Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Renting with pets

123578

Comments

  • #122
    KTBFFH
    Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭KTBFFH


    Accidental landlord here, inherited an ex council house in a rural area due to early death in family. Have a family renting it through HAP, and overall am very satisfied after the initial load of paperwork.
    I was willing to accept pets, but EA was adamant that he does not allow it in contracts he writes up due to previous experiences. I accepted EA advice.

    Now that I know more, and the family, I would not have an issue once ground rules were clearly set. But I also would not be making big effort to accommodate as there was sufficient interest.


  • #123
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Lesalare wrote: »
    What damage does a quiet, mature cat which mainly sleeps all day, do to a property? She is indoors, doesn't claw the furniture, doesn't have fleas etc.

    Same with a small dog (no-one should be keeping large dogs in apartments IMO).

    What about people who live on their own. Don't have kids etc. or a partner? Think of all the small pets esp. over the past year which have offered their owners a huge amount of companionship during lockdown.

    I've seen more mates houses which are in a state from having 3 kids under 6 than any rental property where an animal resides.

    They stink the place out. You might not notice it, but your visitors do. They are scratch woodwork and floors


  • #124
    Meathman12
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Meathman12


    the_syco wrote: »

    Depends on the deposit. If the deposit is €2,500 they probably won't accept a €3,000 deposit to cover the pets, but if the deposit is €1,500 and you offer €3000 deposit, they may. The €2,500 deposit house would probably be nicer than the €1,500 house, though.


    Id imagine many landlord will become more pet friendly if you offer 3 or 4 months deposit. In addition to property damage, vets bills can become very expensive. Some tenants will prioritise the vets bill over the rent.


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graces7 wrote: »
    I speak from my own many times repeated experience so not misguided. Tis thee who are narrowminded about it!

    But then rural landlords are not city landlords! And I was only once turned down by a landlord and he was fine re my pets; it was HAP that panicked him! As he did not want to have to declare the rental money.

    And I never ever " spouted off"! lol.... I had excellent working relationships with all my landlords. Respect on both sides.
    As it needs to be. His point of view and my point of view as equals in a business situation.

    I find the attitudes here of landlord being boss ? Dreadful .. There has to be equality . And yes, the needs and lifestyle of the tenant are at least equal to those of the landlord and probably more important as we are paying.

    But as I said, this is rural not urban. Huge difference. Your view is very narrow and one sided.

    And I never encountered this attitude with any landlord. Thankfully,

    As I said, this is MY experience, as real and valid as any other.

    Thankfully our paths will never ever cross. Oh and you are on very thin ice rejecting folk on HAP grounds. But you know that.

    And on all this we will just have to differ.. but it is how I have rented in Ireland for decades very happily indeed on an equal footing with landlords - or sometimes above them. We pay for the service after all.. So we can make our needs known.

    Firstly, I never called you narrow-minded. Secondly, It doesn't matter how many times you've experienced similar, it is not applicable to the vast majority of people in Ireland. We have about 2/3rds of the country living in urban areas and I'd wager there is a much higher % of renters vs owners in those urban areas. Some areas of Dublin have >50% of housing stock in rentals.

    Your initial point mentioned "Rights work both ways, Tenants have rights to their chosen life style.....I would not live where there was any issue with pets - period" and this simply is not a feasible attitude to have in the cities across the land. It just doesn't work that way, you've partially acknowledged that yourself. So while your advice may be valid, true and indicative of rural Ireland, it is misguided in that it means SFA to most renters.

    I also didn't mean to imply that you are the one spouting off, so apologies if it comes across that way, my point was more of a general one......beggars cannot be choosers and anyone perceived as being entitled or demanding will be passed over by the LL. Walking around a viewing and making demands that the property and/or tenancy must be tweaked to accommodate your personal lifestyle is just shooting yourself in the foot.

    Letting your needs be known is one thing, telling someone that your needs and wants are of equal importance to theirs when you're trying to rent a place worth a quarter of a million off them is quite another.

    On the HAP thing, I knew at the time (sold up late last year thank fcuk) it was not allowed. I was wide enough to never let anyone know that's why I wasn't letting them rent the place. But not naive enough to think that the issues surrounding HAP were more trouble than they were worth. The HAP was paid to the tenant directly. At the end of month 5 they spent it, and didn't pay the rent, claiming there was a misunderstanding in the DSP. After another 6 weeks of back and forth they upped and left in the middle of the night, texting me that they'd left the place and weren't coming back. Three month's rent gone and another few hundred quid to get it cleaned. Never again.

    The fact that HAP is paid in arrears is reason alone to recognise that it's not fit for purpose.
    Lesalare wrote: »
    A lot of the landlords on here are bemoaning how hard they have it. Why buy and rent so? I'm honestly - given the current rental situ in Dublin finding it impossible to locate my miniature violin.

    Because, in my case, I had a 35 year mortgage on an apartment that was worth a fraction of what I paid for it. Bought with ex GF, split up, and apartment sale would have left us over 100k in the red between us. As bad as it is paying interest on money you never see, it's a lot better than paying a mortgage on a place you no longer own. There was no plan to "buy to rent", it just ended up that way. The country is (or was) awash with similar situations.


  • #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Meathman12 wrote: »
    Id imagine many landlord will become more pet friendly if you offer 3 or 4 months deposit. In addition to property damage, vets bills can become very expensive. Some tenants will prioritise the vets bill over the rent.

    Handing over up to 8k as a deposit in Ireland, given our history of LLs refusing to return deposits for the most insignificant of spurious reasons, is madness.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Meathman12
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Meathman12


    Remember youre paying 8k deposot for an asset possibly worth 200k.
    Introduce a proper deposit retention scheme where an independent third party holds the deposit. Proper moving in and moving out inspections. Any damages could be assessed by said agency.
    Obviously its doomed to disaster if it is seen as biased lile the prtb

    In short create a properly functioning and balanced rental system.


  • #128
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://twitter.com/DublinInquirer/status/1379705507703889920?s=19


  • #129
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/DublinInquirer/status/1379705507703889920?s=19

    When you read through all the fluff and crap designed to make you feel sorry for her.
    It really says.
    Lease says no dogs.
    Dog was causing annoyance to neighbors, who reported it.
    Tenant says . "but MY dog wouldnt do that".
    Landlord decided that easier to enforce the terms of the lease and make the neighbors happy.


  • #130
    The Cool
    Registered Users Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭The Cool


    I'm currently in the position of trying to find a house to move, and have a Labrador. We've moved once previously with the dog, I found that for houses that were up with estate agents, the EA instantly was saying no, or rather, "there's 10 other applicants with no pet so why would we pick you". We got this house as it was let privately, we had the chance to meet the landlords ourselves, give them a good impression, and tell them about the dog straight up. We had a good reference from our previous LL, we offered them to come inspect the house we were leaving, offered to allow an inspection after we moved in, etc. Ultimately they weren't too bothered, as they said, kids can do more damage than one big lazy dog, so it wasn't an issue. We moved in our own sofa so we wouldn't have to worry about damaging their brand new pleather one, but you'd never know we had a dog here. In fact, moving out, I've been doing repairs of things I broke myself, I'm far more damaging than the dog :pac:
    I find it odd that "no pets" can mean cats are fine but no dogs? I've seen 3pc suites absolutely destroyed by cat claws.

    I can see why some LLs might be cautious about pets but then some LLs can be unreasonable about it too I think. Our previous LL tried to complain that the fabric sofa was excessively worn because of the dog - that sofa must have been 20 years old when we moved in, and our own bums had done 5 years of wearing on it since! This is why I'd be hesitant to put down much of a pet deposit - there are some LLs out there who will just never give you that deposit back.

    For the OP or anyone looking for advice - I'd say don't restrict yourself by ticking the "pets allowed" box on Daft, because those ads are few and far between. Rather, check every ad: some specifically say no pets, but some do not mention pets at all, and in my experience those ones are willing to consider depending on the situation, what pets are involved and how responsible you seem as a tenant.
    Obviously previous LL references are a bonus but if you're moving somewhat close by, offer potential LLs to come visit your current house (Covid allowing). They probably won't, but at least you're showing you're willing to prove yourself.


  • #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Meathman12 wrote: »
    Remember youre paying 8k deposot for an asset possibly worth 200k.
    Introduce a proper deposit retention scheme where an independent third party holds the deposit. Proper moving in and moving out inspections. Any damages could be assessed by said agency.
    Obviously its doomed to disaster if it is seen as biased lile the prtb

    In short create a properly functioning and balanced rental system.

    I agree that there should be a proper escrow style system for deposits and a streamlined moving in/out system in place............but, let's be honest here. The types of shysters who are already withholding deposits aren't playing by the rules that are already in place. Introducing more rules is just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. We need proper enforcement of the existing rules before we start going down that road, IMO.

    Proper, quick decision making for problem tenancies, on both sides should be a given. The fact it takes 3+ months for any dispute at a bare minimum is outrageous. Some of them are 24+ months. For an agency which processes 1.3 million registrations a year, at a cost of €90 a go, that is truly outlandish........where is the oversight and accountability of that money? I mean, it's 10 million a month they're getting, why is everything so slow?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I agree that there should be a proper escrow style system for deposits and a streamlined moving in/out system in place............but, let's be honest here. The types of shysters who are already withholding deposits aren't playing by the rules that are already in place. Introducing more rules is just rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. We need proper enforcement of the existing rules before we start going down that road, IMO.

    Proper, quick decision making for problem tenancies, on both sides should be a given. The fact it takes 3+ months for any dispute at a bare minimum is outrageous. Some of them are 24+ months. For an agency which processes 1.3 million registrations a year, at a cost of €90 a go, that is truly outlandish........where is the oversight and accountability of that money? I mean, it's 10 million a month they're getting, why is everything so slow?


    There is a great system in Germany where you pay a re-decoration fee up front. An agency holds this and also the deposit and you get an empty apartment for a set time agreed between the two parties.
    When that time is up you can extend if you both agree or the tenant moves out.
    They get their deposit back and the redecoration fee is used to put the apartment back exactly as the tenant got it. They tenant just needs to leave the place empty and not worry about putting the rest back. The redecoration fee is for that.


  • #133
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    When you read through all the fluff and crap designed to make you feel sorry for her.
    It really says.
    Lease says no dogs.
    Dog was causing annoyance to neighbors, who reported it.
    Tenant says . "but MY dog wouldnt do that".
    Landlord decided that easier to enforce the terms of the lease and make the neighbors happy.

    You missed the bit where she confirmed that pets were allowed with the agent beforehand.
    She forwarded proof that she had sent an email to the estate agent last November asking: “I’d just like to confirm that a dog really is okay? I can then transfer the deposit & rent as soon as possible.”

    An agent had replied: “yes that’s ok.”


  • #134
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You missed the bit where she confirmed that pets were allowed with the agent beforehand.


    No I didnt.
    I did read the bit about what was in the lease too.
    Lease trumps a text message.
    Everything else is just what she said to a reporter to garner sympathy and embarrass the landlord/agent/neighbors.


  • #135
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    No I didnt.
    I did read the bit about what was in the lease too.
    Lease trumps a text message.
    Everything else is just what she said to a reporter to garner sympathy and embarrass the landlord/agent/neighbors.

    Email, not text message.

    And every article in every paper is "what somebody said to a reporter".


  • #136
    tscul32
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭tscul32


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    No I didnt.
    I did read the bit about what was in the lease too.
    Lease trumps a text message.
    Everything else is just what she said to a reporter to garner sympathy and embarrass the landlord/agent/neighbors.

    Actually it said
    Loos’ lease says keeping animals is not allowed “without the landlord’s written consent”. As she sees it, she says, the landlord had given permission, through the estate agents who are “acting as my landlord”

    The issue I think is that the management company for the apartments only allow animals as long as there are no complaints and they received complaints. So the mgt company is vetoing it. The LL said it was breach of contract but the EA as the LL's agent had given written permission.


  • #137
    Meathman12
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Meathman12


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    There is a great system in Germany where you pay a re-decoration fee up front.
    What happens if the decoration fee and deposit do not cover any damage?

    What duration do people live in rented accommodation in Germany? I've heard in media that its seen as a long term option.


  • #138
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Baby01032012 wrote: »
    Or just don’t mention it. No landlord or agent is likely to accept a pet. There was a thread few weeks back about a tenant over holding because he couldn’t move on as no one was accepting pets leaving his current landlord stuck not being able to sell his property and receiving no rent.

    Do not do this, its so dishonest.

    Honestly having a pet before owning a property is a terrible idea. Offer the landlord a double deposit and accept you're losing 500 of it to a deep cleaning fee at the end and that might be the only way.


  • #139
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    tscul32 wrote: »
    Actually it said
    Loos’ lease says keeping animals is not allowed “without the landlord’s written consent”. As she sees it, she says, the landlord had given permission, through the estate agents who are “acting as my landlord”

    The issue I think is that the management company for the apartments only allow animals as long as there are no complaints and they received complaints. So the mgt company is vetoing it. The LL said it was breach of contract but the EA as the LL's agent had given written permission.

    Correct - and the tenant has no relationship with the management company, as they will be very quick to point out if the tenant calls them about the bins or the parking. The landlord owns the relationship with the management company and with the estate agent, and is responsible for the promises they make.


  • #140
    tscul32
    Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭tscul32


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Correct - and the tenant has no relationship with the management company, as they will be very quick to point out if the tenant calls them about the bins or the parking. The landlord owns the relationship with the management company and with the estate agent, and is responsible for the promises they make.

    Exactly - in this case I think it's out of the LL's hands. Unfortunately the building's "owners" have said no.


  • #141
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    tscul32 wrote: »
    Exactly - in this case I think it's out of the LL's hands. Unfortunately the building's "owners" have said no.

    That's the landlord's problem to solve, given that their agent gave prior approval.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    That's the landlord's problem to solve, given that their agent gave prior approval.

    Sounds like the LL is solving it.


  • #143
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Sounds like the LL is solving it.

    I don't think the tenant, or the RTB, would agree.


  • #144
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I don't think the tenant, or the RTB, would agree.

    The permission was not the owner’s to give if pets are prohibited by the MC. Do you think the RTB has the scope to make a MC change it’s policy on pets?


  • #145
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Dav010 wrote: »
    The permission was not the owner’s to give if pets are prohibited by the MC. Do you think the RTB has the scope to make a MC change it’s policy on pets?

    I think that the RTB has the scope to hold the landlord accountable for the error of their agent,and find a way to resolve the issue to the tenant's satisfaction, instead of evicting them.


  • #146
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭DubCount


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I think that the RTB has the scope to hold the landlord accountable for the error of their agent,and find a way to resolve the issue to the tenant's satisfaction, instead of evicting them.

    The issue is that neither the RTB nor the LL can change the MC policy. The RTB can issue a fine for the actions of LL's agent, but they cant force the MC to change their policy. They cant direct the LL to change the MC policy, because the LL has no power to make that change. How can the RTB issue a judgement that the LL cant act on? Even if they do make such a judgement, how can the landlord do something that with best efforts, they simply cant do?

    This is just screaming at the landlord "sell up, its your only way out"!


  • #147
    radiotrickster
    Registered Users Posts: 858 ✭✭✭radiotrickster


    I've seen some places charge rent per pet (like thirty to fifth euro a month). You could ask can you pay extra rent or give an extra deposit.


  • #148
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    DubCount wrote: »
    The issue is that neither the RTB nor the LL can change the MC policy. The RTB can issue a fine for the actions of LL's agent, but they cant force the MC to change their policy. They cant direct the LL to change the MC policy, because the LL has no power to make that change. How can the RTB issue a judgement that the LL cant act on? Even if they do make such a judgement, how can the landlord do something that with best efforts, they simply cant do?

    This is just screaming at the landlord "sell up, its your only way out"!

    The landlord should negotiate an agreement with the tenant to enable the tenant to find another suitable property at minimal cost and disruption to the tenant


  • #149
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I think that the RTB has the scope to hold the landlord accountable for the error of their agent,and find a way to resolve the issue to the tenant's satisfaction, instead of evicting them.

    You mean like getting rid of the dog?

    Have the RTB ever penalised a LL for refusing to allow pets, or a MC for having a no-pet policy?


  • #150
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,350 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Dav010 wrote: »
    You mean like getting rid of the dog?

    Have the RTB ever penalised a LL for refusing to allow pets, or a MC for having a no-pet policy?

    No,I mean like asking nicely for the tenant to find a more suitable apartment and compensating the tenant for any costs arising.

    Has the RTB ever let a landlord away with "ah sure it was the agent that said it, don't blame me ".

    The landlord can then come to an appropriate arrangement with the agent that caused the cock up.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sounds to me like the LL's agent cocked up and didn't check with the MC of the building before giving this woman the go-ahead to keep a dog.

    But it doesn't help that there have now been complaints about the dog.

    What a mess.


Advertisement