Government changes model tenancy agreement to help renters with pets

The government has updated its standard tenancy agreement template to enable renters to keep pets as the default.

Under the new Model Tenancy Agreement, which is the government’s recommended contract, landlords will no longer be able to issue blanket bans on pets.

Instead, landlords will have to object in writing within 28 days of a written pet request from a tenant and provide a good reason, such as in smaller properties or flats where owning a pet could be impractical.

Currently, just 7% of private landlords advertise pet friendly properties, meaning many people struggle to find suitable homes. In some cases, this has meant people have had to give up their pets altogether.

To ensure landlords are protected, tenants will continue to have a legal duty to repair or cover the cost of any damage to the property.

Housing minister Christopher Pincher said: “We are a nation of animal lovers and over the last year more people than ever before have welcome pets into their lives and homes.

Christopher Pincher

“But it can’t be right that only a tiny fraction of landlords advertise pet friendly properties and in some cases people have had to give up their beloved pets in order to find somewhere to live.

“Through the changes to the tenancy agreement we are making today, we are bringing an end to the unfair blanket ban on pets introduced by some landlords. This strikes the right balance between helping more people find a home that’s right for them and their pet while ensuring landlords’ properties are safeguarded against inappropriate or badly behaved pets.”

Reflecting in the changes to the Model Tenancy Agreement regarding letting with pets, Mark Hayward, chief policy adviser at Propertymark, commented: “Whilst we acknowledge that allowing pets can make a property more desirable and encourage tenants to rent for longer, even the best-behaved pets will have an impact on a property.

“The UK Government must recognise the impact of their decision to cap deposits and the knock-on costs that landlords face. This is a complex issue that is determined on a case-by-case basis highlighting the need for landlords to get advice from a professional letting agent.”

Reapit EOS
x

Email the story to a friend

More top news stories



64 Comments

  1. AlwaysAnAgent

    As a society this is a worthwhile and overdue change. It’ll make an enormous difference to people’s lives.

    Report
    1. colmac

      Society certainly gained from the last time we allowed pets; the carpet shop, the carpet layer, industrial cleaners and the manufacturers of plug-in deodorants. Oh, and the tenant (who walked away without her deposit, which covered about 1/4 of the cost). The losers were us as landlords and our agents, as it took nearly three months before we could re-let it. All due to two cats…..

      Report
      1. AlwaysAnAgent

        Completely disagree. It is your type of attitude to tenants that has attracted the attention of left leaning campaign groups and policy makers.

        If you wish to behave like a petty tyrant, why don’t you sell your buy to lets and a more reasonable landlord might buy them.

        Report
        1. Will2

          You are right on one point  it is the landlord’s choice on whether pets are accepted and where they invest. So as you put it your tyrant landlords can serve those who do not want pets and other non tyrant landlords who love pets can accept pets. Mind you they will want to be suitably protected against pet caused losses, which the deposit capped stopped. Campaign group and policy makers DO NOT INVEST so losses don’t matter to them. Their concern is how loud they can be and the level of TYRANT power THEY have to tell others what they can do and not do. I suggest the equitable solution is CHOICE not dictate. Like everything nowadays the loudest mouthed minority are the winners and the majority losers.

          Report
          1. AlwaysAnAgent

            Do you have anger issues Will? It’s proven that pets provide stress relief and getting one may help with your outbursts. 

            Report
            1. Will2

              Thought it might be you with the anger issue referring to someone as a “petty tyrant” when they expressed their view on the dictate relating to pets.

              Report
        2. Tegs Dad

          Of the six properties that I either co-own or manage, two are forbidden pets of any kind by the head lease, three are forbidden pets unless consent is gven which is rare and the final one needs consent from the Freeholder – me – which I give depending on circumstances.
          While I will always agree that it is the tenants’ home, it is always the owners’ property.

          Report
        3. MrSerious

          Launching early and undeserved ad hominum attacks merely proves naivety and loss of argument having nothing to back it up.

          Report
    2. Mythoughts

      I am not too sure why the change to the model tenancy is causing so much angst. There is no legal obligation to use the tenancy and the changes made today are not mandatory. It a recommended tenancy that promotes a standard that the Government would like to set.

      So if a Landlord does not wish to accept a Pet, he doesn’t need to. If he does, then as I always say :’there is never a badly behaved Pet, only a badly behaved owner !”

       

       

      Report
      1. Will2

        I think you might find that Government recommendations eventually turn into Government dictates/legislation. This of course  follwos on the back of the Government’s (of all colours) ongoing Landlord Bashing Policies over the last few years. At present there is discretion.  You are, of course, correct that owners must be responsibnle for their pets.

        Report
    3. paulgbar666

      What a load of twaddle you talk.

      We LL don’t want pets in our properties.

      We decide what is allowed in our properties.

      If the tenants don’t like it then they can source another LL prepared to allow them pets.

       

      You are typical if the idiot agents that haven’t a care in the world for a LL property.

      Which is why I don’t use LA.

       

      The damage and inconvenience that pets can cause is enormous.

      We LL don’t wish to suffer that.

      Your views are pathetic.

      You have no business sense at all.

      Especially now that deposit restrictions on prevent pet deposits.

       

      I don’t know what planet you live on but 5 weeks deposit is nowhere near enough.

      The maximum should have been 2 months plus any pet deposit.

      You are clearly clueless as how a LL operates like many of you LA who are only interested in gaining fees from any unsuitable tenant.

       

      No way would I trust a LA with my investment property.

       

      Remember it is the LL property to do with as he wishes and not to be dictated to by the potential occupier of the property.

      If the conditions of the tenancy aren’t to the prospective tenant’s liking then the LL won’t force the Tenant to sign the AST!!!!!!!

      Report
      1. Tegs Dad

        Paul, Paul, Paul, as I have told you on many occasions on other websites, Not all agents are the same. Nether are landlords or tenants. Letting agents are just that, the landlords’ agents and MUST act in accordance with the landlords’ wishes while complying with current legislation.
        I have, wherever possible, accepted tenants with pets both as a landlord and as an agent. Well-behaved tenants with well-behaved landlords are a good long-term investment since they tend not to move so often sply because of the difficulty in finding accommodation that accepts pets.

        Report
        1. paulgbar666

          Indeed I have on occasion allowed pets.
          Difference was I DECIDED.
          My management choice.
          Of course you are totally correct that allowing pets can be a good business CHOICE.
          But it is for the LL to decide and not to be instructed by stupid Govt on how they should conduct their business.
           
          I readily accept that that pets can be a wise business choice.
           
          It is for LL though to decide.
          Dictating how LL should construct their business offer is just forcing LL like me out if business.
          I’m simply not prepared to kow-tow to Govt diktats.

          Report
          1. HIT MAN

            Instead of a pet bond just increase the rent for pets that’s allowed as long as you state it beforehand. If the pet owner can’t afford the rent then they will have to move on.

            Report
            1. paulgbar666

              Yes I suppose you could call it a pet rent!

              But it would need to be a considerable amount.

              I doubt that the rent increase required would be sustainable.

              The damages caused can from what I’ve read can be thousands not even factoring in void periods while repairs etc are carried out.

               

              Nope from my personal business perspective pet dogs just aren’t worth it.

              Tenancies are enough hassle as it is without being compounded by pet dogs.

               

              I suppose if one is struggling to let and only those with pet dogs are available then one has to take a business decision.

               

              Invariably pet dog free tenants are available though.

              It is a shame but Govt has made pet dog owning tenants unviable.

              Report
  2. fluter

    Often it is not actual damage caused by pets that is the problem but the smell they leave behind which cannot be easily removed just by cleaning. This can be very off-putting for new potential tenants and therefore cost the landlord financially.

    Report
    1. Will2

      fluter you are clearly not a politician!  You are totally correct. I remeber being a new landlord and victim of a small dog with a large bladder. My wife and I spent hours on our hands and knees bleaching the floor boards to get rid of  the smell. All carpets and covering had to be thrown away.  Why on earth anyone would rely on an agreement advocated by Government but of course we can all see the nibbling and persistant attack by Government on landlords and intended destination. And yes before any one says it I know the other parties are even communistic and more anti landlord. The Government’s dictate will eventually be the agreement landlords will be FORCED to use – it is on its way, mark my word. The hidden route plan is well underway to take away any control over peoples investments and many are leaving the market making it worse for tenants (except the pet owning variety). I am not anti pet but I am anti bad pet owner which landlords, under the legislation, will have little or no protection against financial losses. The abolition of the AST by removal of S21 is the clearest indication of the direction of travel.

      Report
      1. paulgbar666

        Who are the idiots which downvoted you when everything you stated is totally correct.
        If the idiot downvoted are in the PRS they should be ashamed of themselves.
        Not sure whether the Govt AST will even be allowed when the AST and S21 is soon abolished.
         
        I have no idea as what replacement contractual tenancy agreement will be allowed.
        Personally I’m one of those LL that is desperate to leave the PRS.
        I’ve been trying since 2015 as I could see the writing on the wall which has come to pass.
        Not much room on the wall for much other writing.

