Does dog clause stack up legally?

Does dog clause stack up legally?

8:56 AM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago 27

Text Size

I have new tenants who indicated they may want to keep a dog at the property for which we would make an additional charge in the form of a higher monthly rent.

The tenants decided not to go with it at the start of the tenancy, so we added a clause in the AST stating it was an option to add a dog by informing us, at which point the additional amount would apply. The additional amount was indicated in the clause.

My question is, does this stack up legally or could it come back to bite me?

The tenant now has a dog and has said they will pay the additional amount as agreed.

The tenancy is in month 7 of a 12 month agreement.

Many thanks

Hardworking Landlord



Comments

by Paul Shears

11:15 AM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by paul kaye at 28/05/2020 - 10:02
I could not agree more. These interfering idiots are a burden on society.

by Seething Landlord

11:29 AM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Paul Shears at 28/05/2020 - 11:15Which is possibly the view some tenants have of their landlord.

by Dylan Morris

12:12 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Coming soon The Landlord Pet Discrimination Act 2021.

by SuperHarrygeorge

14:01 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by paul kaye at 28/05/2020 - 10:02
Agree totally. I have a no pet policy but have in the past agreed to small pet ie rabbit guineapig . Indoor pets are more problematic . The word 'pet' could in theory mean any animal big or small so the landlord should have the right to say no. It is like smoking. I have a strict no smoking policy in the contract and that is my right as smoke in a house is extremely difficult to irradicate .

by SuperHarrygeorge

14:02 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 28/05/2020 - 12:12
What constitutes a PET !!

by SuperHarrygeorge

14:13 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Chris Wheelwright at 28/05/2020 - 10:23
So what your saying if i read you right,is that as long as they are paying the rent then ir is up to them what they do with the property because 'it is their home' ! A contract should be binding on both parties and if their is reasonable stipulations as to how that property is used or looked after then that should stand. Just because rent is paid it does not give a tenant carte blanche to do as they want. If the government want total freedom for renters then they must provide their own housing stock and not overly legislate for private landlords.

by Graham Bowcock

14:34 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

My pet policy is no pets into houses which are recently refurbished or have new carpets. Otherwise I am generally amenable without extra cost, but do tend to attract long term tenants I have had cleaning issues after pets and do wonder why some people have pets in the first place if they are just going to keep them in all day. However, given the length of my tenancies, the costs of extra cleaning (above what the tenants may have done) is modest.

I did let a couple have a dog in a new refurb 12 months ago and it has worked out okay. In fact the tenants have been gushing about our flexibility; I think their former landlord was a bit of a Paul (see above comments). Given that they may stay 10 years (about my average) why am I worried about a dog?

Some of the above comments are surprising; yes we are over regulated but it goes with the territory these days if you want to be in the business. You can put clauses in the tenancy to forbid pets, but we all know that breach of this clause on it's own would not be sufficient to end the agreement (in the absence of s21).

I have seen new Build to Rent properties and the owners (generally large pensions funds) bend over backwards to offer tenants decent housing and good flexibility.

by Rob Crawford

16:23 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

I don't think the term "pet" should be used. A guard dog for instance is not a pet! Maybe, a generic term that includes "animal and insects and fish" in any clause.

by Dylan Morris

17:17 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by at 28/05/2020 - 14:02
The draft legislation refers to everything from flees to elephants.

by Paul Shears

18:36 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 28/05/2020 - 11:29
Fine. No common interest there so, that's a clear indication that the matter is closed.
What is most certainly not required is some agent of the state utilising recycled tax money on a destructive burden where the only beneficiaries are the officials themselves. If, like Shelter, they want to redress some perceived social imbalance, perhaps they should do something practical. For example offering some accomodation to the market place themselves on whatever terms they see fit.
I can reassure any who decide to do just that, that I will certainly support their right to do so and will not attempt to interfere and expect the taxpayer to pick up the destructive tab.


Leave Comments

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

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER