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

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

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 28/05/2020 - 17:17
Some would say that's rather restrictive.........

by Paul Shears

18:38 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by at 28/05/2020 - 14:13
Spot on!

by terry sullivan

18:53 PM, 28th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Graham Bowcock at 28/05/2020 - 14:34
at a price!

by Mick Roberts

8:45 AM, 30th May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Kevin Ratcliff at 28/05/2020 - 11:05
Same here Kevin,

I let tenants had what they like for years. Until had one bite through a whole stairs £1000+. And a few kitchens wrecked.
I had a pig in one a few years ago.

Ha ha yes I've had the pet flap in the door too.

by DSR

15:37 PM, 30th May 2020, About 2 years ago

I'm afraid my experience to date is no pets/animals or any other being in the property other than those listed on the TA. I've had chewed doors, urine soaked carpets, damaged plaster, shredded lino and poop all over the INSIDE of properties. If you have a pet then that's fine . 1. You choose where to live. 2 I choose that it's not in my property. Simples

by Jessie Jones

11:27 AM, 31st May 2020, About 2 years ago

In response to the OP's question, the only 2 aspects of law that could potentially bite them on the bum are the Tenant Fees Act, or if the additional rent is considered an 'unfair term' by any Court.
If the AST makes it clear that the additional cost to the tenant is additional rent, and cannot be inferred as a 'fee', then they are ok.
So is it an unfair clause? I have seen for myself what damage can be caused by an elderly incontinent dog. Floorboards and rafters have had to be replaced as nothing can mask the odour from years of urine soaking into the woodwork and plasterboard below. Repair bills can run to tens of thousands in the worst case. This isn't likely, but possible.
I would suggest that the OP seeks additional insurance to cover himself against this sort of damage, and if the additional rent that is passed on to the tenants is comparable with the increased insurance premium, then it is not an unfair term.

by Badger

11:36 AM, 31st May 2020, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Simon Williams at 28/05/2020 - 10:25
Oh I don't know.

Those tiny 'handbag' dogs can be some of the very worst.


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