        Report
        1. Will2

          paulgbar666 I have no problem with those who do not share my view or my opinion, indeed thumbs down I often consider as a badge of honour! Government are like spoilt children (the current EU’s Health Commissioner demonstrates well my point that even the WHO have spoken out against the EU) and don’t know when to stop flexing their power until they cause irrepairable damage that takes years to heal. The 1977 Rent Act was a prime example (killed the previous rental market stone dead); those who have years of experience on the property profession (note so old I do not call it the property industry) will fully understand the reasons. Unfortuneately there are a number of what I call “Ka-Ching” letting agents – ie they have their fee and dont give a toss afterwards; but many more are much more professional. Like tenants you have good and bad and need to select carefully. Its life. I stopped investing in the PRS about 10 years ago when governments started to lose their way and will look to exit soon.

          Report
  3. AgentQ73

    Surely the fairest way to deal with this would be to make an exemption to the deposit cap. Pre cap in my experience the overwhelming majority of landlords were happy with pets if they could take a slightly larger deposit. Tenants were happy to give it as they were confident they would get it back.

    Report
  4. JamesB

    Well this will make zero difference changing a template nobody uses

    maybe if they had the balls to change the deposit legislation it would help.. but they can’t for fear of the tenants and campaign groups complaining .. no win for tenants again

    Report
    1. Tcos

      No win for tenants again!?! Tenants have had plenty of wins. The deposit was capped so why should a landlord take further risk again? The landlord is always painted as the bad guy but more often than not a head lease will dictate if pets are allowed. If the government took a second to think about things and introduced some flexibility then maybe there would be a happy medium. As it stands this just serves to slap the landlord in the face yet again. God forbid you would be entitled to protect your assets.

      Report
      1. Will2

        Tcos food for thought. Have tenants really had so many wins? in theory yes in practise maybe not. Before the so called “wins” housing benefits tenants found renting in the PRS easier and landlords were less selective.  When the open market agreed deposits pets were taken in more readily than post Deposit cap rules. Landlords were never so careful on referencing as it was easier to off-load bad tenants. Abolition of S21 will massively impact Landlords who will become super super careful who they will let to.  Landlords are leaving the market reducing supply – Rent WILL rise as supply drops. More legislation has driven up rents significantly.  I think the winners and losers become debateable – just trying to look at things from a differing perspective.  So who are most badly affected? Those who all these rules are supposed to benefit!! The open market has without doubt resulted in massive housing improvement without Governments bully boy tactics – just look at how well presented most rental properties are because their owners are competing for the good tenants and landlord invest to attract good tenants. The criminal/bad landlords take those in society who can’t afford the enhanced rents or meet the required standards. Just an alternative way of looking at things!

        Report
  5. WatchingwithInterest

    I don’t believe this is a good move. Everyone knows that particularly when you keep a dog in a property the house smells. Some worse than others granted.
    My experience is keeping the TT’s deposit to get rid of the smell and damage caused by pets often isn’t enough.
    This is another stab at Landlords and makes it less attractive to rent.

    Report
  6. Tegs Dad

    Remind me who it was that capped the deposit at five week’s rent and ignored pleas to allow a specific pet deposit.

    Report
  7. l.bamford@finns.co.uk

    I don’t see why there cannot be an additional ‘Pet Deposit’?  If the tenants pet is so well behaved, then there should be no reason why the tenant would not be willing to put down a pet deposit, they will get it back in the end if the pet has behaved well.  I used to do property management in the US and we also took a pet deposit.  Tenants generally say ‘my dog/cat is well behaved, but we all know that when an animal has an upset tummy and need to vomit, they rarely ask to go outside to do this and it usually happens on the carpet.  I have a dog myself and experience this first hand.

    Report
    1. Will2

      Have you ever had a prospective tenant tell you their pet constantly yaps and barks, pees in over the floor and is never groomed? Of course they are all well behaved and trained to the highest standards and could NEVER cause damage let alone catch fleas! Fleas which can appear after they have vacated your hundreds of thousands of pounds investment.

      Report
    2. Tegs Dad

      Actually I have six dogs and ALL, without exception, go to the door when they need to go outside. It takes time to train a dog, but it can be done. They also learn behaviour from each other.

      My cat, however, upchucks wherever she is. That is why my carpets have Scotchguard and I also use vinyl and tiled flooring.

      Report
      1. Will2

        Tegs Dad The point I was trying to make is how do you confirm you are getting a good and responsible pet owner?  Most are but some are not. As you can no longer take an enhanced deposit how can a landlord protect their investment? I am not anti pet indeed we had 3 cats until we wanted freedom to travel.

        Report
        1. Tegs Dad

          When the tenant states they have a dog, I insist the dog comes on the viewing. That will show if the dog is obedient and trained or not. Obviously that does not apply to cats, as per my comment about my own.

