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.

Why on earth should anyone give a flying fuck if landlords are having a shit time (and I dispute that btw)?

If you are a business person you might have a right to choose what business you are in, but you have no right to make money or to have that business model work indefinitely. If being a landlord doesn't work for you stop whinging and sell up.

The supply of houses is unaffected by how many private landlords there are. Every rental home sold is - by definition - sold to another investor or is sold to provide another owner occupied home.

I am not disputing whatsoever that the tenants home should feel like their home? I certainly don’t want to micro manage my tenants lives and much prefer to have as little to do with them as possible (because issues are fixed quickly or not even brought up because the property is kept in a good condition all the time, by both parties)

But it’s naive to think that pets don’t do more damage that a landlord wouldn’t be able to take out of their deposit.

Some examples:

• minor scratches caused by the cat - likely listed as “wear and tear” in the checkout report


• scent of cat urine which can’t be immediately detected or pinned down to one specific source - wouldn’t be listed in the inventory but the landlord would have to get sofas, beds, carpets all deep cleaned


• possible damage to wooden floors by pet urine - again unlikely to be detailed in a checkout report to the extent that a landlord could take funds out of the tenants deposit

Having a pet creates more damage in “wear and tear” than not, and landlords are not able to take money out of tenant deposit for wear and tear.

i have tenants in my property currently who have a cat. It’s mostly wooden floors throughout but there are a few carpets which are 6 years old so will likely need to be replaced at the end of this tenancy anyway. Which is why I accepted a cat. As an aside, it’s a term of my lease not to allow pets so I had to write to the management company to confirm they were happy with this.

The fascination is twofold IMHO.

(1) However good and tenant friendly the law becomes you will always have more freedom as an owner instead of tenant.

(2) When you buy you effectively set your monthly payments at today's prices, and in theory only have monthly payments for 25 years and after than you can live there rent and mortgage free. When you rent you commit to paying monthly payments (rent) at current market value which will rise every year until you die.

Minor scratches by a cat sound like wear and tear. Big deal.

I would support the law making it a legal requirement for every landlord to pay for a deep clean between tenants. Why should tenants have to move into a home that potentially has human tissue lying around?

Why should tenants suffer because of issues so trivial they aren;t noticed by lazy inventory clerks?

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.

Saying all that I might be minded to make it illegal to keep cats and dogs in flats full stop - it isn;t fair on cats to have them living in flats, and it isn't fair on neighbours (and dogs) to have dogs in flats.

Minor damage adds up a lot over time to much bigger issues, such as needing to redecorate more regularly. You’re the one who said landlords should run their properties as professional businesses - I am pointing out how it is less profitable to take on tenants whereby you need to redecorate more regularly!

Homes should be deep cleaned between each tenant - this is a standard tenant cost if they have moved in to a deep cleaned property. If the property is in shit state they are also welcome to leave it that way. Tenants can move out of properties in the same condition they moved in to them (allowing for wear and tear)

Why should tenants suffer because of issues so trivial they aren;t noticed by lazy inventory clerks?

what are you talking about? All the points I’ve made are IN FAVOUR of tenants

Our tenants have dogs. Last ones had a cat and we had to rip up all the flooring. The house looked relatively clean bit once it was empty for a few days we could smell cat urine. It was under the laminate and seeped into the floorboards in two rooms. I still accept pets, we just have to factor in the cost of fully stripping the property. So I suppose all tenants will pay more for pet owner tenants.

As for those with allergies like OP, how far back would you need to know. I could advertise our property as no pets, say the previous tenants haven't had pets but what about the ones before? And you can't guarantee that tenants don't have pets, you can only trust what they tell you.

@ShirleyPhallus your points basically sum up everything that's wrong with amateur landlords to be honest.

You can't have pets because they might piss on the sofa which will then have to be professionally cleaned WHICH IS A STANDARD TENANT COST ANYWAY according to you. And that still somehow equals less profit for you?

Imagine charging someone £1000 a month give or take for the privilege of sitting on a sofa other people have probably fucked all over and spilled their dinner on and A) thinking that it only needs professionally cleaned if it smells of cat piss and B) being able to sleep at night.

If having to refresh the decor every few years (which most homeowners do anyway) is such an issue for profits then it's probably time to find another business venture that doesn't rely on people not being allowed to live a basic life just to keep the business afloat.

Imagine other businesses started doing this. "Sorry, I know we're a cafe but if we implement basic hygiene rules we just won't be profitable anymore - so we're only going to serve people who don't care about that or are so desperate that they have to come to us anyway hehehe."

You wouldn't put up with it in the place you eat so why the fuck are we putting up with it in the places we live?
The whole system should never have been allowed to get this unregulated in the first place.

