Pet wear and tear

Heckler

Hi,

Myself and my wife moved into a house last march. We are on the move again once our twelve month lease is up.

We have two cats which we made clear to the letting agent before we ever moved in. In fact he rang the landlord in front of us to ask was that ok because it was a dealbreaker for us. No problem says the landlord.

Cats being cats with claws some of the furniture has suffered. The kitchen chairs covers are noticably (but by no means destroyed) marked by scratching and a small section (4 inch by 2 inch) of carpet stairs is a bit bare and unravelled. Those with cats will know what i mean !

Just wondering if we are liable for chair cover replacements and could they ask us for a whole (landing outside bedrooms) carpet replacement ? As i said we made it clear from the outset that we had the pets. Would the damage they caused fall under normal wear and tear as they knew we had them ?

We're not going to kick up a fuss about it but are just wondering where we stand on the matter.

Thanks for any replies.

Victor

Heckler wrote: »

Would the damage they caused fall under normal wear and tear as they knew we had them ?

No. You are expected to return the property in much the same condition you got it. So toddlers decorating the walls with markers, wine stains, cigarette burns, etc. don't count as wear and tear.

Agree some figure to account for the damage.

aN.Droid

Victor wrote: »

No. You are expected to return the property in much the same condition you got it. So toddlers decorating the walls with markers, wine stains, cigarette burns, etc. don't count as wear and tear.

Agree some figure to account for the damage.

Isn't there some rule to allow extra wear and tear for pets? I doubt it would reach as far as the carpet but the chair covers would probably be ok.

I'm not an expert by any means but as a renter with a dog I know there is extra leniency.

So your probably going to have to pay for the carpet but I doubt the chairs.

ABajaninCork

I would think that paying for the damage is fair comment. I've got a dog, and even though the LL initially didn't know about it, once he did, we made it clear that any damage done, of course we would pay for it. Fortunately, there has been none, but the point remains.

I also own a house. My tenant has asked if she could have a cat. I agreed, on condition that any damage beyond W & T she should pay for.

I don't agree cat scratches on the furniture is W & T. Were it not for the cats, the scratching would have been minimal if at all.

It's only fair.

silja

It's not normal wear and tear (it might be if you'd been there several years), this is why many LL ask for a separate pet deposit.

Duckjob

Sounds like your LL was very reasonable with you when you brought up the pet issue. You should be reasonable in return since you realise that your pets have caused damage beyond normal wear and tear. Speaking as a pet owner myself.

Victor

Limericks wrote: »

Isn't there some rule to allow extra wear and tear for pets?

No. Why do you think that the landlord would willingly accept damage by an animal, but not by (say) a toddler.

What if the animal, eh, soiled a carpet and it wasn't possible for this to be removed? Why should the landlord bear this cost?

aN.Droid

Victor wrote: »

No. Why do you think that the landlord would willingly accept damage by an animal, but not by (say) a toddler.

What if the animal, eh, soiled a carpet and it wasn't possible for this to be removed? Why should the landlord bear this cost?

Your taking my post outa perspective, obviously if damage was to go as far as having to replace a carpet that was new when you moved in you would have to pay for it as I have pointed out with the op's situation but as far as small things go such as dog hair and cats scratching a cover for a seat as in this instance there should be extra leniency.

I always thought extra wear and tear was giving for pets even landlords have told me that. Guess they just wanted my business?

Lantus

If the terms and conditions of normal wear and tear were to be different then they should of been stated or requested by yourselves to be absolutley clear. Some cats would not scratch but I know from friends just how damaging they can be. Fact is if you move out the property will need a good clean and should be in a condition ready to rent again. The landlord may show some leniency but carpet damage like that is damage and not wear and tear. It would be no different if you had taken a knife and damaged the carpet yourself. Or used it to rip the chair covers.

That doesn't occur from sitting on a chair so it's not wear and tear. It's damage. If it was your house then it wouldn't be an issue but it isn't, these are someone elses things which you have damaged.

Xiney

....and this is why responsible pet owners have trouble renting, because people try to get out of paying their obligations when their pets destroy something.

doubleglaze

That kind of damage is WAY beyond normal wear and tear.

Rented houses should be left in pretty much the same condition in which they were found.

Normal wear and tear is when the sunlight fades curtains, the wooden floor loses its shine and eventually needs re-sanding, the stair carpet will become flatter in the middle, where it is walked on, etc.

