason.

deposits have been capped at five weeks and what IS illegal is to charge extra deposit or extra fees to allow for the damage that a pet may cause. So there's the good reason. Complain to Shelter, their idea.

or offer a higher rent. Of course you don't get that back if there is no damage, as you would with a depost.

Pets do add more wear and tear to the property. I once rented a house that had cats previously and even after a deep clean, cat hair was still turning up months later.

Our last tenants cats scratched part of the banisters to pieces. It's made us reconsider allowing cats.

I think pet deposits have recently been outlawed in England.

Flooring, walls. doorframes, kitchen cabinets etc I guess

Dogs can be even more destructive, and it’s a big gamble for a landlord to take in terms of breeds and their particular traits, and whether the owners are on the ball. Friends recently adopted a Chow/Shepherd cross and despite being home virtually all the time due to lockdown and having a beautiful house they’ve really tried to dog-proof, I tell you no lies when I say all their internal doors are now covered in scratches and the carpets have been pulled up where they meet the walls because he just wants to dig and chew.

Everyone thinks of their own lovely, clean, well-behaved pet and can’t understand what a landlord would have against them but forgets not all pets are the same and not all owners are responsible.

The no pets clause is considered an unfair clause in England/Wales

By whom? It seems fair enough to me, my house, my rules. Although I think private landlords are in a very privileged position, I think it's up to them to contract on the basis they want to contract on as long as they are not discriminating, and "pet ownership" is not a protected characteristic. Obviously if you have a guide dog it's different.

Pet owners do become nose blind to smells their pets leave Yes. Go into a house where dogs live. Ugh, it stinks.

One tenant liked the cat from next door and let it in to his room, unbeknown to me.

Room then vacant for 6 weeks.

Next tenant in that room was being bitten by fleas. So I had to have the room plus common areas sprayed with insecticide.

Costly

And I lost the tenant.

Simple, no pets.

I allow pets in my rental property because I used to live there with a dog myself, having waiting until I was a home-owner to buy a pet. If I had been pet-free I wouldn’t though, because I wouldn’t want dog/cat smell in the carpets, because there isn’t a cat flap and there isn’t a garden to speak of. It was rented out to car owners before I bought it, and the cat smell didn’t go until it was covered up by dog smell!

Because they nearly always wreck the carpets. And you used to be able to put down double deposit and that would be fine but you're no longer allowed to do that. You can get round it by offering to pay the equivalent more in rent per month (or whatever would be the cost of new carpets depending on what's down).
We moved into a place where the carpets were a mess on viewing but the previous tenants just replaced the carpet with bog standard rental beige before they left and everyone was happy.
So those are both options.

I think some irresponsible pet owners ruin it for some too. My nd is a rental property and she's always allowed pets, but the most recent tenants have had a dog that they leave unattended 12+ hours a day, she has completely broken the garden fence desperately trying to escape so the ll has had to pay £1800 to have a new one fitted as well as destroying the interior carpets and 2 doors, costing a further £1000 to fix. She is obviously keeping his deposit, but it's £700 and doesn't cover it. (I know all this because she likes to stand on my front path and gossip about it! It was also our shared fence that the dog destroyed!!)

Cats can wreck the place. My neighbours cats have scratched the carpets up and pissed everywhere. The house absolutely reeks and I imagine his landlord will have to replace the carpets and deep clean it all. They've done far more damage than my large dog!

I can see this from both sides.

I let a property to an elderly couple who have a little dog. Initially, I stipulated no pets, but after meeting with the tenants I understood that the dog was very much a part of the family and therefore part of the package. I'd heard that they'd found it difficult to find a landlord who would allow them to bring the dog and they'd discussed their daughter adopting the dog as a consequence which made me really sad to think about the companionship they'd lose.

If I'd have let the property to a couple or family who later decided to get a cat/dog, I'd have said no. Too risky in terms of damage to fixtures and fittings and fewer guarantees in terms of how the animal would be kept. Would they leave it in the property all day when they went out to work, for example? Would I have to deal with complaints from neighbours about a barking dog all day?