IMHO tenants should pay deposit and rent and not a penny more. I would never charge a tenant for the inevitable clean that is needed, even if they leave it pretty damn clean. Obviously if they leave it as state then getting it "pretty clean and tidy" should come out of the deposit, then the deep clean should be paid by landlord.

Tenants are suffering because you are using lazy inventry clerks to justify not allowing pets.

Tenants do not deep clean sofas as standard when they move out. They pay for a standard end of tenancy clean which usually doesn’t include sofas.

I didn’t say that landlords wouldn’t redecorate every few years at all? I was responding very specifically to the poster who said that landlords should run their properties as businesses. Every business owner runs it in the most profitable way possible, ie lowest cost and highest margins. Allowing pets in to a property DOES cost the landlord more.

Ive already explained I allow pets in my property. I support tenants being allowed to live a quiet and enjoyable life in their home. I also support landlords protecting their asset as best they can. The law should fall evenly on the rights of both parties.

jesus there are some angry people on this thread

You are 100% spot on.

The only thing I might disagree with you on is that I think that corporate landlords risk being just as bad as amateur ones (imagine the call centre hell of getting repairs organised).

To my mind the best landlords are small time landlords who are very professional.

The next best are probably corporate who are very professional

Next best are small time landlords who are somewhat professional.

Next best are corporate landlords who are somewhat professional.

The worst landlords are probably all amateurs who don;t get that they are providing a service and have a moral and legal duty to be professional. I doubt many big landlords are as bad as the worst, entitled, amateurs.

Tenants are suffering because you are using lazy inventry clerks to justify not allowing pets.

I mean this is just bullshit at this point. If an inventory clerk doesn’t note on the checkout report that the flat smells like cat urine there is literally nothing a landlord can do about it. They cannot take money from a tenant for this. If it went to dispute the dispute would land squarely in favour of the tenant because it’s up to the landlord to prove they have suffered a material loss and they have no way to do this. This is IN FAVOUR OF TENANTS.

exactly which tenants are “suffering” by not being allowed pets? My tenants ARE allowed pets!

"Every business owner runs it in the most profitable way possible, ie lowest cost and highest margins. Allowing pets in to a property DOES cost the landlord more."

No, you miss the bit about the fact that they do that within the law. And here we are talking about where the law should be and IMHO it probably needs to move even further in favour of tenants than this proposal in order to better balance landlord and tenant rights.

I own a flat and my flat block allows all cats and dogs. I have a hamster!

One of my neighbours has Persian cats, aren't they supposed to be kept inside anyway due to fears of theft? I don't really mind the dogs but once a resident's dog was running around in the communal garden and I was holding my hamster in its carrier, it leapt on me and it was a big dog! That was a bit scary.

Tenants are suffering because you are using lazy inventry clerks to justify not allowing pets.

I mean this is just bullshit at this point. If an inventory clerk doesn’t note on the checkout report that the flat smells like cat urine there is literally nothing a landlord can do about it. They cannot take money from a tenant for this. If it went to dispute the dispute would land squarely in favour of the tenant because it’s up to the landlord to prove they have suffered a material loss and they have no way to do this. This is IN FAVOUR OF TENANTS.

If you;re such a great professional landlord why aren;t you employing better inventry clerks or suing the incompetent ones who let you down? What level of PII cover do your inventry clerks have? How much can you sue them for if they fail to spot faults that should have been paid for by tenants?

Exposure didn’t help me. As a small child I spent a lot of time with family who had dogs. I would also ride ponies. I had absolutely no allergy to these. My allergies started when I was around 9 or 10 and my parents had no idea what was causing them at first so I was still in contact with animals. It was only after I had an asthma attack and an off duty nurse came to help and told my parents it was an asthma attack that they took me to the GP who arranged for allergy tests. Complete suprise to my parents that I was allergic to dogs! The allergies have got worse over time. The last time I went near a pony was about three or four years ago. I thought I would be ok stood two metres away outside whilst my DCs rode. Wrong! I started to have an attack within a few minutes.

For people commenting about buying a house, it’s a complete nightmare even just to view never mind buy a house where a dog has lived. We’re on our fourth new build for that very reason!

Also, entering a large shop where an animal has been briefly is completely different to sitting in the living room of someone who has a dog. The longer the exposure the worse my asthma is. So, if I see an animal, I walk away, leave the building etc. One of my worse experiences was when I was in a meeting room with a client who had just been horse riding. I had no idea at the outset of the meeting and didn’t understand why my breathing was deteriorating. Thanks goodness that I now WFH and meetings are via Teams!!!

"One of my neighbours has Persian cats, aren't they supposed to be kept inside anyway due to fears of theft? I don't really mind the dogs but once a resident's dog was running around in the communal garden and I was holding my hamster in its carrier, it leapt on me and it was a big dog! That was a bit scary."

