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

Took in a cat, landlord's wife causing trouble

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Meeoow
    Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Meeoow


    I got 2 kittens a month ago. So far they have my leather couch and kitchen chairs scraped. And my blinds in tatters. They have toys and scratching posts galore. No way your kitten hasn't done some damage to landlords property. It's what they do.


  • Options
    #33
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    Cats are very clean and will spend most of their time outdoors. They'll also keep mice away. Maybe try talking to your landlord and explaining this. We've had a cat in all the houses we've rented and never had a problem. But then we weren't living under the landlord's nose.

    Regardless, the landlord owns the property and him and his wife are entitled to say the cat should not be there. Regardless of what people think of cats, you can always smell cat in a house where a cat lives, always. Cat owners can't smell it but the rest of us can. A house where a cat lives will at minimum require a professional clean afterwards, usually curtains and other fabrics replaced too.


  • Options
    #34
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,678 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Regardless, the landlord owns the property and him and his wife are entitled to say the cat should not be there. Regardless of what people think of cats, you can always smell cat in a house where a cat lives, always. Cat owners can't smell it but the rest of us can. A house where a cat lives will at minimum require a professional clean afterwards, usually curtains and other fabrics replaced too.

    Nonsense. I've been in houses that stunk to high heaven despite its former occupant having no pets. If you clean and air your home there won't be any bad smells, be they from cats, dogs or humans. I think you are talking about people with 20 cats that never leave the house and piss all over the place. That's different. We're talking about one cat here, which will presumedly be allowed come and go as it pleases.

    OP, I would talk to you landlord and tell them that once the kitten is big enough and feeling better it will be an outdoor cat. You'll feed it but won't let it into the house/shed/flat/whatever. Offer them an extra deposit as already suggested if they are still concerned. If they still want it gone, you'll have to decide whether your new pet is worth moving over.


  • Options
    #35
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    ^^^
    Agree with the above broadly, but it sort of depends if it's an 'indoors only' cat that uses a litter tray inside, or a 'come and go, nature is my toilet' sort of cat.

    Most of the 'cat smell' people notice is urine, which can easily be controlled for. However, some people can be allergic to pet dander, so it gets more complex and a deep clean (but not necessarily a professional job) may be called for.


  • Options
    #36
    Alani Crooked Zygote
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alani Crooked Zygote


    As a pet owner and a tenant I understand how enormously important (and indeed sometimes difficult) it is to have landlord acceptance of the pet.

    I have additional clauses in my lease specifically describing my dog (which is the only pet allowed), specifics regarding end-of-tenancy cleaning and an additional deposit requirement to cover the additional risk posed by the pet.

    As I know personally that the pet will be zero hassle, cause no damage etc I am more than happy to take on this additional cost and guarantee personally.

    I would be impressed to the point of disbelief if a landlord would do this without any knowledge of the pet's characteristics etc.

    That is what you appear to be looking for them to do in this case without any discussion whatsoever. Bear the additional risk of the pet and bear the additional costs of the pet's tenancy without even a moment's thought.

    Speak to the landlord, see if they are willing to have their fears assuaged, and these risks and costs mitigated with additional deposit guarantees / cleaning expenses added to the lease etc. If they are not, then I am afraid that's a show stopper.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    Can someone please point out in the law where it states the default position on pets is that they are not allowed?

    I would have thought if the landlord was too lazy and/or cheap to put a lease in place then it's though luck for them if they want to enforce any rules that aren't explicitly stated in law. Obviously if the cat is visibly damaging the property then that is a different story and is covered by the law, but the OP hasn't stated this so no reason to assume it. If it's just a regular cat and there is no lease in place then I would have thought the landlord cannot enforce a no pets rule.

    I'm assuming there is a law I've not heard of tho, given the overwhelming number of people telling the OP they need to get rid of the cat, so if someone could quote it then that would be very helpful in clarifying the situation for the OP. Either that or this board really is just an echo chamber for disgruntled landlords to shout about how they would like things to be instead of actual facts.

    De minimis non curat lex.

    The law is silent on the matter as it needn't be legislated. For these areas outside the law, there needs to be a common sense approach. This is particularly true in a case like this without a written lease.

    You wouldn't say the tenant can paint the walls black without the landlord's permission, for example. It's not against the law or the rules since there's nothing written down, but it does cause an issue for the landlord.


