No pets allowed

kiddykat

Why are Irish landlords so against letting to people with pets?

GarIT

The landlord is responsible for wear and tear. Typically pets will add wear and tear. There's no point adding any costs you don't need.

kiddykat

GarIT wrote: »

The landlord is responsible for wear and tear. Typically pets will add wear and tear. There's no point adding any costs you don't need.

But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it

Samuel T. Cogley

kiddykat wrote: »

But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it

LL's can't deduct from the deposit for wear and tear.

In a RPZ (Control zone) LL's can't increase the rent to make it worth it.

Most places are let by agencies - agencies aren't going to do anything to increase their work load.

GarIT

kiddykat wrote: »

But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it

You'd have to trust the tenant. At the end they could just say they don't care what was agreed they're not paying and the law would be on their side.

magentis

As a dog owner and a former landlord,I can see exactly where they are coming from to be honest.

endacl

Also a landlord's market. If I'd to choose (I'm not a landlord) between any number of straightforward, no special circumstances potential tenants, and one with a pet that may or may not (potentially) cause excess wear and tear, be a nuisance to neighbours, etc...

I'd go with the simple option. And I say that as a dog owner.

doolox

These rare people will understand that the impact of properly minded pets is not huge on most properties. Unfortunately many Irish houses are fragile and furniture and fittings are hard to repair from minor bites and scratches.

Dogs and cats can bite through or urinate and defecate on carpet and wood all too easily with irreparable results.

Compare this to the almost bomb proof ceramics and tile used in most mediterranean and French houses and you can appreciate the difference.

The irish tax authorities insist on fixtures and fittings lasting 8 years which they will not do to an acceptable level with pets in the house. Most pet owners accept this and either put up with a lower level of beauty in their housing or change their furnishings more often than 8 yrs.

When dealing with amenable and reasonable tenants for long leases things are ok.

When dealing with short leases, 1 or 2 yrs, and leasing to non pet owners after the pet owners have gone, then you have have problems.

Its like trying to let a hotel room to a non smoker after a smoker has occupied the room, a no win situation.

This is why many landlords are reluctant to let to people with pets.

Caranica

Also most apartment head leases include at least restrictions and in many cases bans on pets in general or on pets that could cause disturbance. A landlord that allowed pets could be pursued for breach of lease by the management company.

dennyk

Really it's all down to the current rental market. Why would a landlord take on a tenant with a potentially destructive pet and risk having to deal with the resulting additional damage or wear (which is still additional hassle whether an extra deposit covers the cost or not, and there's no guarantee the deposit actually would be enough anyway) when there's a dozen more pet-free tenants already lined up right behind who are willing to pay the same price for the place? It's easy for landlords to be picky in the current market, and "no pets" is a dead-simple rule to eliminate a common source of extra hassle (and one that doesn't fall afoul of any discrimination laws, to boot...).