Security of Tenure for Tenants

jrosen

I agree the current system isn't ideal. But in Ireland we have a pretty sizable % of landlords who own one property. I think in order to be able to give long term security we need landlords who own multiple properties and who are in this for the long hall. Or investment funds/housing agencies who's sole purpose it is to rent properties for long term.

When we lived abroad we rented in a building with 200 apartments, the company that owned the building owned 5 more of similar size. It enabled long term security, those buildings were intended for lease only. Compared to renting from an individual, you didnt know from year to year if you could renew the lease.

Mod Note

This thread has been split from another, some posts have been removed as the original context has been lost.

Mrs OBumble

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Thanks, but the notice was served in september, we looked to buy up til two weeks ago til circumstances changed and thats no longer an option.
Notice is for Jan 9th. I've spoke to rtb and theyve indicated that still stands.

Yes, the notice still stands. But the notice is extended by the duration of level 5, plus 10 days.

It is simply not realistic to have a ban on evictions forever, which is what you seem to want.

beauf

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I am of the opinion that if landlords want to be treated as a business and taxed liked normal businesses and not as they are currently (and I'd support them in this) then simply deciding you want it back shouldnt wash, tenant should have long term security of tenure. You dont get a car on pcp and if the dealer fancies it back because his wife likes the colour, you hand it over.
We need proper security of tenure for tenants and landlords to be allowed to make a living out of it.

What exactly do YOU mean by ..."...long term security of tenure.."

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I am of the opinion that if landlords want to be treated as a business and taxed liked normal businesses and not as they are currently (and I'd support them in this) then simply deciding you want it back shouldnt wash, tenant should have long term security of tenure. You dont get a car on pcp and if the dealer fancies it back because his wife likes the colour, you hand it over.
We need proper security of tenure for tenants and landlords to be allowed to make a living out of it.

If you want landlords to be treated like any other business, the Government would not be interfering in the market. The market would set the price.

To be fair, tenancy legislation does tilt heavily in to the tenants advantage, making it impossible for a LL to live in or sell their home would make it less likely that investors would buy properties, decreasing stock even further.

PCP have more in common with mortgages than with rental agreements.

I have no doubt your search for a new property will be limited by you needing to find a LL who will accept dogs, that is not the LLs nor the State’s responsibility, get rid of the dogs and there will likely be more choice.

Duke of Url

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

As someone being evicted because the landlord wants the place back, I cant really agree with the idea that tenants have great protection.
We have never been a day late paying, have 100% abided by the contract and are still being put out of our home.
We have 2 dogs so finding somewhere is basically impossible.
A blanket eviction ban should have been put in place for the duration of this crisis imho. It is immoral that anyone paying their rent can be evicted during this time.

OP you could have been me with the above text. Identical situation.

I know exactly how you feel as I was in the same position as you also with 2 dogs and renting for 20 years


I will offer you advice. Speak to the bank and try and buy your own property like I did.

My Mortgage is more or less the same as I was paying in rent over the years.

The stress of renting with pets and not knowing what happens to the rented property is not worth it.

jrosen

Id love a reduction in tax lol Wouldnt we all.

I know the agent who we use to manage our property advises against long term leases. She said its too hard for the landlord to get out of if they need too. So we do year on year with our tenants.

brisan

jrosen wrote: »

Id love a reduction in tax lol Wouldnt we all.

I know the agent who we use to manage our property advises against long term leases. She said its too hard for the landlord to get out of if they need too. So we do year on year with our tenants.

At the end of the first year they will have part iv tenancy rights ,actually before that

https://www.google.com/search?q=part+iv+tenancy+rights&rlz=1C1GCEB_enGB889GB889&oq=part+iv+tenant+rights+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i30.11572j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Duke of Url

jrosen wrote: »

Id love a reduction in tax lol Wouldnt we all.

I know the agent who we use to manage our property advises against long term leases. She said its too hard for the landlord to get out of if they need too. So we do year on year with our tenants.