          By the way, whenever I ask which breed the dog is, I always get the same breed which is not recognised by the Kennel Club – very well-behaved.

          Report
      2. Nikhi

        Perhap your cat need to get sprayed?
        None sprayed male of female cats can have this behavior.

        Report
        1. Tegs Dad

          I spray her and she llcks it off. LOL

          Report
          1. Nikhi

            With spray her I mean neuter her so she doesn’t go in heat/can’t have kittens .. lol

            Report
            1. Tegs Dad

              Yes, I am aware what spaying means having had over 30 cats in my life so far. It does not stop males spraying their territory since I have had two males that persisted in doing it despite castration.

              We accept that they are not human and therefore not as trainable as some humans. We still love them for all their foibles. Cats are regarded in law as not domesticated which is why you cannot legally sue a neighbour because their cat digs up your daffodils. Dogs are regarded as domesticated and trainable.

              That is also why you have to report an accident involving dogs but, as we found with two of our late cats, you can run them over and drive away. The council don’t even need to scan for a microchip.

              Report
  8. Gloslet

    Is it me, or does the picture of the housing minister look like he’s peed on the carpet and doesn’t care because there’s nothing you can do about it ?

    Report
    1. Tegs Dad

      I thought it was more a case of he was peeing on landlords and enjoying it.

      Report
  9. letstalk

    As someone with pet allergies I can understand how those in rented, like myself, currently feel let down by this whole process.

    I love pets, despite my allergies I have them and have to medicate accordingly, but anyone in the same boat as me that doesn’t choose to have pets should not be forced to medicate themselves if a pet has been into a property before them either, this is a very one sided view from government.

    In order to make this fair for all, including people who suffer allergies and may want to rent a home that previously had a pet in it. There needs to be the ability to allow for proper rectification of having a pet in the home, so some flexibility over the deposit and provision for carpet cleaning and fumigation accordingly.

    I also agree with the above, my girls are incredibly ‘well behaved’… but they do love a good scratch of the carpet on the very edge of the top step of the stairs and will vomit on a floor… now most owners would deal with that accordingly, but some won’t and there needs to be the appropriate protection in place for landlords of those that don’t.

    A refundable pet deposit always worked really well and LLs could be easily convinced to take a pet in the past because of it.

    Government need to understand that each time they meddle without proper forethought and investigation into their approach it has a knock on effect in some way.

    Another example is those on low incomes where a guarantor cannot be provided, we used to take a larger deposit which family would happily stump up for them, government ruined that! Que some households in a more difficult position now….

    Report
    1. Will2

      Well stated and balanced.

      Report
      1. Nikhi

        As one who is allergic against hairy pets, and also birds I understand and agree with you.

        When it come to allergy it seems not many landlords understand that thouse carpets wall-to-wall is very bad for one with allergy as it collect so much dust it’s crazy.

        Each house I have rent the landlord have agreed that we pay for refit to hardfloor/clickflooring.That also help from the cleaning of carpet from each pet owner, no carpet no carpet cleaning. Yes it can still be some scratches on the floor. So we bought extra clickfloor just in case we needed to replace some.

        I live today with a well behaved Sphynx (hairless cat) no allergy from him if I bath him once a week, still it’s hard to get a house to rent as we have to move, our landlord has gone to liquidate and we need a new home very soon. But it’s nothing out there, so I look forward to this new Government recommendations, not sure how much it would help me and my husband.

        Report
  10. MrSerious

    This idea is playground politics.  Gestated in an echo chamber filled with closed-minded public servants, blind to the facts and impacts. Aside from the other excellent points made previously, I see no mention by Govt of three vital points:
    1.  Leases, by which all landlords hold flats, and some houses, often/usually have a Restriction of No Pets.  Or at least “Not without prior consent”, which is often refused by the ManCo due to historic problems of detriment caused to other owners/residents.  The Govt is seemingly blindly advocating Breach of Contract, which is unacceptable;
    2.  Suitability of Premises.  Flats are usually on upper floors with no exterior or garden access.  There are exceptions, but this is the ‘rule’.  It is cruel to force cats/dogs to be kept indoors, especially cats who are independent and need to roam (apart from of course the very rare cats who are house-bound due to ‘issues’).
    3.  Allergies.  As one write below noted, this is a serious issue.  Many people these days suffer pet allergy, thus ‘forcing’ a health issue onto subsequent occupiers, or reducing marketability if the applicant declines due to the premises pet history.
    As to the shallow comments of the [apparent] letting agent, all I’ll say is I’m glad we don’t use agents on our small portfolio if that is how they act and advise their Clients.
    NOTE:  My wife and I are passionate animal lovers, but we abhor animal cruelty, breaking laws and exposing residents to health risks.

