I own a home in the uk and do not allow pets, I don't think it's unreasonable either. We allowed my SIL to have a cat when she rented the place and it totally ruined the carpet, so much so that MIL paid for a replacement! I don't think it's discriminatory as pets can cause a lot of damage to properties.
I think it is reasonable to say no to pets ... as long as you are happy to limit your pool of applicants by doing so.
We have a cat, and have successfully rented 4 properties with her - in fact we've never been knocked back for a property (even when there are pet-less applicants applying), so I guess we must be ok
Seriously though, I know so many people who are renting 'strictly no pets' properties, and are keeping pets anyway. I definitely don't agree with it, but it happens. I'm not even talking a cat or a mouse - we're talking puppies, birds and snakes
IMO, having a tenant with a pet that you know about is a much lower risk than having a tenant with a pet that you DON'T know about.
We are renters who also own an ancient red heeler dog. Both the houses I have rented with Albie have had no carpet in them - polished wood and tiles only. This makes it so much easier to have him inside - it's a vacuum (I have a Dyson which is EXCELLENT for picking up dust and pet hair) and then a mop using a steam mop (disinfects without chemicals). I believe that if you didn't know I had Albie inside, you would be hard pressed to believe he was an inside dog on cold nights.
We get the yard sprayed for fleas and ticks when we move and make sure there is no evidence of him in the garden either.
I think that the right kind of tennants in a house that is pet friendly (which I spend time looking for - I don't want carpets in a house as it's too hard to remove all the dog hair, fleas, etc) can be fine, but tennants should be vetted thoroughly first (I've even had to provide references for the dog! and the landlord met him before we moved in). It must be so hard as a landlord to trust unknown tennents, especially after a bad experience though. And some properties would not be suitable for pets, inside or outside.
I think there would be fewer domestic pets at the shelter if pets are allowed. I know as a low income family, if I were to rent there would be very few properties to choose from in my price range, and even fewer if I wanted to have my furbabies with me. However, this is also why I only took on pets after I bought this place, not while renting. Too risky.
Because this sort of thing is so rife, the property manager at the agency we deal with always goes to the neighbours and susses out whether the neighbours have pets. She doesn't ask are they 'hiding' any, she does it in a way where she asks if next door's pet"s) are bothering them or something like that. I am always amazed at how quickly people are to disclose to her if their neighbours are indeed 'hiding' pets and somehow she always gets the anwers she's seeking.
Last edited by Mod-Uniquey; 15-01-2012 at 14:29.
Ali G (15-01-2012)
If they had a good rental history and papers for the animal such as it being desexed registered etc. Then I would allow it shows me they are responsible.
Properly trained and cared for animal do very little damage if any. Certainly less then some tenants with no pets.
We have rented to many tenants with pets, dogs are the biggest problem, I would say in my office it's 50/50 , half the tenants that have had dogs have caused damage/smell /fleas/problems with neighbors because of barking etc and the other half are perfect! So it does come down obviously to dog and owner , I would say about 25% of our landlords allow dogs, we have a dog clause in regards to fleas and damage and require dog references ( and I've written quite a few!) but yes the bonds always don't cover the damage! I do like the idea of an aded dog bond though, that would make our landlords feel a bit safer
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!