To think that the renters reform bill is going to kill people with allergies?

[Petallergysufferer]

Just that really. I know many people will see this as a good thing. I know too that the severity of allergy to pets which means they can kill you is rare. But it does happen. I am that severely allergic. So if landlords can't give a blanket ban then there are no pet-free properties for me to move into.

For those who don't know - antihistamines make no difference and the only way to get all allergens out of the place is to remove all soft furnishings including carpets and underlay. Deep cleaning things does not work. So unless the landlords change all carpets, curtains, sofas etc. in between tenants, then it still has enough allergens to trigger a life-threatening reaction. For me that reaction is asthma and I already see a hospital specialist so there is no further treatment that can be offered. Avoiding allergens is the key advice. I'm really worried that the full implications have not been thought through.

To be honest in my experience the very best landlords I've experienced have multiple properties- The best had 50 plus- all victorian superficially in not a great condition, but all of them unfurnished. Employed people to look after the basics in the properties, let you go about your business, let you decorate, allow pets, kids etc... Similar to renting from the council ( but obviously more expensive).

My present landlord is good they have 5 properties so are fairly professional- although they insist in furnishing their properties- which I hate but I put up with as the rent is cheaper than others in the area.

The absolute worse experiences I have had is from landlords who have one investment property or used to own the property. Despite superficially these properties being in better condition.

Very slow and resentful for mending broken things, very interfering and controlling. No pets, didn't like children.
Would suggest unreasonable arbitrary rent hikes. As they read an article that the are was on the up, now they want an extra £300 a month.
Over friendly, but also quite rude and demanding. Cant you get a better paid job?
Acted like they were doing a massive favour renting out their property.
Refused to pay for the very basics., and hugely resentful if told about heating that needed to be fixed.
. I was frightened to report repairs, ended up in paying for most of them myself. It was very stressful, as always felt that we were going to be thrown out, which he did just before christmas one year.

Yes I agree shame on anyone that makes my children feel like a second class citizen because they grew up in a rented home.

Shame on the rule that they can't redecorate or have their own furniture. They can't move- to a larger house, because no one wants to rent to families. Yes SHAME on that system.
Shame on the system that meant that their much loved pet cats had to be rehomed.

SHAME on the system that means they can be evicted and have to move schools at a months notice.

Yes SHAME on that too..

No fault eviction meant that my kids had to move over christmas, to a small, damp flat with bars not he window, and we had to rehome their much loved pets.

That made them feel like a second class citizen.

I don't think you get it for people who keep pets, and have a tradition of keeping pets from childhood, your pet is part of your family.

Growing up I don't think I knew anyone who didn't have a pet.

Renting as it is is housing insecurity...

Why should there be one rule for people who rent and one rule for owner occupiers?

changeornot you're changing what you said now. You said children would feel like second class citizens because they are not allowed to have a pet. Lots of children aren't allowed to have pets, for many reasons including, but not exclusively because, they rent. No-one should be made to feel like second class citizens for any reason, but the things listed above are not what I was first responding to.

We are surrounded by dogs on all sides, and are made to feel unreasonable because we object to being barked at aggressively at the fence for just going in our garden, being woken at midnight by a barking dog in the garden, or having to listen to a dog barking indoors every time a person or vehicle goes past the front door. But hey, pets are great!

That's right. I can't go to friends houses if they've had pets in the last year. I couldn't work in a place where someone had a support dog. I think nuts are different as eating them does no contaminate the whole house for months or years. That is the case with my nut allergies anyway though I'm open to being corrected by people with more severe nut allergies. Are there building materials which can trigger life threatening allergies?

Anyway the rule meant you had to evict a tenant--- which made him and his dogs(which in all likelihood had to be put in a dogs home). Caused him considerable cost and stress as well as for yourself for this rule......

Can you read? It’s in the leasehold, not the tenancy agreement. And yes, the tenant was made aware of this (by us as LL and by the agent), but she didn’t understand the difference between a tenancy agreement and a leasehold interest in a property. We were at great pains to point it out because, as you said, it’s so unusual.

What do you suggest we could have done? Persuade 30 plus other homeowners to make an exception for our (dishonest) tenant? Lose our own investment to protect her mangy unwelcome dogs? (Even if we had, they’d still have been evicted by the freeholder - plenty of residents have a vg reason to not want to be near dogs, including allergies). If they did end up in a dogs home, I’m afraid it’s on her.

And there were 18 other tenants, all pet-free, waiting to take the tenancy on in their place. The government can fanny about with this crowd-pleasing bollocks all it wants: nothing will change, there is not enough vacant property for everyone who wants it.

Most properties are let unfurnished. This is such a weird take.