    Report
  11. AlwaysAnAgent

    Points 1 & 2: you’re not in breach of a lease if legislation changes. Point 3 is so weak it’s almost laughable.

    As a landlord you have never once checked a property for peanut fragments or any other allergy trigger. Some people are allergic to dust and I can guarantee your properties are not dust free.

    You’ve got a 1970s attitude to being a landlord and you either need to modernise or the law will modernise you.

    40% of people in the U.K. have a pet and most landlords see the benefit of exposing their property to a wide audience. Pet owners also stay in a property for a longer period, in my experience.

    Fairness and decency should be the order of the day. Try it, rather than scratching around for a few extra pennies of profit.

    Report
    1. paulgbar666

      You’re an idiot 
      Thank God you have nothing to do with my properties.
      LL decide how and who occupies their properties.
       
      Your attitudes are so naive.
      I can assure you that LL will not be dictated to.
      They certainly won’t use LA with stupid attitudes like yours 
       
       
       
       

      Report
      1. AlwaysAnAgent

        I am also a portfolio landlord but I don’t grub around in the mud, scraping around for every extra penny I can get my fat sticky fingers on. 
        It’s desperately sad to see that landlords like you still exist. If you were reasonable, rather than so insecure, you may not feel you’re being dictated to by people who know better. 

        Report
  12. Woodentop

    We have rental properties on our books that are not suitable or prohibited by lease from having pets (golden fish in a bowl is acceptable). We also have good tenants with cats and dogs and they start the tenancy “on trust”. We also have tenants that we refuse to allow pets for a number of reasons during referencing.  
     
    We have decades of experience of why pets have been an absolute nightmare for landlords and lettings agents. Often its the tenants conduct that is the problem controling pets in all manner of events. Once the carpet is ‘pee upon’, try lifting the carpet and see what is underneath and why the smell never seems to go away after cleaning. Unless the property is pet friendly, forget it. £k’s can be lost and the deposit will not cover many cases (shame no option to show photographs).  
     
    The property belongs to the landlord and it should be their decision if to accept pets, after all it is their risk. That risk also includes tenants who fail (often refuse) to cover the costs of repairs and the long winded and often not worth the additional expenditure to go to court to be paid £1 week.  
     
    This could be the thin end of a wedge. We see many tenants now claiming pets as “welfare companions” and that’s a story in itself. landlords and agents need to be very careful with pets clauses. They should not be by default acceptable. If you do not want pets, say so. If you think just because they have no pet at the start of the tenancy (hidden in the car) and you don’t think its necessary to remove the default pet clause … you will live to regret when one turns up later in the tenancy … and it won’t be a breach of the agreement.

    Report
    1. paulgbar666

      So does a Welfare Companion NOT s### and p### everywhere. No idea how guide dogs or assistance dogs behave but I imagine they aren’t an issue though smell might still be a problem.   This is why I won’t take on any tenants who has or intends to have dog assistance. Though I am willing to listen to any professional advocate for such assistance dogs.   I always advise NO PETS.   But to always have a conversation with me about any aspects of the occupation. Tenancies are fraught as it is. Adding pets into the mix just makes things even more complicated.    Previously I always took 2 months rent as deposit and a pet deposit.
      Can’t do this now so I have a now No Pets policy as my standard business determination.
      My business my choice.

      Report
      1. Tegs Dad

        Assistance dogs are not pets and a refusal could start action under disability legislation. Remember shops, when they were open pre-Covid, that would have “No dogs” signs with “except guide dogs” underneath.

        Report
        1. paulgbar666

          Unfortunately that would just mean I would not accept any tenants who needed or might need such animals.   Of course I would never state it. Just any such tenants would tend to be declined. I’m sure there are LL that would wish to accept such tenants.   They are welcome to them.   I also have many other types of tenants I won’t let to but I will never state what types they are.
          If eviction was easy and that means 2 months and a rent defaulting tenant is gone.
          No court action required.
          I would be more willing to accept the more awkward tenants.
           
          As this will never happen I will make my business choices on who I accept.

          Report
          1. Mythoughts

            There are valid points made and some less so but it seems in many comments there is an illogical fallacy that by virtue of being a tenant who owns dog your house will smell and be damaged by Pets.

            How sound would the argument be if it was suggested all homeowners that own pets suffer no damage and their houses smell as fresh as a daisy?

