to get a dog even though tenancy agreement says I can't??

[WannaDoggie]

I want to get my DCs a dog. For the last 3 years we have had to rent after having to sell our home and have not a hope in hell of buying again within the foreseeable future!! At our last property (different agent) we asked if we could get one and were told that we could'nt. Am thinking just to get one anyway without telling our current letting agents. I am aware that this will breach the terms our tenancy but so what we are paying lot of money to live here and should be able to live as we please. Why should my kids grow up without a pet because we rent?? We have obviously paid a damage deposit and IF there is any damage, we would rectify it whether from the kids or the dog.

Why should our lives be dictated to just because we can't get a mortgage? AIBU??

I'm not being short-sighted purplepeony. I said she should ask, which is what we did.

It's not your farkin home. Therefore you have to play by the landlord's rules. Deal with it. Or perhaps try and move to the parallel universe your head currently occupies. Sake!

scottishmummy makes a good point - when I was renting, I went round various properties and some otherwise lovely places got dumped because of the smell. Why would a landlord take that on if he doesn't have to (and he doesn't). YABcompletelyU. Or a troll.

when we were renting we discounted flats that had pets or smokers,as they were smelly. dont want to live with dog or nicotine odour

And now I'm off on one....presumably this poor dog will end up advertised on the internet as yet another animal rejected on the grounds of "circumstances beyond our control..."

Except that your circumstances aren't beyond your control.

here is what the Office of Fair Trading has to say on the subject (page 64 of a huge document).

Clearly the OP has put this in AIBU to cause an argument. But I think it is an interesting question about pets. Lots of (presumably homeowners) here seem to think that all landlords are people renting out their own pristinely decorated home into which the ungrateful tenants are insisting on bringing stinking mutts. I'd argue that most landlords are not renting out their own homes and most I've come across are pretty mean about keeping the places in good repair themselves.

Also just because you rent a place doesn't mean it's not your home. Fair enough it's not your house, but it is your HOME and you should be allowed to enjoy it in peace. Some would say peaceful enjoyment should include being able to have a pet.

Whatever, though, OP don't get a dog without permission. It'll only end in tears.

Thanks for the link but I think getting a dog is not quite the same as getting a goldfish although again I would urge the op (if she's not a troll) to ask the landlord.

As a landlord myself if I had a good tenant I would be keen to keep them (with certain terms and conditions) however I would be quite about a tenant who felt the were doing me a great favour and they should be able to treat my house however they liked.

Someone who breaks the terms of the tenancy is not a good tenant.

If she gets a dog by definition the OP is a Bad Tenant.

McD the statement uses a goldfish as an example - but it does say it's the clause about 'not keeping pets' that is unfair. It suggests landlord should say 'without permission from the landlord' and that 'permission will not be unreasonably denied'.

So basically it argues against an outright ban on pets being fair practice.

I do think it's a terrible example to set your DC's, that they don't have to abide by any rule they happen not to like very much. D'you let them break the school rules they happen not to like as well?

That's one reason for what's wrong with your way of thinking, since you asked. And other posters have listed others.

people here before us had a dog. we've been here 4 years now and still get the occasional whiff of dog.....very unpleasant!!

I would say it depends how you interpret it. I read it as it would be unreasonable to put a blanket 'no pets" exclusion in the contract as this would mean the tenant couldn't keep a goldfish as stated but I guess this would also include a hamster and the like.

I don't think it's unreasonable to exclude dogs and I know that as a landlord you can (as we originally did).

K, so you say you had a rent a no dogs home because no properties in your area that allowed dogs.

So what's going to happen when you get evicted for breach of contract?

You'll be nice and homeless, even if you get rid of the dog, because you'll have no reference from your former landlord.

And if you think the council has a duty to declare you homeless because of it, guess again! You'll be considered having become intentionally homeless and out on your keister.

Get a guinea pig, some fish or a hamster.

Where are you going to get a dog from?

Imagine telling the kids they have to get rid of the dog AND they'll going to be living in a B&B for a bit OR having ot change schools for moving out of area.

By all means ask, you've nothing to lose.

But. Is it really worth just getting one without checking?

They would be well within their rights to evict you. Then you'd have to find somewhere else and you'd already have the dog. You've said how it's impossible to find somewhere to accept a dog so what would you do? lie and risk another eviction? get rid of the dog? (far more upsetting for the kids!). Also, what if the letting agent want a reference from current landlord? "dear sirs, we evicted them because they got a dog in breach of their tenancy agreement". Not going to want you, are they?

Surely the kids having a roof over their heads is more important than having a dog?

Plus. If you were evicted because you breeched the tenancy, you can forget about going to the council because they'd consider you made yourself homeless. They wouldn't help you.

Your kids are more important and you have a responsibility to do nothing that risks the roof over their heads.

i am getting a picture of screaming weans,mangy dog,all homeless. wannadoggie dragging on a rollie saying they cant do this

and sage ole mn,us all shakin heads saying

ah telt ye.but ye didnae listen.ye niver dae

YABU if you don't come clean and ask the agent/landlord.

come clean and dogs.now there is an oxymoron

Well, we'll have to disagree McDreamy. I do think it's a bit unfair to state 'no pets' rather than the whole statement suggested by the OFT.

But clearly we're in agreement about the OP not asking permission first. As most people on the thread are, one way or another.

and more than not wanting a tenant with a dog I would def not take on a tenant who couldn't produce a good reference from a previous landlord - I would rather have an empty house

Don't do it without permission - it could give you no end of problems!

we previously signed a no pets clause as tenants.oft used clause