Cuddly Corbyn wants to give tenants the right to keep pets

Cuddly Corbyn wants to give tenants the right to keep pets

10:36 AM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago 73

Text Size

In an effort to win over animal loving votes the Labour party wants to give tenants a default right to keep pets in their rented home.

Landlords can only refuse permission under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act if it is reasonable to do so, for reasons such as the animal’s size, possible damage and impact on future rental demand.

However, Labour want landlords to have to prove the pet will be a nuisance before keeping it can be refused. Therefore, this would stop landlords being able to advertise properties with a no pet policy.

The plans also include giving low income earners help with vets bills!

Labour shadow environment secretary, Sue Hayman, said: “People shouldn’t be denied the joy of keeping a pet just because they can’t afford a home of their own. For the majority of people under 30 buying a home is sadly less and less an affordable option.

“I believe the five million households who are forced to rent really shouldn’t be denied the joy of keeping a pet. Pets are not only good company, but they can also help reduce stress in their owners.

“So we want to consult with landlords to see if we can give tenants the default right to keep a pet in their home, so long as they’re not a nuisance. It’s important we don’t just design policies for those fortunate enough to own a home and we reflect the needs of the many, not the few.”

The NLA’s, Richard Lambert, said: “Around half of landlords say they are reluctant to allow renters to keep pets due to a perceived added risk of damage to the property, and the increased costs of repair at the end of a tenancy.

“You can’t take a blanket approach to keeping or refusing pets. The NLA has consistently supported schemes that encourage landlords to take on pet owners, such as the Dog’s Trust’s ‘Lets With Pets’, but landlords should have a right to refuse permission so long as they justify their decision.

“For example, common properties in the PRS, such as high rise flats or those without gardens, may simply not be suitable for keeping some animals nor beneficial to their welfare.”

In addition to the last comment by Richard some leasehold property covenants preclude keeping pets in the building.

A Property118 reader commented on the news that “I automatically turn down anyone who wants just a room and has a cat. Many people have allergies. It must be a non-starter in HMOs.”


by Appalled Landlord

11:44 AM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dr Rosalind Beck at 14/02/2018 - 10:56Quite right Ros. Sue Hayman is portraying tenants as victims by using the word “forced”. It conjures up visions of people being pushed into properties by bailiffs despite preferring to use their assets to buy homes of their own.

Note the “five million households”. That is the size of the private rental sector. Is this new law, aimed at winning votes for Labour (at no cost to them as a future government) only to apply to the PRS? Do all social households already have this right?

Sue Hayman has been accused of breaking various rules according to the “In the Press” section of her Wikipedia profile.

by terry sullivan

11:44 AM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by David Lawrenson at 14/02/2018 - 11:11
Tenants on a local council estate used to keep shetland ponies in flats

by Dr Rosalind Beck

12:16 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

It's the usual self-portrayal as being 'caring.' As with the attempts to make it really difficult for landlords to evict when tenants are in breach of their contracts, it means co-tenants and neighbours have to suffer the awful stresses of living with/next to the tenants from hell and/or put up with what can be the 'pets from hell.'. In fact, this latest ridiculous interference from Labour is 'for the few and not the many.'

by Martin Roberts

12:19 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Some years ago Bristol City Council decided to allow pets in all their properties.

Within days people were on local radio saying their lives were now' Hell on Earth' due to dogs being left in high rise flats while the owners were out all day/night. One barks, they all bark.

They have since balloted tenants and some blocks are now designated 'dog free', new tenants not allowed dogs, existing ones may not be replaced.

by Dr Rosalind Beck

12:25 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

This is a far more complex issue than Labour politicians would have us believe. It is the usual simplistic declaration, appealing to the masses, which ignores the 'unintended' effects of ignorant policy interference by people who do not understand the issues. It in fact would even be very difficult to allow a blind person to have a guide dog in an HMO. Who, for example, would clean up the dog mess each morning? Landlords can't simply allow tenants who share with other tenants to have pets. It would only really be possible where a group signs together, agrees on having the pet and the landlord also agrees. I have done this in the past with students and allowed a rabbit. They then got mice as the rabbit left mess everywhere and they didn't clean it up.

by Neil Patterson

13:24 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Response from David Smith, policy director for the Residential Landlords Association.

“Will landlords be able to charge higher deposits to reflect the increased risks of damage to a property where pets are allowed?“

“Will insurance premiums increase for landlords to reflect the greater risk of allowing pets to be kept as a default position? What happens in shared homes and blocks of flats where one or more of the tenants do not want, or are allergic to, a pet?”

“Labour will need to respond positively to all these points if landlords are to have confidence in this suggested policy.”

by Amanda Rose

14:55 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Perhaps he'd like to see the state of our rental where the dog was left to use it as a toilet?! The tenant didn't really clean up after his dog unless you count smearing it into the carpets so now we are left having to fork out for new carpets - hardly fair is it?

by James Noble

15:11 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

When will people realise that most of the advantages of keeping pets, dogs especially, are simply not true. They are myths propounded by charities such as Dogs Trust, to increase sales. Dogs make me very tense! They are noisy, messy, smelly, expensive, and time-consuming. Many owners are still incapable of 'picking-up'. Don't be fooled by the propaganda these companies send out. I have never allowed dogs into my properties, and I never will!

by Mark Alexander

15:51 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by James Noble at 14/02/2018 - 15:11
I do not agree. I particularly target responsible dog owners as pets. Even my former 6 bed home (still fully furnished) is let to a couple with 4 children, two horses, two dogs and a cat.

I have a problem with Corbyn’s vote hunting sound bites but I do not have a problem with letting to pet owners under the right circumstances.

by David Lawrenson

15:59 PM, 14th February 2018, About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander at 14/02/2018 - 15:51
Yes, I would do for tenants I have had for a year or two if they asked me and I was sure that they are the kind of people who would not go to work and leave a dog to bark and annoy neighbours.
But I would be hesitant at the outset.
One of the daft proposals coming down the line (a Conservative policy) is to limit deposits to six weeks. That makes it harder to accept pets such as dogs and cats. I request 6 weeks anyway and, if I did accept pets, I would want 8 weeks to cover the additional cost risk that dogs and cats present.
Kind regards
David Lawrenson
Private Rented Sector Consulting

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?