  • Options
    #38
    Ragnar Lothbrok
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Ragnar Lothbrok


    I have always lived with cats, I'm a cat lover, but some people on here seem to be forgetting something: If the landlord doesn't want the cat in his house, and the tenant persists in keeping the cat, the tenant will eventually be kicked out. At the very least it will turn what was apparently a good relationship between LL and tenant into a very bad one.

    To the OP: Much as I love cats, I wouldn't think it would be worth losing the roof over your head just so you could keep the kitten. Animal Care Society Cork https://www.animalcaresociety.ie/cats.htm could probably give you some ideas about finding a new family for the kitten (I assume there will be something similar in your own area).

    Hopefully, this issue ends with the kitten in a loving new home and the landlord and tenants getting back to a friendly relationship.


  • Options
    #39
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Common sense approach or not, tenant is now part of part4 tenancy act, as in the property , paying rent and having no lease.tenancy is secure.Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Only the simple law applies - if nothing is in writing, it is mutually exclusive.You can keep the cat as there is nothing in writing stopping you from it. There is indeed no legislation on what the default is on keeping pets or not, but common sense prevails is a non running argument in this case.Who's common sense? The Common Sense of the person wanting to help an injured kitten or the common sense of someone else who couldn't care less. I would agree with the posters stating offer some additional guarantees to LL and keep it amical. Kitty is only tiny...


  • Options
    #40
    Alani Crooked Zygote
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alani Crooked Zygote


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Common sense approach or not, tenant is now part of part4 tenancy act, as in the property , paying rent and having no lease.tenancy is secure.Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Only the simple law applies - if nothing is in writing, it is mutually exclusive.You can keep the cat as there is nothing in writing stopping you from it. There is indeed no legislation on what the default is on keeping pets or not, but common sense prevails is a non running argument in this case.Who's common sense? The Common Sense of the person wanting to help an injured kitten or the common sense of someone else who couldn't care less. I would agree with the posters stating offer some additional guarantees to LL and keep it amical. Kitty is only tiny...

    we do not know this!
    intheclouds wrote: »
    ...What is the legality of the living situation, are you licensees or tenants?
    Lantus wrote: »
    Poor advice. The op should clarify his legal position first. With no lease he may be a licensee. That means he could be turfed out at little or no notice. A wayward kitten seems like a bad way to make yourself homeless.

    This is not an animal rights issue.


  • Options
    #41
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    we do not know this!
    Yes we do if you read the whole thread. tenant in in property for over 6 month (part 4 comes into effect) and is paying rent. Makes them a tenant.Licensees don't pay rent or only have a room living UNDER the landlords roof, which they are not.They apartment is adjoining the LL property, but has its own frontdoor..;-)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Common sense approach or not, tenant is now part of part4 tenancy act, as in the property , paying rent and having no lease.tenancy is secure.Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Only the simple law applies - if nothing is in writing, it is mutually exclusive.You can keep the cat as there is nothing in writing stopping you from it. There is indeed no legislation on what the default is on keeping pets or not, but common sense prevails is a non running argument in this case.Who's common sense? The Common Sense of the person wanting to help an injured kitten or the common sense of someone else who couldn't care less. I would agree with the posters stating offer some additional guarantees to LL and keep it amical. Kitty is only tiny...

    It the LL's house he makes the rules, I wouldn't allow a cat to look in the door of my own house never mind one I was renting out. Just because there is nothing in writing does not meant the LL cannot enforce a rule.

    It really amuses me how people appear to think its acceptable to bring an animal into someone else's house. The LL is fully within his rights to start the eviction process if the op does not remove the cat or if the OP is a licensee he the op can be asked to move out immediately. Why someone would want all this hassle over a cat is beyond me, just get rid of it.
    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Yes we do if you read the whole thread. tenant in in property for over 6 month (part 4 comes into effect) and is paying rent. Makes them a tenant.Licensees don't pay rent or only have a room living UNDER the landlords roof, which they are not.They apartment is adjoining the LL property, but has its own frontdoor..;-)

    If there is direct access between where the op lives and where the LL lives (such as a locked door) then the op is a licensee regardless of having his own entrance.


  • Options
    #43
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,678 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Yes we do if you read the whole thread. tenant in in property for over 6 month (part 4 comes into effect) and is paying rent. Makes them a tenant.

    I think there's still a question mark over whether they are a tenant or a licensee. If it's the latter then they basically have no rights.


