Are landlords to be forced to accept pets

[Avulon]

Originally Posted by macafee2

Which part do you think I may not have read? Yes I did read it. What was unclear in the previous tenancy document? At the moment it is an advisory document but is it the thin edge of the wedge? Who decides if the landlords objection to a pet is reasonable?
What makes you think that landlords do not just make their own decision not to allow pets but follow the herd?

A way round it I guess if a landlord does not want to allow pets, is for the landlord not to use this new document which really means the new document is just a pen pushing, perhaps even a point scoring exercise, useless waste of time.

If the council and government thinks pets should be allowed, let them supply the house.

I can see a problem if someone needs a rental property and already has a pet, to lose the pet would be very hard. Perhaps negotiation could take place to allow the pet but the decision should be the landlords

macafee2

Well, I think you must have certainly missed the part that said that landlords can object to a request from a tenant to have a pet in the property on reasonable grounds otherwise you wouldn't have asked your original question. 'Are landlords to be forced to accept pets' . Obviously, no they're not, but they are being forced to produce a reasonable objection (if they'd rather not have a pet in the property) rather than a blanket ban. This will make them actually consider the issue rather than hide it under a blanket ban. I am, once again mystified as to just why a landlord would want to impose a blanket ban. They can always object on reasonable grounds or ask for a larger deposit etc against possible damage if that's what they are afraid of.
As to what 'reasonable' actually means then that would need to be determined in court as to what is reasonable. As outliers I would guess that 'I don't like dogs/cats/hamsters/fish' might seem unreasonable to a magistrate or judge. While keeping a rabbit in a 6th floor bedsit might easily be objected to on the grounds of the impracticality of allowing the animal access to outside space YMMV.

Originally Posted by Georgies Dad

Lots of pets are well behaved and house trained,that more than could be said of some articles who call themselves human beings.

Quite. It doesn't take a pet to trash a place so badly that it requires full refit and redectoration. Plenty of humans are quite capable of that on their own.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Avulon

Well, I think you must have certainly missed the part that said that landlords can object to a request from a tenant to have a pet in the property on reasonable grounds otherwise you wouldn't have asked your original question. 'Are landlords to be forced to accept pets' . Obviously, no they're not, but they are being forced to produce a reasonable objection (if they'd rather not have a pet in the property) rather than a blanket ban. This will make them actually consider the issue rather than hide it under a blanket ban. I am, once again mystified as to just why a landlord would want to impose a blanket ban. They can always object on reasonable grounds or ask for a larger deposit etc against possible damage if that's what they are afraid of.
As to what 'reasonable' actually means then that would need to be determined in court as to what is reasonable. As outliers I would guess that 'I don't like dogs/cats/hamsters/fish' might seem unreasonable to a magistrate or judge. While keeping a rabbit in a 6th floor bedsit might easily be objected to on the grounds of the impracticality of allowing the animal access to outside space YMMV.







Quite. It doesn't take a pet to trash a place so badly that it requires full refit and redectoration. Plenty of humans are quite capable of that on their own.

No I did not miss the part about landlords can object. My replies seem to me make it obvious I read the part about objection. Why did you not seem to see that part?
Are landlords to be forced is a future question not a current question. By this I mean at some point in the future will landlords be forced to accept pets? I say that it is guidance but could become law in the future.

As for not wanting pets, their house their rules. Why should a landlord not impose their rules? If the tenant does not like the rules, don't rent the property, is that not fair?

macafee2