If you have decided that there is too much risk in letting pets into your rental accommodation, you should include a “No Pets” clause in your rental agreement. Yes, I know that insurance is tainted by problems. What is happening with the various licensed pet charities of pet collectors perhaps in conjunction with ordinary collectors. Tenants deposit funds with the charity that benefit from the gross interest. I think charities should get involved with Govt to make this possible. Pets are known to help dysfunctional and, as such, should certainly be facilitated. Clearly, wonk policies did not take pets into account when developing the new deposit plans. It`s a big accident, I`d say. Unauthorized animals are usually discovered by management during a routine inspection or trip by inspection, by the maintenance of a home repair, or by a neighbouring tenant who sees the animal or hears the animal barking through the walls. Landlords are often hesitant to leave it to tenants to keep a pet in their apartment, as there are often concerns about possible damage or noise caused by the animal. Dogs Trust found that 78% of pet owners struggled to find an apartment that would allow pets. I agree with Paul, but the government should understand that as an owner, I will no longer accept pets because “their” deposit situation, and as an owner, I can tell them that the majority of my clients unfortunately feel similar.
I really sometimes wonder if the government understands… But let us remain our professionalism and continue to tell them if that is what they are looking for and continue to make reasonable proposals to them. You never know anything might sink. 😉 Be clear about the fact that you cannot provide a flat fee for every pet the tenant wants. Each pet is considered separately and you reserve the right to refuse any pet. Customers must follow the rules outlined in the Pet Addendum, or you can revoke this authorization or cancel the rental. See the example below. In accordance with fair terms regulations – which is part of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – you should be able to demand that, despite a clause in the lease, you can keep your pet in your apartment. Such an application should be properly considered and rejected, not without reason. From my point of view, I naturally take a very parochial perspective.
From your daily business perspective, you have to face many tenants in difficulty if you have to point out that your LL clients do not want tenants with pets…… especially furs. Alternatively, there are insurance policies that a tenant can submit for an LL to dispel any harm problems, etc. I would accept pet insurance from a tenant, but of course I would not be able to charge it because it would be prohibited by the TFA. But I suppose it would be acceptable for an LL to state that no tenant with pets would be considered, unless the tenant has pet insurance to cover the damage, etc. So, no requirement, only if there is not one on site then tenant does not take into account. But I guess LL is afraid of the TFA and therefore does not want to risk fines and find it easier to say NO. Can`t really blame the LL us!? Why are they still trying to get votes from those who probably don`t vote for them, they have a majority and five years to clarify the important things instead of following this suicidal path? No mention of head leases that do not allow pets, no mention of allergy risks for future tenants, no mention of antisocial behaviour of barking dogs, no mention of the prospect of a higher deposit to compensate for the risk, no mention of mandatory pet insurance, no mention of mandatory flea treatment at the end of the lease , so who consulted them this