  • Options
    #44
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Santana Orange Photography wrote: »
    It the LL's house he makes the rules, I wouldn't allow a cat to look in the door of my own house never mind one I was renting out. Just because there is nothing in writing does not meant the LL cannot enforce a rule.

    It really amuses me how people appear to think its acceptable to bring an animal into someone else's house. The LL is fully within his rights to start the eviction process if the op does not remove the cat or if the OP is a licensee he the op can be asked to move out immediately. Why someone would want all this hassle over a cat is beyond me, just get rid of it.



    If there is direct access between where the op lives and where the LL lives (such as a locked door) then the op is a licensee regardless of having his own entrance.

    wrong. read up on the law. LL cannot evict nor cancel the tenancy unless under very very specific reasons non of which apply. OP, i would get in touch with the tenancy board/threshold. If you don't have a lease the tenancy might not be registered, as such, LL loses all his rights to file a complaint, but you maintain all the right.Next to that, registering a tenancy is required by law. give them a call and get good advice on your rights as tenants. (I do agree with another OP if you are licensees you have no such rights).


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    wrong. read up on the law. LL cannot evict nor cancel the tenancy unless under very very specific reasons non of which apply. OP, i would get in touch with the tenancy board/threshold. If you don't have a lease the tenancy might not be registered, as such, LL loses all his rights to file a complaint, but you maintain all the right. give them a call and get good advice on your rights as tenants. (I do agree with another OP if you are licensees you have no such rights).

    But the tenant is totally in the wrong, you are basically encouraging them to be a bad tenant and try to use the system against the LL.

    The absence of a written lease does not mean the LL cannot make rules like no pets. If the LL makes this rule and the op won't comply then the LL can use it as a reason to begin the eviction process for breach of the lease (verbal), a cat will stink the place out and destroy the furniture, carpets etc and the LL is fully entitled to protect his property.

    The op should never have taken in the cat in the first place this was the major mistake.


  • Options
    #46
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Santana Orange Photography wrote: »
    But the tenant is totally in the wrong, you are basically encouraging them to be a bad tenant and try to use the system against the LL.

    The absence of a written lease does not mean the LL cannot make rules like no pets. If the LL makes this rule and the op won't comply then the LL can use it as a reason to begin the eviction process for breach of the lease (verbal), a cat will stink the place out and destroy the furniture, carpets etc and the LL is fully entitled to protect his property.

    I'm not encouraging anything (except maybe trying to save a life) ,I am simply pointing out the legalities in this case and they are in favor of the tenant. Next to that,cats are very clean creatures and the only thing you might smell is the catlitter if it isn't kept clean. Cats are also very trainable.I own numerous cats and they all use a scratching post. Again, in the absence of a lease the basic law applies and a such, no additional rules can be made unless MUTUAL agreed upon.And saving an innocent life might make them bad tenants ina LL eyes, in mine it makes them applaudable human beings.Which I will always try and help.Give threshold or the tenancyboard a ring OP, get full advise on your legal rights and take it from there.


  • Options
    #47
    alpha13
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭alpha13


    i am not being devils advocate saying this..but there is another point people seem to not possibly consider...
    clearly the landlord likes the kitten.. BUT.. maybe the landlady is afraid of cats OR allergic to them.. maybe it is not just an issue of her not liking the kitten.
    first thing to do is talk to the landord and land lady and find out WHY they are making the issue..then you can begin to see about solving the problem instead of creating ones that dont exist.. aybe it is a cleaning issue..if so.. higher deposit or assurances might work.. maybe it is not..
    we can deal with the knows..not with the unknowns...


  • Options
    #48
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    alpha13 wrote: »
    i am not being devils advocate saying this..but there is another point people seem to not possibly consider...
    clearly the landlord likes the kitten.. BUT.. maybe the landlady is afraid of cats OR allergic to them.. maybe it is not just an issue of her not liking the kitten.
    first thing to do is talk to the landord and land lady and find out WHY they are making the issue..then you can begin to see about solving the problem instead of creating ones that dont exist.. aybe it is a cleaning issue..if so.. higher deposit or assurances might work.. maybe it is not..
    we can deal with the knows..not with the unknowns...

    Very considerate. I would go down that road as well but not without knowing where exactly where I stood legally.After all, there is a life on the line here.


  • Options
    #49
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Either get rid of the cat or move out. Simples.


