Hello.
I have come across the pet issue several times.
How do you deal with tenants willing to keep a pet? Do you practice a pet free policy or are you pet-friendly? What are the risks of being pet-friendly (damage, bad scents, insects, etc)? Are tenants generally willing to pay more to keep their pet? Do other tenants choose to live in a place, where a pet had been kept once? Oh, that's a lot of questions, I know. But they do bother me.
I would appreciate any information and experience on the subject matter.

Evening all! It's an interesting issue to discuss and I hope to find out what others' think. I, personally, would like to think of myself as a pet-friendly person. But not sure whether I want to be a totally pet -friendly landlord, so will always include a clause on tenancy agreement stating that no pets are allowed in the property WITHOUT PRIOR LANDLORDS CONSENT.

hello everybody.
I was interested in what you consider pets. Dogs and cats only? Or will hamsters, fish, birds, etc. be considered pets as well?
I know that some tenants allow, say, birds, as they don't see them as pets, while prohibiting dogs and cats. On the other hand, birds and other small pets might bring about even more damage.

I, too, would be interested to know what other landlords' views and experience are on this issue. The definition of a pet in the dictionary is as follows: a domesticated (tame) animal that is kept for companionship and amusement. So, by this rationalie, hamsters, fish, birds should be considered as pets as well. Many years ago me and my partner rented a flat and then got a budgie. Don't think we ask our landlords prior permission, but he did not seem to mind when he came to collect his rent and saw the budgie. Is it still at the discretion of the landlord?

I would say "yes", as a budgie can bring as much damage to the property as a cat (unless the bird has clipped wings, of course). however, when it comes to fish, i would consider it a pet because it does nothing but stays in its aquarium.
i understand landlords who do not want to see pets in their property because they can pee on the carpets, scratch the furniture and whatnot. but i am strongly against those who simply hate the very idea of pets, even if they cannot bring any harm, such as the above-mentioned fish.

You know guys, I am extremely dog-friendly. Hate cats though. Well, anyway, I totally understand landlords that stick to pet-free policy. Pets can cause damages and sometimes pretty severe. But if I were a landlord, I would probably allow dogs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) . However, I would have to leave bare walls, floor & ceiling in my appt I would rent (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by michellien: 20.5.2009, 16:57

I protest, it's a discrimination agains pets! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Isnt it better to be sensible about stuff like that, by inserting a relevant clause in the agreement for the tenants to pay for any damage to the property. Otherwise, we'll soon have children-free policy. I mean kids at the creative age between 2 and 5 could really loads of abstract multicoloured patterns to your newly painted walls and get rid of any loose wall-paper. lol

Hi, FMND!

Frankly speaking it’s a tricky question, as for pets probably in this case your landlord may settle up to his point of view but the trouble is that there are some “no kids” landlords, who do not let people to have as many kids as they used to…this is truly a trouble!!!!

Dandelion, that's true, as kids can sometimes bring about even more trouble than pets (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I also hate pets and I never permit to my tenant live with their pets either they pay for them or not.

Oh, how can you hate pets? I kinda see why some landlords are not happy for their tenants to keep pets (possible damage, smell, etc), but is not possible to come to some sort of compromise: no pythons or crocodiles for example? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)