I hope you are not thinking that Part 4 tenancy doesn’t apply to you.

brisan

brisan wrote: »

At the end of the first year they will have part iv tenancy rights ,actually before that

https://www.google.com/search?q=part+iv+tenancy+rights&rlz=1C1GCEB_enGB889GB889&oq=part+iv+tenant+rights+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i30.11572j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, but a tenant who has a term contract has rights additional to those of a part 4 tenancy, the most important of which is that the methods available to terminate a Part 4 tenancy may not be available to the LL during the defined term of the lease.

runawaybishop

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I am of the opinion that if landlords want to be treated as a business and taxed liked normal businesses and not as they are currently (and I'd support them in this) then simply deciding you want it back shouldnt wash, tenant should have long term security of tenure. You dont get a car on pcp and if the dealer fancies it back because his wife likes the colour, you hand it over.
We need proper security of tenure for tenants and landlords to be allowed to make a living out of it.

Nothing stopping a tenant signing a long term lease.

Duke of Url

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nothing stopping a tenant signing a long term lease.

What’s a long term lease in private residence?

I’ve never seen this in the rental. It was nearly always 1 year minimum

Graham

Duke of Url wrote: »

What’s a long term lease in private residence?

I’ve never seen this in the rental. It was nearly always 1 year minimum

There's nothing to prevent a landlord/tenant agreeing a longer lease.

There's not much benefit to the landlord though as the tenant has a right to terminate the lease early under certain cirumstances.

Duke of Url

Graham wrote: »

There's nothing to prevent a landlord/tenant agreeing a longer lease.

There's not much benefit to the landlord though as the tenant has a right to terminate the lease early under certain cirumstances.

I’ve never seen or heard of a long team lease contract in renting a private residence.

Is it normal?

I know verbally it’s said when signing contracts but never seen it written within a contract.

I we all know verbally means nothing.

jrosen

You can absolutely do a longer term lease. We had requested one and while our agent advised against and we took her advice she was more than willing to draft up a longer term lease if we wanted. We were thinking 3 years at the time.

Graham

Duke of Url wrote: »

I’ve never seen or heard of a long team lease contract in renting a private residence.

Is it normal?

In my experience no it's not common. Like I said there's not much in it for a landlord.

There's nothing to prevent it though.

C3PO

I genuinely feel for you OP!
However, the main issue seems to be that your circumstances have changed and you are no longer in a position to buy as you had intended? That is hardly the landlord's fault.
If you had bought a house how much notice would you have given? I'm sure it wouldn't have been the 3 or 5 years that you seem to be suggesting that you should get.

jrosen

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

And actually read what I've said, I have repeatedly said 3-5 year contracts, if you are in business and providing something to someone, you can't simply take it back and when it suits you.

Landlords provide a service. If they no longer want to provide that service they should be free to leave the rental market. In your circumstances your expectation is your landlord should have to go find a place to rent or indeed be homeless so that you dont have to be. As I said earlier, someone looses out.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Lots of areas of business are regulated and work really well. So your first comment is absolute rubbish.

Regulation yes, can you give an example of another sector where the Government has placed a cap on what a private business can charge, and where a service provider is legally required to continue to provide that service long after the contract has ended and even when the consumer has ceased paying for it?

In relation to the 3-5 yr minimum term, would you agree that tenants would be required to stay/pay for the duration of the term? Or would the minimum term only apply to the LL?

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I never said it was the landlords fault. I said it's the rules I have issue with z particularly during a crisis of this magnitude.
They'd have got as much notice as possible, I can't understand your conflation of someone needing the security to know how long they can have s roof over their head with that of someones need to know when they need to look for a new tenant, you cannot seriously be comparing those two situations.

Though tenancy legislation does favour the tenant, it must at least provide some protections for the LL. You say that a LL would have gotten “as much notice as possible” if you needed to move out when buying a house, yet you advocate minimum term contracts to provide security of tenure. Surely you understand that there would be a huge imbalance in that proposal unless the tenant also has an obligation to stay/pay for that minimum period? The LL would then also have comparable security.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

No, im in favour of rent for life in essence, tenant has a place as long as they want and as long as they abide by the contract, but I think minimum of 3-5 years is realistic. Landlord can sell away but with tenant remaining in situ for the remainder of that minimum period, wherever it's set at.
So the only real loss to the landlord is the ability to move in themselves.