My DH sent me a link to a flat in the Barbican estate-£1 million 2/3 bed flat and said we could perhaps afford that it in a few years. I said even if we could, I looked it up and said it's not the best place for us as the Barbican doesn't allow pets (and I have a hamster). He said that hamster is discreet! I wasn't going to get into an argument over a fantasy flat we aren't in the position to purchase now (the zone 3 flats that are closer to reach generally allow pets as long as they are not destructive as opposed to blanket ban)... But I am not sure the residents of the Barbican are not privileged just because they aren't allowed pets.. those flats are desirable (and expensive!) In fact you could argue the many rules make it a more pleasant place to live. .

I am far from convinced that it is legal to ban pets already - I strongly suspect that if challenged under human rights grounds tenants would win

I'm not sure having a pet equates to a human right. In fact there is an argument that some pets have a detrimental effect on other people and therefore have an adverse impact on their human rights. Such as the thread on here recently about the poster who couldn't cope with the barking dogs next door.

Yes- I doth my cap to you- I might rent but I can read. Thank you.

I of course meant the leasehold- it was the terms of the leasehold not your tenancy agreement- you made that clear.

If you explained clearly to the tenant, and gave her an ok reference so she could move on , than fair enough. You did your bit.
You did what you had to do.... but ....
I highly doubt that 30 plus homeowners chose their property because it did not have dogs.

This rule will hopefully make leases where you have a blanket ban on all animals ( in suitable properties) less likely in the future.

So you wouldn't have this issue in the future.

I don't think you should have that much power over peoples lives.

This rule will move towards a culture in the long term, where the landlord's wants are not always paramount and give more autonomy for the tenant to live out their lives as they choose.

Interesting to note- that leaseholds are being banned for houses (not retrospectively) obviously.

Ha.. but its definitely a choice to live in the Barbican???

I highly suspect there may be the odd Bengal or sausage dog hiding?

In plain sight?

well you just rent a house that didn't have pets in it before then. I mean any house you go to view and potentially could have had a pet in it before anyway with or without this rule.

People have severe allergies to so many different things. It isn't possible to eliminate the risk completely because we'd have to remove everything! Unfortunately I think this is one where you'll have to make your own arrangements, OP. I have severe asthma and numerous (including anaphylactic) allergies so I am not downplaying your concern, but I feel like most allergy management does come down to personal responsibility in the end, anyway.

Yes- I doth my cap to you- I might rent but I can read. Thank you.

I think you mean doff.

I highly doubt that 30 plus homeowners chose their property because it did not have dogs.

It’s self-selecting: all of us were happy to live in an environment with no pets, whether for noise, cleanliness, allergies. Pet people wouldn’t buy (or rent) there.

I don't think you should have that much power over peoples lives.

Not my rule. I’m not the leaseholder, I’m the LL. If I lived there, I couldn’t have a pet either - not sure why you’re trying to make this into a “nasty landlords” issue. It isn’t and we’re not.

This rule will move towards a culture in the long term, where the landlord's wants are not always paramount and give more autonomy for the tenant to live out their lives as they choose.

It really won’t. The imbalance of power is caused by scarcity of houses. I’d like to see greater protection for tenants but this isn’t it. I cannot remember a time when we were not deluged with scores of applications every time one of our properties became vacant. Why wouldn’t I pick the one least likely to be problematic? (And yes I obviously get it wrong too - as with the lying owner of a brace of dogs!)

Interesting to note- that leaseholds are being banned for houses (not retrospectively) obviously.

Not yet, and not without exceptions - it remains to be seen what they are.

Once our current tenants move out in our two properties i think we will sell up. Both our properties are well decorated and our tenants pay below market rent (just increased a bit after 4 years of no rises, but still below whats charged in our area). Fed up with all the increasing legislation and it takes for ever to evict bad tenants who dont pay rent and trash places. The reason why LL's are so picky is because they dont want one of those tenants from hell.

@changeornot I see your point.

I hated being a LL (the situation was forced upon me due to unexpected death in the family and a contested will).

I wasn't remotely interfering and I lived several hundreds of miles away and didn't even meet one set of tenants (agent handled that bit.)

I felt utterly bullied by one set of tenants, they would constantly be WhatsApping me about things in the middle of the night etc.

I get from their point of view I wasn't resolving issues within 1 working day - but they lived in a beautiful grade 1 listed house - and therefore, yes there wasn't double glazing and yes I wasn't able to put double glazing in for them just because they decided on a Friday night in Dec they wanted that. The rent very much reflected the condition of the house (agents handled the rental and house was fit for rent) but as soon as the tenants moved in they didn't stop demanding things on a almost weekly basis.

Luckily we were able to sell the house and they left.

Maybe you are right, bigger companies are better handled to deal with all aspects and they have maintenance and legal department to deal with everything.
I do think once they have a monopoly in an area (Ashford springs to mind) then that becomes a problem.