  • Options
    #50
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    Santana Orange Photography wrote: »
    But the tenant is totally in the wrong, you are basically encouraging them to be a bad tenant and try to use the system against the LL.

    The absence of a written lease does not mean the LL cannot make rules like no pets. If the LL makes this rule and the op won't comply then the LL can use it as a reason to begin the eviction process for breach of the lease (verbal), a cat will stink the place out and destroy the furniture, carpets etc and the LL is fully entitled to protect his property.

    The op should never have taken in the cat in the first place this was the major mistake.

    Wrong - the mistake was the landlords - not providing a lease that states no pets.


  • Options
    #51
    Alani Crooked Zygote
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alani Crooked Zygote


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Yes we do if you read the whole thread. tenant in in property for over 6 month (part 4 comes into effect) and is paying rent. Makes them a tenant.Licensees don't pay rent or only have a room living UNDER the landlords roof, which they are not.They apartment is adjoining the LL property, but has its own frontdoor..;-)

    There have been countless examples of people believing that they are tenants when in fact they are licencees on this forum.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/sharing_accommodation_with_your_landlord.html

    Paying rent doesn't preclude someone from being a Licencee. :confused:

    We don't know the situation with regards their accommodation either.

    It would be terribly prudent to wait for the OP to clarify their situation before you give advice regarding Part V tenure which could be absolutely inapplicable to their situation and could actually serve to inflame the situation to be so misinformed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There have been countless examples of people believing that they are tenants when in fact they are licencees on this forum.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/sharing_accommodation_with_your_landlord.html

    Paying rent doesn't preclude someone from being a Licencee. :confused:

    We don't know the situation with regards their accommodation either.

    It would be terribly prudent to wait for the OP to clarify their situation before you give advice regarding Part V tenure which could be absolutely inapplicable to their situation and could actually serve to inflame the situation to be so misinformed.

    thats why i advised they talk to threshold/tenancyboard..which is really the best place to go to.:-)


  • Options
    #53
    Alani Crooked Zygote
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Alani Crooked Zygote


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    thats why i advised they talk to threshold/tenancyboard..which is really the best place to go to.:-)

    Really?
    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    Common sense approach or not, tenant is now part of part4 tenancy act, as in the property , paying rent and having no lease.tenancy is secure.Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Only the simple law applies - if nothing is in writing, it is mutually exclusive.You can keep the cat as there is nothing in writing stopping you from it. There is indeed no legislation on what the default is on keeping pets or not, but common sense prevails is a non running argument in this case.Who's common sense? The Common Sense of the person wanting to help an injured kitten or the common sense of someone else who couldn't care less. I would agree with the posters stating offer some additional guarantees to LL and keep it amical. Kitty is only tiny...


  • Options
    #54
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    I'm not encouraging anything (except maybe trying to save a life) ,I am simply pointing out the legalities in this case and they are in favor of the tenant. Next to that,cats are very clean creatures and the only thing you might smell is the catlitter if it isn't kept clean. Cats are also very trainable.I own numerous cats and they all use a scratching post. Again, in the absence of a lease the basic law applies and a such, no additional rules can be made unless MUTUAL agreed upon.And saving an innocent life might make them bad tenants ina LL eyes, in mine it makes them applaudable human beings.Which I will always try and help.Give threshold or the tenancyboard a ring OP, get full advise on your legal rights and take it from there.

    yip


  • Options
    #55
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,636 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    OP, I recommended you chat with your landlord first in a friendly fashion and see if you can reach an agreement before you need to consider your next steps.

    While you don't have a lease it would be always be appropriate to ask a LL about getting a pet before it happens even if there is no lease.

    I have a dog and have lived in two rented properties with him. One had carpet one had wooden floors. Both leases had a no pets clause in them but an upfront discussion had us reach an agreement and my dog was allowed without any issues.

    If the LL is against pets and you really want to keep the cat then you're best to just move. It's not worth the hassle and animosity with your LL if you live in his back garden.

    Hope you get it happily resolved.


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Wrong - the mistake was the landlords - not providing a lease that states no pets.

    How many times do people need to be told the lack of a lease is irrelevant. The LL can enforce a no pets rule of he wishes, it makes no difference that there is no lease. By your logic the op can do what ever they want in the house because there is no a lease to forbid it in writing.

    As the poster above said its very simple get rid of the cat or move, though you will struggle to find any LL willing to allow pets nowadays.