            As I said earlier, the change in the model tenancy agreement is not a mandatory clause that must be adopted. It is only at the current time,  a suggestion. The choice still remains with the Landlord

            Consequently, don’t understand the need for the vitriolic nature of some of the contributors.  Carry on as though it was Wednesday when there was no change to the Model tenancy Agreement (64 pages long with accompanying notes for the tenant)

             

             

             

             

             

             

            Report
            1. paulgbar666

              Personally I always manage each tenancy individually.
               
               
              I certainly resent any requirement to take pets or DSS tenants.
               
              I’ll decide.
              Nobody else will 
              My property my rules.
              Every LL us different and will make their own business decisions.
              Some I may not agree are wise but that is none of my business.
              A LL is ENTITLED to make their own business decisions.
              It is stupid Govt policies that cause LL to make business decisions they previously wouldn’t have made it even considered that much 
              The more Govt tried to impose things on LL the more resistant they become to the point of selling up.
              Which is of course what the Govt wants

              Report
              1. Mythoughts

                That’s my point; after this announcement the Status Quo remains. LL’s  still have the right  to make the choice with regards to PETS.

                Discrimination against “DSS” applicant and tenants however was deemed illegal in July 2020 !

                With regards to the number of Landlords, exiting the market due to legislation and changes to the taxation of rental income you are quite correct. Between 2017-19 over 222,000 Landlords left the PRS with stock reducing by around 157,000 units.

                 

                 

                 

                 

                Report
          2. AlwaysAnAgent

            As I said earlier, you’re a petty tyrant with deep seated control issues.

            Be reasonable with your tenants and they will look after their home.

            Report
            1. paulgbar666

              AHH! Well there you go just shows how wrong you can be.

              As for control yep it is definitely the corrosive lack of control that Govt had caused for LL that has caused me an excellent LL to determine to leave the AST PRS.

              Indeed so excellent am I that I have former occupants continually returning to me.

              None of them are DSS or have pets.

              Though some are now on UC which they bizarrely pay me!

               

              Of course the tenants who may have regarded me as a tyrant were the 5 I had to evict for rent defaulting using S21 4 times and S8 once.

              The losses I incurred could have bankrupted me.

              Thanks to MasterCard and visa they didn’t.

              This latest pet rubbish is just another reason to make me want to leave the AST PRS; something I’ve been trying to do since Feb 2015 when S24 was announced.

              It certainly is a lot harder to leave the PRS than get into it.

              LL effectively have no more control over their properties and I for one will NOT be dictated to by ridiculous Govt regulations.

              So go I must.

              I hope to become a lodger LL where I will be in TOTAL CONTROL.

              As a lodger LL I will be able to dictate everything.

              My occupants advise that they would wish to become my lodgers because they know how good a LL I am.

               

              I just have nothing to do with pets and DSS at the outset of a tenancy.

              Why you would believe that having such sensible business requirements renders me a petty tyrant beats me!

               

              But you manage your portfolio your way and I’ll do it my way.

              I extract the maximum I am able as that is the only reason I became a LL.

              Unfortunately the game is no longer as it was which is why I wish to go.

              I will be making 16 people homeless but that will be Govt’s fault.

              My capital will return to me where I will keep it in cash to evade possible wealth tax.

              This capital will be socially useless whereas before it housed 16 people.

               

              As more LL leave the PRS there will eventually be a letting property shortage.

              There simply aren’t enough cash rich LL to replace all those LL leaving the sector.

              None of my occupants wants to it can afford to buy my properties.

              So they will be booted out by me for sale with vacant possession.

              I intend to achieve maximum retail price as I’m only in it for the money.

              Shane about my occupants but it is Govt causing me to leave the sector with their increasingly ridiculous regulations.

              Being a very good LL as I am is just not a wise business choice anymore.

              The current CV19 crisis has proven that the LL has no control.

              Indeed from anecdotal evidence 25% of LL borrowers have sought and are currently on mortgage deferment.

              They are incurring kisses they will never recover due to scummy tenants.

              These LL will when able evict and sell up.

              Unless you are cash rich and can source RGI on a tenant or guarantor then being an AST LL is now far too risky.

              Far from being a petty tyrant I know from my tenants that I have been an excellent LL.

              But hopefully that will end soon if I can escape the PRS.

              You will find that good LL are petty tyrants.

              They run tight ships and won’t stand for any nonsense but provide an excellent service.

               

              Report
      2. Mythoughts

        I can tell you that Guide Dogs are trained to “Mess” in the same area every time. Always on concrete. This allows the blind or partially sighted owner to know where to go to clean up the mess and obviosulsy avoid accidentally stepping in the dog mess and walking it around theier home. As someone who boarded guide dogs in training for several years, I can categorically say that I have never encountered a “Smelly” guide dog. 
        Not really pertinent to to the question in hand, but thought it might be a something that could be added to :List of useless information”

        Report
  13. Tegs Dad

    Stop worrying about tenants with pets, which may never happen and worry about the Debt Relief Scheme which comes into effect on 4th May 2021.