The trouble for the OP appears to be the extreme allergy, and I'm sympathetic. But I own a small flat with a garden in a block of 6 half owner occupied. I did bar animals from the flat (after 10 years of replacing floors, lawn, vinyl from various chewy monsters) but I can't control what owners or their tenants choose to do.

What OP seems to need is a new solo build with no animals in the vicinity.

As for not allowing tenants with children - never have not done. A couple have had babies in the flat and have moved of their own volition for more space when the third child arrives.

The OP has rather derailed this from the putative bill itself which would mean disgusting landlords who rent out appalling and dangerous flats or houses and don't even abide by the existing rules (gas, electricity checks, fire alarms) and don't respond to failures of boilers, dangerous damp and infestations, water bursts etc should pay back rents.

However who is going to police it? who is going to jump in when someone needs an immediate place when the landlord has wrongfully evicted his tenants? Councils have very little money for inspectors or taking on cases.

I doubt it though. Probably there are people hiding pedigree cats and small caged animals; after all, how are they going to find out unless they search the flat and if you own the flat, the managing agent doesn't generally do that...dogs are pretty obvious and would attract complaining neighbours!

My DH is a director of the management company for our flat and there are lots of complaints about the pet dogs (people not picking up after them)! So I can understand if you are a LL, you don't really want to be held responsible for your tenant's pets.

Ah! Semantics.

It's my job to report such damage at Check Out. It is also my job to note what kind of cleaning occurred and, in absence of an incontinent aninmal and a totally bereft owner, normal usage, pet accidents, can be washed out of carpets, all dander etc too, if the cleaner knows what they are doing and have the right equipment. Yes, some discolouration may be left in carpets, that is up to the landlord .

As for scratches etc. A good decorator would eliminate them entirely from doors, walls, skirting etc. It is, again, up to the landlord how much they want to spend on this.

And many landlords are happy to have pets. Odd as that might sound on here. I see houses every week with pets from cats and dogs to chickens and even a pig or two!

@slowcookerforone sympathies from me. I had one tenant refuse to maintain the garden unless I supplied a mower. (When I asked why he took a lease on a place with a garden, he insisted it was his right to have outdoor space and my job to provide tools).

Another called me hysterical in the middle of the night because an elderly neighbour had accidentally floored the accelerator and driven through another neighbour’s fence and what was I going to do about it? (Nothing: it’s not my fence.)

Yet another expected me to water her plants while she was away and was extremely aggrieved when I wouldn’t let her put my phone number on the intruder alarm. (I lived 2 hours away and had a newborn at the time).

But yeah, bloody landlords eh? 🙄

The second two are pretty bad but it’s not unreasonable for you to supply a lawnmower. Why should the tenant buy one when their next property might not even have a garden? That’s not really on the same level as the other two.

There is no eviction at a months notice, and if this is what happened to you, read up on the law so you can prevent a landlord attempting this. The statutory law is already in place that states a requirement for two months notice. If you choose not to leave which is your right, the ll must apply to court for a possession order and if you still won't leave, a warrant of possession. Claims for costs would also be made and these are fixed at around £400. Peddling your sort of crap doesn't help anyone and is misleading other tenants who may believe you and not realise statutory protections are in place.

In my experience as a housing solicitor of some years, illegal eviction carries such huge penalties, very few dodgy landlords will try it. They're more likely these days to offer you money to leave.

LL’s are not legally obliged to supply gardening equipment and my tenant had signed a standard garden care clause in the TA. (He’d also signed an inventory that made no reference to a lawnmower).

Being nice sort of LL’s and having just bought a bigger house needing a drive-on mower, we gave him our old one. Then got a call from the tenant’s neighbour complaining about the jungle that the lawn had become ie even with a free mower he still didn’t cut the bloody grass.

You raise interesting points about enforcement and these currently are twofold. Environmental Health at councils are the enforcement agents for disrepair. Legal aid housing lawyers were the other enforcers and I've acted for tenants in the past of both HA and PRS tenants to enforce their rights and seek damages or/and injunctions in some cases. Unfortunately when legal aid was cut in 2012 (LASPO) many lawyers practices and law centres closed limiting poorer tenants ability to enforce their rights.

Nice. So just ignore one disability as all the others trump it apparently? Having a severe animal allergy doesn’t count on MN. It’s just stupid people making a fuss about nothing after all.

But isn't that what the OP is doing? Saying that despite the many health and wellbeing advantages to having a pet, they should be overlooked because of her allergy?

Nobody deliberately wants her to suffer, but equally they don't want others to suffer either.

@changeornot I was just commenting on some of the points raised on here as there are so many throwaway comments on pet allergies which are largely untrue, at least in my case. It’s bloody hard when you have no choice in the situation and are made to feel like you are an evil person for not being able to go near someone’s pet. I think that Landords should be allowed an exemption if they have a pet allergy themselves. I used to let my house out when I moved for work and it would have been impossible to manage it never mind move back in had I been forced to allow pets.