I don’t really understand the argument that rental properties should be available to tenants with pets as a matter of course.
Pets, quite simply increase the risk of damage. This isn’t saying the tenant pet owners intend to create damage, but the nicest, most well-intentioned tenant can have a dog (or to lesser extent cats) who creates damage which is beyond the deposit which is allowed these days or which creates extra work for landlords which isn’t immediately visible when they leave.
The kind of damage/impact which no tenant can guarantee 100% that their pet wo t create includes;
-damage to woodwork (doors or skirting or cupboards) through chewing or scratching
- damage to carpets of flooring via scratching or urine or faeces or fleas
- damage to soft furnishings via the above
-damage to gardens via chewing or digging
- upset to neighbours via noise or digging etc
As both owner occupiers and renters know, pets can be unpredictable. With new pets, puppies will always have phases of chewing or doi g damage. A new adult pet is an unknown quantity and it’s behaviour cannot be guaranteed by any human. Even a well known adult pet can be unpredictable and finding itself in a new home can cause damage which the owner did not expect. Even let’s which do t cause damage create smells, have fleas intermittently and in old age might have accidents. The very best owners cannot present these things gs ever happening.
As owners of dogs and cats know, sometimes these costs can be significant. New carpets or flooring I think might be needed (exceeding deposit) if floors are dirty or infested or damaged. Even small bits of repair to woodwork can swallow the deposit and then more. There is all the cost plus all the inconvenience of sorting g these jobs out too.
So the point is that with the current system of deposits which have strict limits on them, and the fact that retaining money from deposits is increasingly difficult, many many landlords who have allowed pets find themselves out of pocket and significantly inconvenienced. Is anyone really arguing that tenants so-called entitlement to enjoy pets should be at the financial cost and inconvenience of landlords?....ie landlords should be willing to foot bills which exceed the deposit and face the inconvenience and loss of rent of the property sitting un let after a tenant vacates, while the work is sorted out? Surely not. But in the current situation this is the reality as lots of landlords report.
The trouble is, who can say for certain which pets will be totally reliable or not cause any damage to the property? No one can really. Tenants can be referenced and credit checked (not perfect processes but at least some help) and even if they have kept a pet well previously or a different pet, no one can say for certain how the pet might behave in a different environment or, more importantly how a different pet will behave. There is so much uncertainty that a landlord faces and a tenant cannot give guarantees on.
No tenant wants their pet to wee on the carpet constantly and they might try to stop them doing it.....but once it’s happened, the whole flat might be need recarpetting. No tenant intend the dogs to chew the skirting boards and dig the carpet where the door is closed, but once done, these cost vast sums to fix. And how often does the deposit cover this fully or the landlord manage to get all of the cost (to also cover inconvenience) from the tenant....not often. So it’s hardly surprising landlords are reluctant and insurers have clauses excluding pets as mortgage lenders might too. They simply can’t cover the risk. And it doesn’t matter if one individual is a great pet owner....because it is pretty much impossible to verify that. The risk is very much present.
Add in the people who seem to think a flat might suit a dog, when there is no direct access to a private garden and you’ve got further nuisance to other tenants.
The only way it seems to me that more pets owning tenants can get what they want are for the government to significantly increase the deposits for such properties and have systems which mean landlords really can claim for pet damage and cleaning on them, plus tenants are prepared to fork out. Stronger referencing is needed but to be honest it’s impossible to reference a pet. Even the best pet owner with great previous pet owning experience might have a dog that behaves strangely one day or get a new pet that behaves differently....the risks are so much more difficult to mitigate against. As a tenant with dogs, I just couldn’t say with absolute certainty that my dogs would never cause damage.
And so for these reasons, I think landlords will resist pets. It’s not to be mean but it’s because it is really difficult to make properly informed decisions about individual tenants and their pets....and so many have been stung.