Wine stains on the office carpet, cat tears on the stair carpet, cat tearing curtains or chair covers, etc - that is the sort of damage that should be paid for out of a tenant's own pocket.

Your landlord was generous in allowing you to bring a pet. Don't abuse that generosity by being mean and acting like a poor irresponsible juvenile.

amdublin

No this is not normal wear and tear.

I feel stupid even just typing the above response.

Heckler

Xiney wrote: »

....and this is why responsible pet owners have trouble renting, because people try to get out of paying their obligations when their pets destroy something.

Where did I ever state that I was trying to get out of paying for any damage ?
Its our first rental property with pets and I simply asked where we stood with regard to them. I am quite willing to pay for any damages or repairs that my cats may have caused.

I simply asked for advice about something I didn't know about. For example I never knew about seperate pet deposits.

Same reply to the other poster who likened me to an irresponsible juvenile. Try reading posts properly before jumping on your high horses.

I even mention in my op that we're not going to make a fuss and were just wondering where we stood.

Duckjob

Heckler wrote: »

I am quite willing to pay for any damages or repairs that my cats may have caused.

OP doesn't sound too willing to me.

We have two cats which we made clear to the letting agent before we ever moved in. In fact he rang the landlord in front of us to ask was that ok because it was a dealbreaker for us. No problem says the landlord.

...As i said we made it clear from the outset that we had the pets. Would the damage they caused fall under normal wear and tear as they knew we had them ?

Rather than getting all indignant, a better approach might be to admit the mindset of your OP was off and thank other posters for getting you to rethink your stance.

TBH the situation is one of those where you shouldn't even need to ask the question...

Heckler

The mindset of my op was (and I know this because its my mind) if I'm liable for damages i'll pay no problem but if there is some sort of pet wear and tear leniency that I was unaware of then great.

Obviously theres not. Which is fine. I didn't know. Which is WHY I ASKED.

I don't need people accusing me of being like an irresponsible juvenile and ruining the rental market for "responsible pet owners" for asking a goddamn question.

Maybe I phrased my op in a way that had others infer something that wasn't intended. Maybe they could have asked for clarification before presuming to know my apparent "mindset".

Duckjob

You're not getting it.

Forget the question of legal liability. From a moral point of view would you consider it fair that the landlord should cover the cost of damage done to his property by your pet? That is what I mean when I said you shouldn't have to ask...

If you are of the viewpoint that you should and would cover the cost of your pet's damage to the property, then the issue of liability would be moot.

The fact that in your OP you are raising the question of liability (ie. whether you would HAVE to pay) indicates clearly that morally you don't feel you SHOULD HAVE to pay.

So, going back to my first point-
1) Your pet caused damage to LLs property
2) There is a cost to be borne because of it
3) In the name of all that is fair and reasonable, why would you consider that your LL should bear this cost ???

You can backpedal all you want, but Xiney's and others posts were spot on. Your attitude and approach to this is terrible and gives other tenants renting with pets a bad name.

Heckler

Duckjob wrote: »

You're not getting it.

Forget the question of legal liability. From a moral point of view would you consider it fair that the landlord should cover the cost of damage done to his property by your pet? That is what I mean when I said you shouldn't have to ask...

If you are of the viewpoint that you should and would cover the cost of your pet's damage to the property, then the issue of liability would be moot.

The fact that in your OP you are raising the question of liability (ie. whether you would HAVE to pay) indicates clearly that morally you don't feel you SHOULD HAVE to pay.

So, going back to my first point-
1) Your pet caused damage to LLs property
2) There is a cost to be borne because of it
3) In the name of all that is fair and reasonable, why would you consider that your LL should bear this cost ???

You can backpedal all you want, but Xiney's and others posts were spot on. Your attitude and approach to this is terrible and gives other tenants renting with pets a bad name.

You don't get it either. I'm not trying to duck and dive out of any responsibility. I asked if the landlord bears a cost of pet damage and apparently they do in some cases when there is a SEPERATE PET DEPOSIT.

We don't have one. I NEVER KNEW THEY EXISTED as we were never asked for one.

I'm backpedaling from nothing. We don't have a pet deposit and i'm willing to pay any damages due. Please stop presuming to know my intent.

Other posters were not spot on just a bit quick off the mark to judge.