According to the most recent data, 46 per cent of renters live with pets — and 48 per cent list allowing pets as a requirement for their next rental.
In order to attract tenants, landlords need to consider adapting to changing trends to meet the needs of the rental market.
The UK is a nation of pet lovers and with the government announcing last year that tenants will have the legal right to keep pets as part of the Renters Reform Act, it is important that landlords adjust tenancy agreements accordingly and accommodate the new changes in due course.
There are a few ways that landlords can accept tenants with pets without having to worry about the risk of doing so.
We recommend landlords include a pet clause in the lease agreement so expectations can be established beforehand.
Most likely you’re using a standard tenancy agreement for all of your tenants so if you are renting to tenants with pets for the first time, it’s a good idea to add a clause into the agreement. This way, boundaries are established from the outset. If your tenants agree to the terms, you’ll have some protection if they fail to comply with the agreed terms regarding pets.
You can follow the same model that pet-friendly hotels do, where they let pets in but put some restrictions in place in order to mitigate potential damage.
Additionally, you or your letting agent should request a reference from the tenant’s previous landlord on their experience with any pets to find out whether damage or disturbance was caused during that tenancy. You can also ask the tenant to include a pet CV so you have a clearer understanding of the pet you are agreeing to allow in your property.
By doing this, it gives you peace of mind that if a tenant is willing to provide further detail for you on their pet to secure the tenancy, then they are more likely a responsible pet owner. If they are hesitant to provide this for you then it may indicate that they know their pet is unsuitable for a rented property.
Landlords should also consider charging a higher amount of rent per month for tenants with pets.
It’s likely that your concerns about accepting a tenant with a pet stem from the risk of property damage and the financial consequences this may have. This is a landlord's risk renting to tenants with or without pets. I have seen properties with serious damage from tenants without pets so in order to give yourself some protection against this in both cases, ensure your tenant has a clear understanding of your expectations and that you might agree more frequent routine property visits to highlight any areas of concern and ensure they are keeping to their side of the agreement.
If you decide to increase the rent on the basis of you accepting pets, you may be wondering how much to increase it by. There is no hard and fast rule to apply here, but you may consider the costs of an additional professional deep clean including steam cleaning of carpets and some decorative works to be completed at the end of the proposed tenancy.
You may also consider some replacement furniture items if the property is furnished or part furnished and then add those costs to the rent. It is important to be reasonable and factor in the age and current state of any existing furniture items and their normal, useful lifespan rather than just applying a new for old value when working out how much to increase the rent by.
* Clynton Nel is residential director at London lettings agency JOHNS&CO *
Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.
.jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
I'm not interested in mitigating a risk that I can easily avoid altogether.
There are plenty of good potential tenants available who don't want to share my properties with animals.
Why would I limit myself to the minority who do?
Why would I put future tenants with possible allergies at risk?
My properties are for human habitation only. Other options are available for humans who demand to live with animals but I won't be providing them!
Agree, my mitigation policy is to say no !
Wow and sadly your allowed to be a landlord
@DAVID EDMUNDS, & it's feckless ignorant, often envious, people/tenants like you that's helping landlords leave the sector in droves, have fun finding the next property!
Introduction.
With current and future governments proposing to introduce some form of Tenants reform Bill I feel that a very important point is possibly going to slip under the radar. The main talking point is Section 21 and rightfully so, however some of the implications can be prevented if the Landlords business plan is correct, i.e. rent in advance, Guarantors, regular inspections etc. The point on enforcing Landlords to accept pets could be if we are not careful even more damaging and cost us all in time, money, and resources!
Below I have brainstormed my thoughts on some of the problems with being forced to allow pets, there will be those within the industry who read the content and belittle it as they know better, however my objective is to get Landlords talking about the topic before it is too late!
Landlords and pets.
1. Landlords are a business not a charity, full utilisation to properties is our objective, any distraction preventing this being met is unacceptable, this includes working for nothing by searching for tradesmen, handling insurance claims, and downtime when the property is without a paying Tenant.
2. For a landlord who does not want to allow pets, there is no foreseen benefit permitting a Tenant to have a pet in their property. There is only extra “wear and tear”, extra time organising replacement carpets etc, Tradesmen, Insurance claims, Deposit disputes, i.e., absolutely no benefits.
3. Damage to interior of house, skirting boards, doorways, doors, requiring repairing painting etc, problems, deposit, insurance, betterment, “wear and tear”, Tenant leaves and Landlord left to resolve the problems, whilst losing money on rental and time finding tradesmen.
4. Flees, pee, excrement etc in carpet curtains and soft furnishings, only way to completely remove would be replacement, who pays? Insurance Company, Deposit, then disputes on betterment etc.
5. Damage to garden, lawns garden beds, this will take time and specialist trades people to repair, unacceptable presentation for new Tenants which could be used as a reason to pay reduced rent.
6. Smell inside house, in carpets, curtains etc, where should the compensation be proportioned and who pays for the Landlords time and resources, only total replacement will resolve these problems, who pays and compensation landlord for time and losses?