Would you agree to pay for that house for the minimum 3-5 years so that both parties have security?

runawaybishop

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Only the small fact that they are almost impossible to find.

This is due to it being virtually impossible for a landlord to do anything if the tenant breaks the contract and leaves early. They do exist though.

Mrs OBumble

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

No, im in favour of rent for life in essence, tenant has a place as long as they want and as long as they abide by the contract, but I think minimum of 3-5 years is realistic. Landlord can sell away but with tenant remaining in situ for the remainder of that minimum period, wherever it's set at.
So the only real loss to the landlord is the ability to move in themselves.

And if you had a 3 year contract, but six months in your circumstances change (relationship breaks up, one of you dies or loses your job) - would you expect to be able to walk away without paying for the full term? How is that fair?

If we had mainly institutional landlords, they may entertain 3-5 year leases - but I doubt they'd be keen to provide places suitable to keep two medium-large dogs. Far too much maintenance cost in having that sort of size and outdoor area.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Nope. I would agree with cancellation terms of some sort but to suggest someone is on the hook for 3 to 5 years rent is ludicrous.
Loads of countries offer secure long term tenancies and landlords don't suffer and do well out of it, why should Ireland be different.
The security of knowing you have a roof over your head cannot be compared or equated with the security for someone to pay you for the service you offer imho.

Can you see the inherent unfairness of this? The tenant gets security of tenure as the LL is unable to terminate the lease for 3-5 years, but it would be ludicrous to hold the tenant to the same terms.

In a private rental market, the security of knowing you have a roof over your head should always be contingent on the person who owns that roof being paid for you sleeping under it. Renting is not a benevolent pastime, you can’t on the one hand advocate that it should be like any other business, and then on the other say that it cannot be equated with paying for a service. It seems an oxymoron.

Having a home is important, but having it only on your terms is not. Your property needs are very specific, you need a property suitable for dogs and a LL that accepts them, I understand your frustration, but this is a choice you make, not out of necessity.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that it is contingent on the tenant abiding by the contract, which means paying the rent. You seem to be suggesting that I'm saying the opposite which is grossly wrong and to be honest you should either apologise or retract that. I can go back and quote my posts if necessary. You are actually completely misrepresenting me so either back it up, retract it or it'll be reported.

I’m sorry if I caused offence, but your posts do seem to have a lob sided view of how rentals should work. Security seems only to be important when it benefits the tenant. If the tenancies law was to change to provide security to both tenant and LL by introducing minimum lease periods, I believe it would be hugely disadvantageous to legally require a tenant to stay/pay for a minimum period, particularly as it would not take account for changes in personal circumstances. So applying that unilaterally to favour tenants only while allowing them to leave during the minimum period if necessary, would be grossly unfair and unworkable.

jrosen

So if a tenancy should be for life, or as long as the tenant chooses you believe a landlord should be forced to remain a landlord? What if that landlord needs to sell the property, what if that landlord needs to move back into the house? It shouldn't be allowed if the tenant wants to stay?

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Apology accepted. As I said, I think cancellation charges should apply but I don't agree with tenants being on the hook for 3-5 years of rent. For me, landlords, even those with one property should be able to operate that as s business, get an income. I support that, but I think once that's the case, the realisation that you are providing someone with the most fundamental of human needs, the security of s home, and unless they break the terms, you can't just take that away. Yes you can sell but with tenant in situ. I think the minimum period gives the tenant peace of mind and isn't overly onorous on the landlord,b that's just my opinion. I've been on both sides and I know which one is more stressful for me. It's horrible right now and I'd genuinely not wish it on anyone. I'll leave it at that.

I’m sorry, no, it is not, nor has it ever been the responsibility of private LLs to provide for society’s need for a home. Renting is purely a commercial venture and should not be thought of as providing a “fundamental human need”, that is pure pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Banks will not lend to buyers unless there is vacant possession, and the Government cannot force them to do so. So suggesting that owners can sell with tenants in situ is just wrong, unless the buyer is a cash buyer, the sale will not go through.