Well, I'd argue that if a cat breed is at such risk of theft that it can;t be left outside then it's not a cat breed that should be allowed really. I suppose that there are some cats that are fine with being indoors, but I can't imagine keeping ours in. He was fine inside getting acclimatised to his new home, but by the end he was itching to get outside - the idea of keeping him locked inside for 14 years seems barbaric.

Why do you care one jot what risks I take as a landlord?

Ah I see, you can’t get further with your poor argument because I’ve pointed out that deposit schemes protect tenants so you’re moving on to some completely irrelevant point. Gotcha.

Currently there is nothing in the HRA or the ECHR that would provide a course of action against a landlord who refused a pet or who refused to offer a tenancy to a prospective tenant with a pet other than those provided already in law via the Equaliry Act. So refusing a tenant with an assistance animal might be actionable. A number of landlords including me cannot offer tenancies to pet owners due to prohibition in the lease.

I'm sorry you have very severe asthma.
But I don't understand why ALL tenants should not be allowed to keep pets because one day in the future you might want to move into that property.

Do you understand how unworkable that policy is?

the most recent data suggest that pet ownership has increased over the pandemic from 52%

59% of people living in the UK now own pets

As you also wouldn't be able to purchase a property?

Or rent from the council?

Why should this only affect tenants.

As you would still need to live somewhere that is unfurnished with a hard floor and a deep clean to stay safe.

Also at the moment- many ,many people get pets and do not tell their landlord.
So you cannot assume a rented property has had pets than any other property, as their is a huge incentive to omit this detail at present.

What this brilliant policy will encourage is more stability for tenants and for landlords to provide wood flooring on unfurnished properties.

So will make your life actually easier.....

Message to landlords----

I do not want to look after your 20 year old brown DFS sofa/ 15 year old broken billy bookcase, 70 year old table (too big) for the dinning room. I would rather buy my own.

I (like most) tenants want unfurnished or a least the option to keep or remove your horrible furniture.

I would prefer a wood floor- as I can add my own rugs/flooring. This is cheaper (in the long run) for you and better for me.

I get that this must be difficult for you--

But what do you suggest --That everyone doesn't own a pet in the UK,?

When currently 59% do own pets?

Where are all these pets going to live?

You can't buy, you can't rent?

Surely you need to do a deep clean- wood floors- new furniture- or move into an unfurnished new build.

I'm not an expect- there needs more research into this but the solution is NOT to encourage a blanket ban on pets of ONLY private rented properties.

I know ragdoll cats specifically can't be let outside because they have very little road awareness..a lot of people walk their ragdoll cats on a leash!

In Australia and USA, I know a lot of cat owners keep their cats in. I didn't even know pet cats could be allowed to roam before I came to the UK!

Why should millions of children get to feel like second class citizens as they are not allowed to have simple pleasures like a dog, cat, guniea pig etc...?

WTF? I can categorically say neither myself, DH, my DC or DP have ever felt like second class citizens because we don't have pets.

Someone else mentioned upthread about not allowing places to have carpet. We are buying a flat and it is in the lease that carpet must be used apart from in kitchen and bathroom for sound protection. It also says no 'animal, bird or reptile' unless agreed with the landlord, and then stipulations might be put in place.

That's because you don't want a pet- not because you are a tenant. It's your choice.

I personally wouldn't buy a flat with those terms on the lease, as there are loads of properties to buy that do not have that clause.

That is not so with rented properties- I don't have a choice.

59% of UK people do have pets.

Yes my kids felt like second class citizen when I had to re-home my much loved cats because my landlord served notice (no fault eviction) and I couldn't find anyone that would take kids and pets on a short notice.

Lots of children would love a pet, but know they cannot have one because there parents have told them we rent.

I've told this to my children.

Blanket ban on pets is unnecessary, divisive and unfair.

As an ex-LL I'm so glad I'm out of it.

Tenants are such a nightmare to deal with, the fact you can't take a big enough deposit to cover the damage that can be done by tenants and let alone their pets.

I only had 2 sets of tenants in my time as a LL (sadly inherited property) and I allowed them both pets, and the pets did no damage - but at least I was able to have the conversation and the tenants were careful about protecting the property against damage from pets because they knew that no many LL allowed pets so they respected the trust I had given them.

I'd never do it again it was an eye opener.

I think the model in the UK is moving more towards very very large LL companies rather than individual LLs. Which I think is a shame personally as those companies are going to have such a monopoly.

But who is making children feel like second class citizens? How can they be, if nearly half the population (according to your figures) don't have pets? Shame on anyone that makes children feel like this.