7. Clawing carpets, thereafter, dispute on “wear and tear” deposit, or Insurance claim, then the argument on proportioning betterment.
8. Extra down time between Tenants due to insurance claim process, repairs, and cleaning, who will compensate for this time?
9. Pet hair throughout house, normal “professional cleaning” cannot guarantee to fully remove all hair, problem, where does the Landlord seek the extra to ensure complete cleaning, the Deposit, or the Insurance and who pays for their time?
10. Informing future Tenants that pets were housed previously, Allergies, Asthma, and other breathing aliments, reduced marketplace, reduced rental income etc.
11. Noise nuisance to neighbours and pets using their gardens a Toilets.
12. Insufficient insurance as purchased by Tenant, cheapness!
13. Delay in reletting due to Insurance claim and agreeing with Assessors on cost of compensation for damage.
14. Loss of rental income, interest etc waiting for payment from any insurer and who pays the difference.
15. Time finding Tradesmen tot carryout rectification work, who pays?
16. Pets being left in house, alone all-day uncontrolled damage.
17. Deposit is not sufficient to cover potential damage, loss recovery and to compensate for time to seek, research and organise replacement goods, Tradesmen to repair, fit or install.
18. How is it possible to the Tenant to insure something they do not own?
19. Who sets the level of cover for the insurance policy, Government. Shelter, Landlords and who is the arbiter on such cover?
20. Pet Insurance which is paid for by Tenant will be the cheapest possible and will not fully indemnify the Landlord.
21. Insurance practices by nature of their business will make all endeavours to mitigate their losses, therefore in a claim situation they will require multiple quotes, examine damage, and then decide price for compensation. This price will usually be less than the cost to fully indemnify the Landlord and will not include compensation for time spent finding Tradesmen, shopping etc and loss of rental income.
22. A further major problem is the “grey area” between claiming on either the Deposit or the Insurance.
23. If Landlord is not fully indemnified, can they take the Tenant to court?
24. If a Tenant signs a contract which states no pets, is it not a breach of contract for them to house a pet? If this is the case then the entire contract is null and void
25. What are the punitive penalties that can be bestowed onto a landlord?
26. If the Government whatever colour wants to house pets, why don’t they buy their own properties?
27. If Landlords had an association that would represent the majority and be a force to be reckoned with, as Shelter is to the Tenants, we would be able to shape current and future legislation.
Conclusion
Unless we as Landlords can be 100% guaranteed that we will suffer no financial losses or wasted time we will not permit pets in our properties.
If the Govt gives Tenants the right to have a pet(s) then Landlords only mitigation is higher rent to cover all the costs listed above.
What a load of waffle and rubbish
@DAVID EDMUNDS, wow, you sure are up your own behind thinking you know it all!! (as read all yr posts)
Fecklessness has a usual way of making one not accept responsibility and truths.
For instance, finding your 275K property had been allowed practically as a pet home, yet, property is no pet's, this not the landlords call, as very pet friendly.
Covid restricted inspections so the feckless could go rampant, when property was eventually allowed to be checked: it was a true sespit, how anyone can live like that; upbringing perhaps!
With tenants being so VERY caring they moved out several days prior leaving a couple pets behind, lovely,
7 months later still pet smells, and over 20k worth of damage - floorboards being the worst,
Ah, yet the feckless, similar to you, won't gaf, regardless, the don't care why should I/we attitude - as all landlords are all mega rich (most basic tax payers, fact) and deserve everything they get etc. etc. etc. YAWN!
With the reality being - property recently inherited from parents horrific demise, daughter looking forward to move into and out of their rental, but only when work contract ends, in meantime the property was rented as a 1 off supposedly to good referenced tenant.
But thankfully, another rental property off market - so the feckless, like you, will never get to ruin because you can, true!
Coupled with all Gov, gen rent & shelter et al. all doing in helping their bit to rapidly further deepen a crises of decades = tenants similar to your ilk will be weeded out and on the streets, as council can't help (immigration 1st) & don't look at the Gov either, lol, happy days!!
Quoted from above.
"It’s likely that your concerns about accepting a tenant with a pet stem from the risk of property damage and the financial consequences this may have. This is a landlord's risk renting to tenants with or without pets. I have seen properties with serious damage from tenants without pets so in order to give yourself some protection against this in both cases, ensure your tenant has a clear understanding of your expectations and that you might agree more frequent routine property visits to highlight any areas of concern and ensure they are keeping to their side of the agreement.
My comment.
Who honestly believes that this lofty, "superior" advice is helpful? It is patently obvious to landlords that damage - serious or otherwise - may be caused by tenants with or without pets. Is the writer aware of the notion of comparative (comparative) risk? If so, why isn't this referred to in the article and if not, why dispense gratuitous, simplistic "advice"? Does the writer struggle with understanding and accepting - taking an unrelated and notional comparator - that young drivers pose a greater insurance risk than more experienced ones?
Landlords are really in trouble if this is the best advice we can come up with.
I don't mind tenants having pets, I do mind when the tenant vacates and leaves the pet behind
I've had that, a very unpleasant Rottweiler, and didn't he turn into a problem
Please login to comment