Of course it is onerous on the LL is they need/want to sell or move in.

jrosen

I can only echo what has been posted. It is not a landlords responsibility to provide for society. That is simply living in lala land

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I guess we are not going to agree.
Governments rule thru legislation, if they enact legislation allowing for this scenario then banks will be regulated to conform with it. I suggested it should be the case, not that it is, sorry if that was not clear.
It happens in other countries.
We are very obviously at completely different ends of the spectrum in how we see things.

There are risks associated with banks financing a property purchase with a sitting tenant, no regulation is going to require a bank to accept that risk, I’m sorry, what you are proposing is preposterous. I do agree with you on the last sentence, your viewpoint seems to be unique.

An Ri rua

Perhaps if tenants received some sort of independent rating based on the years renting.
I'm finishing renting 8 years with the same landlord, and I agree with the Op re life not standing still. I took pity on a stray cat, and through feeding and giving him shelter, he became a hit with the ladies and produced 4 kids with next doors! Two of the males I kept, and neutered, and now they're moving with me. It's tricky, it's very stressful because I absolutely adore these 2 animals and have spent €1000 this year on vet bills and food, but I have family with capacious grounds to ease my stress. Short term.
A landlord has rights, of course, and it's a commercial relationship. But tenants should have an independent deposit scheme and a points scheme based on certain weightings. Many years with the same landlord might imply a stable tenant? We just don't seem to attribute value correctly in this country. Landlords deserve respect, as do tenants.
Edit I've endured 8 months of appalling stress while never having missed a payment by over a day in 8 years. Multiple drivebys every week, constant incursions. Driven by greed, covered by family use paperwork when 'pushed'.

Graces7

OP; I feel for you as I had the same done to me way back. Owner decided to come back from the US early months before my lease was up and served me with an eviction notice.

It took me months of stress to relocate ( I had two dogs and two cats but was seeking deeper rural and it was not an issue in the end) But I had to move from Donegal to West Cork

He had let the house as a fill-in while he was overseas. Not a career landlord. I would after that always ask a prospective landlord more questions. About his plans for his house. So we have realistic expectations.

I rented in Ireland for about 15 years before thankfully settling into council accommodation.

I hope you find somewhere with the stability we all and each need.

jrosen

I guess for long term career landlords entering into contracts for 3-5 years probably isn't that big a deal but for smaller private landlords I can see why they would object to it.

But ultimately after 3 years if the landlord doesnt want to renew then the tenant is out regardless. Its still not offering any sort of long term security.

TheChizler

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, tenancy legislation does tilt heavily in to the tenants advantage, making it impossible for a LL to live in or sell their home would make it less likely that investors would buy properties, decreasing stock even further.

If the landlord isn't living in it it's not their home. It's their property, and the tenant's home.

Fol20

jrosen wrote: »

Id love a reduction in tax lol Wouldnt we all.

I know the agent who we use to manage our property advises against long term leases. She said its too hard for the landlord to get out of if they need too. So we do year on year with our tenants.

Leases actually mean nothing for landlords other than the rules they cannot break. I would favour long term leases only for the fact that if a tenant even signs a 1 year lease and 3 months in. They say they want to reassign the lease. This isn’t viewed as breaking it and they are entitled to a full refund of the deposit. If you sign a contract for a period of time. You should be locked in yet tenants still have an easy way out while ll do not. Make it equitable on both parties first before talking about long term leases.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Nope. I would agree with cancellation terms of some sort but to suggest someone is on the hook for 3 to 5 years rent is ludicrous.
Loads of countries offer secure long term tenancies and landlords don't suffer and do well out of it, why should Ireland be different.
The security of knowing you have a roof over your head cannot be compared or equated with the security for someone to pay you for the service you offer imho.

Funny how you have no ability to compromise on the situation. Tenant shouldn’t have to give too much notice even if they break a contract yet at the same time ll needs to follow it completely - just think about what you are saying for a minute and try and come up with a fair way where both parties don’t get shafted.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that it is contingent on the tenant abiding by the contract, which means paying the rent

But you just said the following:

""
Nope. I would agree with cancellation terms of some sort but to suggest someone is on the hook for 3 to 5 years rent is ludicrous.
""

Does the above mean that they do not have to abide by the long term contract they signed?

Im interested to hear what your take on what you said is as your giving off mixed signals on what you want.

Fol20

jrosen wrote: »

So if a tenancy should be for life, or as long as the tenant chooses you believe a landlord should be forced to remain a landlord? What if that landlord needs to sell the property, what if that landlord needs to move back into the house? It shouldn't be allowed if the tenant wants to stay?

Another factor the OP hasnt account for here is that if you sell a property with tenants in situ, it severely devalues the property for the owner as you can then only sell to other investors(IE you have gone from 100pc of the market to maybe 10pc of prospective buyers) Given the fact the person the renter doesnt own it and could literally decide to leave next month if they wanted while the ll has put time,money,sweath, risk and debt into it, is it fair to the ll that they could be down 10-30pc of market price due to this?

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Already addressed that. They can sell but the property is sold as a buy to let.
For me, if you are in the house letting business, you need to understand the importance of what you are providing to someone, we need to get away from this idea that the tenant is just paying your mortgage til you decide they aren't anymore. Just my take on it.

You literally want everything your way. You want it to be treated as a business but in the same sentence you bring up the morality that ll need to respect the social aspect to it. Its one or the other im afraid. If its social, let the government build everything .. If its a business, then treat it purely as a cold hard business transaction where you dont care about the ll and they shouldnt care about you.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I agree, I was 7 years with a brilliant landlady.
I'm fully supportive of them being able to make a living from it which the smaller ones cannot currently. I was one for over 10 years.
But I think people generally do not want to move often and the laws should reflect that. People want security and to be able to think at least some what long term and should be able to rent in a way that supports that.

I disagree with this even. From experience, the majority of my tenants move on every 1-3 years. You might be an outlier but most people in ireland view renting as temporary and move often.

Tenants moving costs ll money to the more often people move, the more it generally costs the ll.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Its 3 years minimum as opposed to 1 + notice period, I think from a tenant point of view thats a lot better security. I think vast majority of tenants would be much happier with that.
If a landlord isnt prepared to be in the business of letting for less than a relatively short period such as 3 years, then they have no right to be asking to be taxed like a business imho.

You do know there is dump and pump companies out there that are purely there to make a quick buck and then assets are dispersed or moved to other companies(eg like a house being sold in 1 year)

I get what you are saying though however if a tenant isnt in a position to sell now but is in 1 year, what would you recommend? Leave it idle for 12 months?

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Genuine qs, are you a landlord?
And is there an example anywhere in the world where tenants are on the hook for the entire rental cost for the defined period?

I am a ll.

In america, if you do not pay for the full term you signed for, some states allow you to garnish their wages and it can also impact their credit record. In ireland, ll generally have no clawback even if extensive damage is caused.

If you want it to be a social issue, i can see where your coming from. If you want it to be a business transaction, i cannot.

nibtrix

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

The pay the rent during their stay, if they wish to leave early they pay a cancellation charge.

Just interested in this, what would you consider a reasonable cancellation charge? 1 month rent, 3 months? Or a proportion of the time left in the lease i.e. 10% of the remaining lease costs? 20%?

Unless the cancellation charge is very very low (which makes it pointless), I can't see many tenants choosing to take up a contract like this. Just like a landlord, they have no way of knowing if their circumstances will change and they will need to move out.

I would think it's far more likely for a tenant to move out early than for a landlord to try to end the lease early, so I don't think many would consider it a good trade-off. Yes they have 3 years security instead of 1 for a fixed term lease, but they lose the right to terminate without penalty. Just my opinion of course.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and actually read my previous comments where I say I'd be in favour of cancellation charges for the tenant, before you wade in and make patently wrong comments about me not being able to compromise. Feel free to apologise if you are big enough.

I have read the entire thread, thats why i commented on a bunch of different responses. You did say that but that does not offer security to a ll. Any time, someone signs a contract, both the ll AND TENANT should be held accountable for what they signed. It should be equal for both sides. If you want a break clause, it should be the same for both parties - eg change of circumstance(for both parties = 6 month notice to terminate for example).

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

The pay the rent during their stay, if they wish to leave early they pay a cancellation charge. Are you going to apologise now or shall we end the conversation here?

Ok so based on what you want. A ll should pay an cancellation charge. Eg a tenant moves in to a 5 year contract and after 1 year, the ll wants the property back, they pay a cancellation charge and they get the property back straight away. Are you ok with this aspect or do you want the ll to abide by the contract while only the tenant gets a get out of jail card.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

If the landlord isn't living in it it's not their home. It's their property, and the tenant's home.

That is a matter of opinion. In the ops case the property is clearly their home here in Ireland, which they want to move back into. Some consider “home” to be where you lay your head down at night, while others would consider a “home” a property that you have full control over to alter as you wish, that is simply not the case with a rental property. Neither I would say is absolute, perhaps I should have used the term “house” rather than home. Either way, when you rent, that home/house belongs to someone else, the transaction is a commercial rather than an emotional one.

Fol20

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Hahahaha, you are the one who wants everything your own way, you want zero risk for the landlord, to be taxed only on the profits you make, to tie tenants into long term unbreakable contracts for the full cost. You are off the charts on the irony scale.

Please elaborate how it is everything i have said is one sided?
-I have asked for tenants and ll to be treated equally with notice periods and what the t&c are for the lease they sign.
-Investing in property carries risk, i havent really discussed risk in this thread so please expand.
-I have not mentioned taxation either so please expand.
-In terms of contracts, i have asked for equality to a contract where either both parties are locked into what they sign or both are not locked in >i dont see this as being one sided given both have the same conditions.

To flip it, you are very one sided in your approach:
-You keep talking about making rentals a business but any time business aspects are brought up that benefit ll, you want it to be a social issue.
-You want all the benefits that a contract can offer tenants with all the negatives to a ll.
-You seem to want ll to accept dogs and believe they cause no extra damage to a property and you do not want ll to be compensated for this extra potential risk(be it through extra rent or deposit) even though they have no connection or relationship themself to this animal.

Duke of Url

Dav010 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion. In the ops case the property is clearly their home here in Ireland, which they want to move back into. Some consider “home” to be where you lay your head down at night, while others would consider a “home” a property that you have full control over to alter as you wish, that is simply not the case with a rental property. Neither I would say is absolute, perhaps I should have used the term “house” rather than home. Either way, when you rent, that home/house belongs to someone else, the transaction is a commercial rather than an emotional one.

This is why the Rental Market in Ireland is not a Professional Service.

It needs to be reformed.

Fol20

The almighty google says that a home is "the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household."

I would tend to agree that it is currently the tenants home however the house belongs to the ll so he should be free to do whatever he so chooses while still having regard to local laws.

Graham

Mod Note

thanks for your patience folks. Thread has been split to accommodate ongoing discussion of security of tenure for tenants.

Some posts have been removed as the original context was lost when the thread was split.

beauf

I came back to reply to the OP but it seems all his comments have been deleted. Thread has lost all context now, makes no sense.

...

Duke of Url wrote: »

This is why the Rental Market in Ireland is not a Professional Service.

It needs to be reformed.

It needs to be reformed. But you'd need to clarify what you mean by "Professional Service"

The idea that LLs with lots of properties are more professional makes no sense. Considering, there has to be an amendment to the act specifically for Landlords with more properties.

The ‘Tyrrelstown’ amendments commenced on 17th January 2017 and relates to a restriction on the sale of 10 or more units

Graces7

OP; slightly off thread but there is a thread on the pets forum re the problems of finding a rental when you have dogs that you might find helpful

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

OP; slightly off thread but there is a thread on the pets forum re the problems of finding a rental when you have dogs that you might find helpful

Not sure what happened this thread, jrosen is now the op, and the posts by the person who was the op, I think, have been deleted which means context is lost completely.