  • Options
    #57
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    athtrasna wrote: »
    There is no law that says pets are allowed in rented properties either. They had no pets when they moved in and the OP does not have it in writing that pets are allowed. It's the landlord's property so he has the final call in the absence of a written agreement stating otherwise

    That's simply not true. If that were the case a landlord at anytime could make up any reason they like if they want a tenant out. Could you please provide an example of a case where a tenant was evicted because of a pet where there was no lease or the lease was silent on the subject? Obviously assuming there was no damage because of the pet.
    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    De minimis non curat lex.

    The law is silent on the matter as it needn't be legislated. For these areas outside the law, there needs to be a common sense approach. This is particularly true in a case like this without a written lease.

    You wouldn't say the tenant can paint the walls black without the landlord's permission, for example. It's not against the law or the rules since there's nothing written down, but it does cause an issue for the landlord.

    As above, can you provide an example of someone being evicted because of a pet? Because it sounds like you're saying a landlord can come up with any reason they like to kick out a tenant, which is obviously not true.

    If a lease is silent on the subject of painting I don't see any reason a landlord could evict a tenant over painting, as long as they undo it before they move out so that they return the property in the same condition they received it then it should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.


    The onus is on the landlord to provide a lease covering any extra rules they want enforced that aren't already covered by the law.
    Santana Orange Photography wrote: »
    How many times do people need to be told the lack of a lease is irrelevant. The LL can enforce a no pets rule of he wishes, it makes no difference that there is no lease. By your logic the op can do what ever they want in the house because there is no a lease to forbid it in writing.

    Simply stating something does not make it true.


  • Options
    #58
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,678 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    I agree with those people offering constructive advice on how to deal with this matter, i.e. talking to the landlord, offering a pet deposit, etc, rather than engaging in pointless finger pointing.

    But assuming for a second that the OP is a tenant and not a licensee (in which case all bets are off and they will have to bow to the demands of the landlord), can someone please explain this "the lack of a no rule on pets means the landlord can set a rule if they want" argument to me? Because I'm just not seeing the legal basis for this.

    So to take a different example, some landlords don't allow their tenants to dry their clothes indoors as it can cause mould. Does that mean the landlord can come along 2 years into a tendency and tell a tenant they have to stop drying their clothes indoors or be evicted even though there was such rule in the lease and no damage has been caused?

    Seems like a blank cheque for landlords to force tenants out if there's any legal basis for this, which I suspect there isn't.


  • Options
    #59
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    I agree with those people offering constructive advice on how to deal with this matter, i.e. talking to the landlord, offering a pet deposit, etc, rather than engaging in pointless finger pointing.

    But assuming for a second that the OP is a tenant and not a licensee (in which case all bets are off and they will have to bow to the demands of the landlord), can someone please explain this "the lack of a no rule on pets means the landlord can set a rule if they want" argument to me? Because I'm just not seeing the legal basis for this.

    So to take a different example, some landlords don't allow their tenants to dry their clothes indoors as it can cause mould. Does that mean the landlord can come along 2 years into a tendency and tell a tenant they have to stop drying their clothes indoors or be evicted even though there was such rule in the lease?

    Seems like a blank cheque for landlords to force tenants out if there's any legal basis for this, which I suspect there isn't.
    although the clothes drying is a limping example as either access to a garden with a washing line or an in house dryer is a minimum requirement under the rental standard. I did actually call threshold with this case out of interest, and my suspicion was confirmed: if there is no lease in place the basic requirements by law are applicable.Anything else needs to be agreed mutually and in writing by both parties.They also mentioned to me they would strongly suggest the OP to give them a call .


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »
    although the clothes drying is a limping example as either access to a garden with a washing line or an in house dryer is a minimum requirement under the rental standard. I did actually call threshold with this case out of interest, and my suspicion was confirmed: if there is no lease in place the basic requirements by law are applicable.Anything else needs to be agreed mutually and in writing by both parties.They also mentioned to me they would strongly suggest the OP to give them a call .

    I wouldn't trust a word threshold say, they are extremely anti-LL and there have been many examples on here of them advising tenants to break tenancy law etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Ms Doubtfire1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭Ms Doubtfire1


    Santana Orange Photography wrote: »
    I wouldn't trust a word threshold say, they are extremely anti-LL and there have been many examples on here of them advising tenants to break tenancy law etc.

    That is totally up to you.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement