Renting with pets

Batattackrat · 06-04-2021 5:50pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

I dont think he was being serious tbh.
He was just making a point.

100% I wasn't been serious and apologies if i came across that way. I was trying to make a point.

If having to pay extorniate rent just to keep a pet I would sadly have to find it a new home or leave it with someone i knew until i could

Hontou · 06-04-2021 6:03pm

Going back to the OP. Dogs are supposed to have a license and be micro-chipped in this country. I believe that responsible dog owners do this and irresponsible ones don't. I think landlords who accept dogs should ask to see a dog license and evidence of micro-chipping. I know it is expensive, but it is the law and it shows a sense of responsibility towards the pet, legislation and presumably others property in turn. When I think back on my past tenants, some of the best were pet owners. I bet those good tenants had licenses and micro-chipping done.

06-04-2021 6:43pm

Graces7 wrote: »

I have 5 of my own, all rescues, but the only other 2 cats on the island ( who were not being fed properly) decided things were better here. These two live outdoors. They are not mine; I just feed and care for them.

Graces7, IIRC, you moved to that property with 2 cats, now you have 5 and you're feeding 2 strays also?

I would think this is what many landlords would want to avoid. You're not really promoting the case for landlords to allow pets!

Graces7 wrote: »

Rights work both ways, Tenants have rights to their chosen life style. There has to be that equality. Ownership carries many responsibilities especially where lifestyle of the tenant is concerned. Ownership is not a trump card where money is involved.

Sorry, but rights don't work both ways. Landlords don't have to bend their rules to suit their tenants' lifestyle choices.

They have a right to say they do not allow pets in their rentals, and at the moment, there are plenty of available tenants with no pets for them to choose from.

If the landlord agrees to allow pets, thats great! And obviously, there are places that will allow pets, several have been mentioned on thread. The downside of that is it looks like the renter can expect to pay a heavy premium for the privilege - that's where their choice comes in.

Graces7 · 06-04-2021 6:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally, Ireland is not very landlord friendly either. It is much easier to nip any sources of potential problems in the bud before they manifest than it is to try rectify the situation afterwards.

People can be, for want of a better word, absolute pricks when they want to be. It's not the pets' fault, but there's a reason why pets aren't welcome in the majority of rentals. You can pin the responsibility for that 100% on pet owners who've burned any goodwill towards their fellow owners.

I used to be a LL. Apartment complex, so no cats/dogs allowed for rentals or for owners.....(Keeping cats/dogs in an apartment is cruel to me anyway, but that's my own opinion). I never knew why people had hangups about HAP tenants until I got one and they were nothing but hassle. Does that unfairly impact on genuine HAP tenants? Of course it does, but I'm not gambling 4 months' worth of rent trying to find out if the next HAP tenant is good/bad.

That's just financial sense.

That's fantastic, Grace, but it is a) a little misguided and b) a million miles away from the realities facing 90% of people.

Property owners carry zero responsibility for the lifestyle of their tenants. Zero. They do not have to accommodate your every whim......in fact they don't have to accommodate any of them in the current market. They are offering a service, which you are paying for. If the options don't suit, then move on to the next one. If you walked into a café and start asking about their selection of battered sausages on offer, you'll be told to pick something from the menu or GTFO. Renting is similar, though many would argue that it's actually swung too far the other way.

There are currently many more service users than there are service providers, so the providers can be picky and choosy. That's just basic economics. Coming with pets in tow or making demands that they should accommodate you in other ways is an easy way to paint a target on your head. Most people simply don't have the luxury of doing that. If you walk into a property viewing/showing and start spouting off about the landlord's obligations to accommodate your lifestyle, then you haven't a hope of getting selected.

I get what you're saying, in an ideal world it would be ideal for the relationship to exist in that manner. But it's not, and it doesn't. Not for huge swathes of the population anyway.

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.

06-04-2021 6:53pm

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.

Where one party has paid hundreds of thousands to own a property, and suffers huge financial loss if it is destroyed/ tenant stops paying, while the other party pays rent and is protected to a large extent by biased legislation, there is no, nor should there be, equality. A LL has virtually no hope of recovering the repair costs of damage caused by tenant/pets, if the tenant refuses to pay. You have airy-fairy ideas about how things should be, if you want to do what you want, buy your own house.

Graces7 · 06-04-2021 7:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Graces7, IIRC, you moved to that property with 2 cats, now you have 5 and you're feeding 2 strays also?

I would think this is what many landlords would want to avoid. You're not really promoting the case for landlords to allow pets!

Sorry, but rights don't work both ways. Landlords don't have to bend their rules to suit their tenants' lifestyle choices.

They have a right to say they do not allow pets in their rentals, and at the moment, there are plenty of available tenants with no pets for them to choose from.

If the landlord agrees to allow pets, thats great! And obviously, there are places that will allow pets, several have been mentioned on thread. The downside of that is it looks like the renter can expect to pay a heavy premium for the privilege - that's where their choice comes in.

No I came here with three cats and a dog. Dog and a cat died and three more needy cats arrived. OK? OK! roflol!

Then two very neglected local cats came for food. I am not going to turn a hungry critter away! Not ever.

My landlords were always easy re my critters. And knew all about them. Met them. Liked them. Admired them. No nasty legalism. And yes, landlords should adapt to needs when they can. And none ever asked for a higher rent. As if!

As I keep saying deep rural is very different. We know everyone and respect each other. I would/will never live in a town or village; period. Sounds very cut throat and mercenary. Not my scene. Shudders! I am shocked at some of this frankly.

Blessings and peace. And over and out from me on this.

I have enjoyed so much of the thread ; thank you . Found "some" like minded souls. Always a pleasure. I hope all those seeking a safe place for themselves and their beloved critters find that peace. As I am privileged to have done.

Antares35 · 06-04-2021 7:22pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Where one party has paid hundreds of thousands to own a property, and suffers huge financial loss if it is destroyed/ tenant stops paying, while the other party pays rent and is protected to a large extent by biased legislation, there is no, nor should there be, equality. A LL has virtually no hope of recovering the repair costs of damage caused by tenant/pets, if the tenant refuses to pay. You have airy-fairy ideas about how things should be, if you want to do what you want, buy your own house.

The legislation is biased but the bias is by design in recognition of the intrinsic power imbalance between landlord and tenant. While I agree it can be next to impossible to get a tenant out and I would generally be supportive of any measure or amendment which reduces the red tape for and extreme waiting times to resolve such cases, there are situations in life where having all things absolutely equal is not ideal. The RTB really needs to get it's sh*t together for fast tracking disputes though!

Antares35 · 06-04-2021 7:24pm

Graces7 wrote: »

No I came here with three cats and a dog. Dog and a cat died and three more needy cats arrived. OK? OK! roflol!

Then two very neglected local cats came for food. I am not going to turn a hungry critter away! Not ever.

My landlords were always easy re my critters. And knew all about them. Met them. Liked them. Admired them. No nasty legalism. And yes, landlords should adapt to needs when they can. And none ever asked for a higher rent. As if!

As I keep saying deep rural is very different. We know everyone and respect each other. I would/will never live in a town or village; period. Sounds very cut throat and mercenary. Not my scene. Shudders! I am shocked at some of this frankly.

Blessings and peace. And over and out from me on this.

I have enjoyed so much of the thread ; thank you . Found "some" like minded souls. Always a pleasure. I hope all those seeking a safe place for themselves and their beloved critters find that peace. As I am privileged to have done.

I hope you and your critters keep safe and well Graces

06-04-2021 7:41pm

Antares35 wrote: »

The legislation is biased but the bias is by design in recognition of the intrinsic power imbalance between landlord and tenant. While I agree it can be next to impossible to get a tenant out and I would generally be supportive of any measure or amendment which reduces the red tape for and extreme waiting times to resolve such cases, there are situations in life where having all things absolutely equal is not ideal. The RTB really needs to get it's sh*t together for fast tracking disputes though!

By design you say, if a pet damages a house in excess of the deposit, the LL has absolutely no hope of recovering the costs. Imagine renting a nice house to someone who collects stray/feral animals, then trying to get them out, it’s nigh on impossible, take a look at this article in today’s paper, do you think that is by design?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/were-at-our-wits-end-couple-left-27000-out-of-pocket-as-tenant-hasnt-paid-rent-in-two-years-40278913.html

Hontou · 06-04-2021 7:53pm

Dav010 wrote: »

By design you say, if a pet damages a house in excess of the deposit, the LL has absolutely no hope of recovering the costs. Imagine renting a nice house to someone who collects stray/feral animals, then trying to get them out, it’s nigh on impossible, take a look at this article in today’s paper, do you think that is by design?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/were-at-our-wits-end-couple-left-27000-out-of-pocket-as-tenant-hasnt-paid-rent-in-two-years-40278913.html

What really annoys me is that the Determination Order, is worth nothing according to the RTB themselves! The neck of the tenant to appeal to the Circuit Court......all paid for by the taxpayer through legal aid. The landlord, even though in the right cannot get free legal aid as they own an asset, which they can't sell to pay their legal bill as the tenant won't leave. I'm in this situation.

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 8:26pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Rights work both ways, Tenants have rights to their chosen life style. There has to be that equality. Ownership carries many responsibilities especially where lifestyle of the tenant is concerned. Ownership is not a trump card where money is involved.

I came back to say that; that it needs to be a matter of excellent references that mention the pets. .

The law says other wise im afraid and LL have the right to decline pets. Not sure what you mean by ownership vs money as they both go hand in hand. You need money to own a place and owning a place giving affords you the right to pick who you want in said property.

LL references mean nothing. All i look for is a reference but i dont actually call them as even if a tenant is bad, why would a ll give a bad reference if they can be gone of them?

Good luck trying to rent anywhere in ireland with 5 pets. No private ll would touch that.

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 8:31pm

Graces7 wrote: »

I am so sorry about your hard situation. Especially the damage. Inexcusable.

Here there is no carpet and no sofa. Which I prefer. Lino is so easy. Minimal furnishings. There is nothing the cats can destroy . and they all but live outside. Coming in to sleep on my bed. Before that I had a bigger house and the sofas were in a room where they were not allowed.

I am scanning rightmove with rentals in my old home in the UK . They are much clearer in their ads re pets and also much more open in many cases.

There too there is an urban/rural divide

Doors, carpet on the stairs, beds etc?

Im sorry but you cannot say that 5 cats leave no odour in your home. You are used to the smell but that many cats will for sure leave a cat smell in your home.

99pc of home will have a couches so your example is an exception rather than the norm.

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 8:33pm

Lesalare wrote: »

I would never lie about having a pet to a landlord when applying. It's not worth it. If they find out - which they will most probably - they can turf you out. It's better to be upfront and honest.

I personally don't understand why furnished apartments are so common here. Most other capital cities only offer empty houses and apt. It suits some people but not a lot of others. A lot of people renting here already have all the furniture they need. From memory of renting years ago here and unfurnished apartment was/is more expensive than renting a furnished one. But I guess this is down to LL wanting to store furniture and asking the tenant to pay for this.

This is a culture difference. More furniture is more costs and hassle. Im sure most ll would prefer to offer a property unfurnished however since its not the norm here, LL are forced to buy the cheapest crap they can find to have all the basics.

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 8:33pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

I would prefer unfurnished too. It only works though if its allowed by legislation, which its not.

Unfurnished is allowed. But it doesnt make financial sense to alienate 99pc of your potential audience by not doing furnished.

the_syco · 06-04-2021 8:35pm

Lesalare wrote: »

They can actually. Fernbank above as noted charges an extra 100 euro per month for a pet friendly apartment. Even though they don't state it.

If it falls foul of the RPZ rules, the tenant can file a case with the PTB when they leave the apartment.

Lesalare wrote: »

If they wreck they place, they don't get their deposit back. Simple.

Losing the deposit is a deterrent; it rarely covers much of the damage if the tenant wrecks the place.

Lesalare wrote: »

You're the utter model of a FG snobbish LL in Dublin in 2021. And who are driving people out of this country/city.

Professional landlords, aka REITs, can ban animals by block. And can easily check if someone has a pet by looking at the hall CCTV.

Lesalare wrote: »

understandable landlord

The "non-professional" landlords, aka not REITs, can allow pets if they want. But said landlords seem to be leaving the market in the past while. COVID has stopped them from leaving, but once COVID is over, expect a lot of evictions.

Graces7 wrote: »

Maybe we should have more unfurnished rentals?

Unfurnished rentals don't last long on the market before they get snapped up. But as the majority of people in Ireland expect a furnished house, they're not common.

Graces7 wrote: »

There is a vast difference between a pit bull and a small cat... And assuming there were regular inspections it should never have got to that pitch?

Have found LL's don't do regular checks until they get burnt. Then they become the dreaded LL that checks every 6 months.

Graces7 wrote: »

HAP can be a stumbling block re renting but it gives a good indication re the landlord. I was once about to take a place then mentioned HAP and faces and doors slammed shut" It does not suit my husband and I" Which is illegal I was later told.

Not being able to say no HAP is just a joke. LL's just don't get back to them, but will say they accept HAP on the phone as the law requires them to do so, wasting everyones time, as the people on HAP will spend time looking at houses where 99% will probably not accept HAP. Manly as if anything goes wrong, the LL is the last who'll know that the rent won't be getting paid.

Meathman12 wrote: »

How much extra deposit would be enough to convince a landlord to take pets? Price of replacement carpet or sofa or more?

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.

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

For one small cat op i wouldn't even mention it to be honest

For this reason, some shelters will not give animals to renters, as the animal is often the first to go. Have seen a few adopted dogs get dropped off because the landlord copped that they had a dog.

Graces7 wrote: »

And local auctioneers sometimes have slightly less attractive rentals they do not advertise online.

This. There are some places that EA's won't put on their site, but will take the LL's money for getting them a tenant.

Antares35 · 06-04-2021 8:36pm

Dav010 wrote: »

By design you say, if a pet damages a house in excess of the deposit, the LL has absolutely no hope of recovering the costs. Imagine renting a nice house to someone who collects stray/feral animals, then trying to get them out, it’s nigh on impossible, take a look at this article in today’s paper, do you think that is by design?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/were-at-our-wits-end-couple-left-27000-out-of-pocket-as-tenant-hasnt-paid-rent-in-two-years-40278913.html

Yes by design "I say". Listen, I'm not arguing the merits of it with you on a case by case basis, nor am I defending àsshole tenants, I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are times where our lawmakers will be cognisant of intrinsic power imbalances. You're free to not like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Another example is employer/ employee relationships. If you look at the legislation in this area, you will find presumptions that operate in favour of the employee (rebuttable of course) as well as higher standards imposed on employers etc. Yes often the result is an imbalance in fairness, but I doubt our lawmakers set out to deliberately (or covertly) protect crazy cat ladies

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 8:37pm

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.

Cultures and expectations might be different for rural but the law is not. Its the same everywhere. Rural ll also have the right to say they do not want pets - simple as....What you want and what the law allows are very different.

Antares35 · 06-04-2021 8:39pm

Fol20 wrote: »

Good luck trying to rent anywhere in ireland with 5 pets. No private ll would touch that.

Graces isn't looking for somewhere to rent, but could maybe do without such a mean spirited comment.

Lesalare · 06-04-2021 8:49pm

Antares35 wrote: »

Graces isn't looking for somewhere to rent, but could maybe do without such a mean spirited comment.

I think it's clear that Graces lives in the country in a rural setting and rents an older style farmhouse property from what I have gathered. The sort of one that you can imagine generally has lots of cats and chickens and dogs running about the place (Note: I could be wrong). Her landlord seems ok to allow this as it's an older property and not exactly high spec modern.

I think some people on here are trying to argue that certain renter posters in here are expecting the same situation in a 2K apartment in Ranelagh. Obviously that's not going to be expected by any tenant with a brain.

It's very different to a professional couple or single, with excellent references, willing to pay an extra pet deposit and agreement to have property thoroughly cleaned by way of a flea spray at end of tenancy, carpets cleaned etc etc. and whom understands that any damaged done by a small Jack Russell or Pug for example, or a small cat, will be deducted from the pet deposit and if more, from main deposit.

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.

Fol20 · 06-04-2021 9:31pm

Antares35 wrote: »

Graces isn't looking for somewhere to rent, but could maybe do without such a mean spirited comment.

I have absolutely no ill will toward Grace. Its more along the lines of one animal can do enough damage. One animal could be 100 pc perfect ,but the more animals you add to the equation, the more likely you are to have issues.

KTBFFH · 07-04-2021 12:55am

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.

ted1 · 07-04-2021 9:32am

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

Meathman12 · 07-04-2021 10:14am

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.

07-04-2021 12:10pm

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.

07-04-2021 12:12pm

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.

Meathman12 · 07-04-2021 12:26pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 07-04-2021 2:15pm

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

JimmyVik · 07-04-2021 2:36pm

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.

The Cool · 07-04-2021 2:58pm

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.

07-04-2021 3:07pm

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?

JimmyVik · 07-04-2021 3:26pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 07-04-2021 3:30pm

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.”

JimmyVik · 07-04-2021 4:38pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 07-04-2021 6:47pm

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".

tscul32 · 07-04-2021 6:59pm

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.

Meathman12 · 07-04-2021 7:18pm

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.

Eric Cartman · 07-04-2021 7:21pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 07-04-2021 7:25pm

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.

tscul32 · 08-04-2021 12:24am

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.

AndrewJRenko · 08-04-2021 7:13am

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.

08-04-2021 7:18am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

Sounds like the LL is solving it.

AndrewJRenko · 08-04-2021 7:29am

Dav010 wrote: »

Sounds like the LL is solving it.

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

08-04-2021 7:33am

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?

AndrewJRenko · 08-04-2021 12:42pm

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.

DubCount · 08-04-2021 1:01pm

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"!

radiotrickster · 08-04-2021 1:05pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 08-04-2021 1:06pm

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

08-04-2021 1:41pm

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?

AndrewJRenko · 08-04-2021 4:47pm

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.

08-04-2021 4:53pm

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.

Renting with pets

Comments