Numerous LLs have had tenants with pets that caused damage far in excess of the deposit. They were consequently out of pocket.
Thus is why some LLs won’t take pets. It is pretty impossible to tell which tenants’ pets will cause damage and which won’t. It is a lottery. Damage can be far in excess of deposits so LLs pay out of own pocket.
To those suggesting all LLs should take pets, do you think it’s acceptable that the LL who takes pets can face bigger repair and cleaning bills than the deposit, plus all of the hassle of sorting it out - often longer void periods whilst the damage is sorted out. It is impossible to chase tenants for amounts beyond the deposit, before anyone says they should charge whatever it takes.
to individual tenants with pets, YOURS might be fab and no trouble at all. BUT how can a LL know this? If they’ve had bad experiences before or heard about them, can you understand the issue?
I personally know a tenant who had a dog that chewed the skirting boards and bottoms of doors and the edges of carpets. Total cost to repair apparently according to her (told by LL) was £3.8k. The deposit was £1200. Clearly the tenant I know lost all her deposit and expected to. She didn’t expect to pay beyond that, plus didn’t have any money to pay with anyway. This happens fairly regularly.
Personally, if an existing tenant asked about a pet, I’d consider it. If a new tenant wanted a hamster or similar I’d consider it. If someone wanted a cat or dog, it would be ‘no’ for flats without private gardens and which have communal spaces. Possibly for a marionette or a house.
Regarding higher rents, tenants need to appreciate that what you’re paying for isnt just a bit of extra cleaning at the end, but also those risks of damage which can be astronomical.
I get that it’s hard being a tenant and pets bring great joy. But people forget the cost impliacations for LLs. Because someone is a LL, there is zero onus on them to subsidise damage, redecorating and void costs which result from pets. Some people take the view that because LLs already have their own property (where they can have pets) and the rental is an extra income they owe tenants all kinds of things which make the rental unviable, as some kind of social service to tenants who don’t own. No. They must offer a service they can provide and then make sure they deliver what people have paid for. If they think pets aren’t appropriate for the property or the risks are too big, like any business decision, they shouldn’t make it.
As others say, if LLs are forced to do things which mean they lose money on their properties, more will sell. One of the reasons for rising rents is lots have sold already so supply is less and rents rising. But often people can’t see the connection. Of course there should be regulation, but it has to be sensible and practical and everyone needs to understand LLs rent out to make money. People might not like the fact that not everyone owns or the UK rental market, but must understand that LLs will always be wary of tenants or pets etc that have additional risks…it’s logical!