    Report
    1. paulgbar666

      Yep totally agree.
      But this is just one further nail in the LL coffin.
       
      S24 was the first one and that was the motivation for me to try to leave the PRS.
      There have obviously been many more nails and many more coming and I still haven’t been able to get out of the game!
      There must be many LL out there just desperate to leave.
       
      This latest Debt Relief thing is another nail.
      Govt must imagine every LL has a magic money tree to subsidise feckless tenants or perhaps they know these nails impose financial distress on LL but just don’t care as they want to get rid of small LL.
      Essentially it is Govt policy to allow feckless tenants to rip off LL with very little the LL can do about it.
      Recognising this obvious fact motivates me to leave the PRS.
       
      So Govt will get its way.
      Whether my absence will cause distress to homeless tenants I really couldn’t give F###!!
       
      Not my fault I am leaving the PRS.
       
       
       

      Report
  14. paulgbar666

    Yep totally agree.

    But this is just one further nail in the LL coffin.

     

    S24 was the first one and that was the motivation for me to try to leave the PRS.

    There have obviously been many more nails and many more coming and I still haven’t been able to get out of the game!

    There must be many LL out there just desperate to leave.

     

    This latest Debt Relief thing is another nail.

    Govt must imagine every LL has a magic money tree to subsidise feckless tenants or perhaps they know these nails impose financial distress on LL but just don’t care as they want to get rid of small LL.

    Essentially it is Govt policy to allow feckless tenants to rip off LL with very little the LL can do about it.

    Recognising this obvious fact motivates me to leave the PRS.

     

    So Govt will get its way.

    Whether my absence will cause distress to homeless tenants I really couldn’t give F###!!

     

    Not my fault I am leaving the PRS.

     

     

     

    Report
    1. Gloslet

      paulgbar666 – given your rants just on this article I’m not sure that the PRS is going to miss you if /when you leave. 

      The irony is that it is landlords like you that help others make the case for greater /stricter regulations on other landlords and their agents. Fortunately not every tenant chooses to believe that all landlords are like you in much the same way that not every agent acts the way you rant that they do.

      I pity your future lodgers where as you put it you ‘will have TOTAL CONTROL’  (spoiler alert, you won’t if you are intending acting within the law)

      Report
      1. paulgbar666

        Hardly rants my dear chap just a clear illiteration as to how I manage my business which my clients like so much that they return to me.

         

        I go out if my way to look after them.

        Even bought big TVs for them though they had no expectation that I would.

        I very much provide a personal service.

        My knowledge has assisted new clients from being ripped off by their former LA etc.

        Whilst I do CONTROL everything this has never impacted on the amenities and facilities I offer my clients.

        Bring in control doesn’t mean what you might imagine.

        My business operates normally with usally no occupant issues.

        One I recently removed once she announced she wasn’t going to pay rent for 2 months.

        Already have new rent paying occupants.

        That is control!

        This pets issue has just highlighted that even more control is being removed from the LL.

        Personally that is not something I am prepared to continue with.

        So much of a tyrant I am that my existing occupants have requested they get first dibs as my potential future lodgers.

        Trouble is I wil only have 4 rooms to offer the 16 of them.

        If I could I would take them all on.

         

        They know that being a lodger of mine would be the same great experience as they currently have.

         

        I find it bizarre that you consider normal LL control as tyrannical.

        But unfortunately it is bonkers attitudes like yours that pervades Govt legislation and is ultimately forcing good LL like me out of business.

         

        Personally I don’t really care as being a lodger LL of one property us sufficient for me.

        I have no desire to be a portfolio LL anymore.

        Indeed knowing what I know now about the completely dysfunctional eviction process there is no way I would have invested in multiple properties back then.

        One big house would have sufficed.

        This is what belatedly I am now trying to now achieve albeit 12 years later!!

        I consider the lodger LL strategy as a far more secure method of earning money from occupants.

        The tenant business model has now morphed into a very dangerous business model.

        Such danger I no longer wish to be exposed to.

         

        Just getting out of the PRS isn’t easy and just as I do all the large houses are being snapped up by ‘white flight’ from London in relation to this CV19 thing.

        Most annoying from my perspective.

         

        Report
        1. AlwaysAnAgent

          White flight from London”  and this is relation to disability dogs “This is why I won’t take on any tenants who has or intends to have dog assistance.”

          You’re a racist who discriminates against people with disabilities.

           

          A professional agent wouldn’t touch you with a barge pole. The quicker people like you are fully licensed, or are forced to use an agent, the safer and better society will be.

          Report
          1. paulgbar666

            Ha ha idiot LA like you are the reason LL like me don’t use you. We prefer to manage our business far better than trusting any LA.   I choose to manage my business my way and that means no pets or DSS.   Nobody can make me take on these situations.   It is my private capital that provides the letting accommodation I do and nobody can force me to take on anyone or anything that I don’t wish to. Those are my business decisions. I do however TOTALLY agree that ALL LL and their properties should be licensed.   I also consider that all LA should be licensed. I would like to see EVERY LL forced to undergo 30 hours of CPD training every 5 years.   Full UK LL licensing would cause about 2 million homeless tenants as there are millions of fraudulent tenancies out there which would be detected by thorough LL licensing. That would leave good LL like me able to charge far higher and more realistic rents for our quality offers and conditions which all mine are.   But we LL certainly don’t want unqualified LA managing our letting properties.   Where I believe you would have a valid point is a bit like RSW.   So have UK LL licensing and if any LL chooses not to undergo 30 hours of CPD training then they must use a qualified LA.   But there is no way Govt will introduce a National LL licensing scheme because it would detect all the fraudulent tenancies. So all those LL letting properties on redo mortgages without CTL.   Those LL letting to DSS tenants when their mortgage conditions specify No DSS.   All those LL that are not correctly insured   All those LL especially in diverse areas where properties are overcrowded. All those LL that have illegally converted properties and have beds in sheds again mostly in diverse areas. You don’t seem to accept that ‘white flight’ is occurring from London.   This is just a reality. It isn’t racist to state this fact. It is a fact that there is an exodus from London. It is a fact that few from the diverse community are leaving London. With the prevalence of WFH many families are choosing to leave for better amenities and value away from London. Surely such choice to move isn’t racist!!   People of all types are permitted to move. Observing and commenting on such facts doesn’t make such observations as racist!! You will find though that gradually your business shrinks as LL like me with all the cost pressures increasingly choose to dispense with LA services Plus more LL will leave the the PRS. Far fewer LA are required but they should be larger and all qualified. These things won’t occur for some time. But we certainly need far fewer LA and LL and letting properties. This to force rents up etc.   An effective LL and LA licensing system would facilitate this. This could take 5 years to establish. Highly unlikely any of this will come to pass though.   Govt has it’s hands rather full at the moment!;      

            Report
            1. Mythoughts

              Licensing for Letting Agents is just around the corner. In Wales, All Agents that manage property are Licensed. With the ever increasing areas of selective licensing, the system is halfway there.

              I would suggest that once Agents are licensed the Government will make it mandatory to use an Agent or have every property licensed, therefore negating the need to License the  LL.

              Either way, a great money spinner for the local Council!

               

               

               

              Report
              1. paulgbar666

                Personally I would like to see all licensing schemes to be abolished to be replaced by one national licensing scheme.
                 
                Each property to be licensed at no more than £100 for 5 years and each LL licensed at no more than £100 every 5 years.
                 
                All licensing income to be used by councils for anything to do with enforcing housing regulations.
                 
                There are reckoned to be 9 million tenancies and about 2 million LL.
                 
                That would give 11 million £100 for Councils every 5 years.
                 
                Surely enough to police the PRS!!!!??

                Report
  15. Mythoughts

    I don’t understand why say you have been wanting to leave the PRS since April  2017 when Section 24 of the Finance Act 2015 become effective and nearly 4 years later, you’re still trying to leave the PRS ….?? Why it is so hard to leave the PRS ? You clearly feel let down by the Government. Just move on if the PRS is not to your liking. As I said earlier, 222,000   Landlords have managed to it. (2017-2019) “‘I intend to achieve maximum retail price as I’m only in it for the money.” With house prices on the increase and stock levels currently down, what could be a better time to sell up? Average time to complete 5 months, notice 6 months- seems quite a good fit          

    Report
    1. paulgbar666

      Yes unfortunately events have conspired preventing me from getting out of the PRS.
      These are things that don’t affect most other LL.
      Just unique circumstances which I am prevented from mentioning by my lender.
      Eventually I’m sure I will be able to escape!   It can’t come soon enough for me.  I am thoroughly disenchanted with the AST PRS.   A lodger LL I aspire to be.   I will of course miss out on CG on multiple properties but the hassle of maintaining them just isn’t worth the grief. One large resi property with lodgers will suit me far better for my domestic circumstances. Maybe not the most financially beneficial but far preferable for my circumstances.      

      Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.