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

No pets allowed

Options
  • 20-03-2018 8:53pm
    #1
    kiddykat
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭


    Why are Irish landlords so against letting to people with pets?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    The landlord is responsible for wear and tear. Typically pets will add wear and tear. There's no point adding any costs you don't need.


  • Options
    #3
    kiddykat
    Registered Users Posts: 31 ✭kiddykat


    GarIT wrote: »
    The landlord is responsible for wear and tear. Typically pets will add wear and tear. There's no point adding any costs you don't need.

    But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it


  • Options
    #4
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    kiddykat wrote: »
    But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it

    LL's can't deduct from the deposit for wear and tear.

    In a RPZ (Control zone) LL's can't increase the rent to make it worth it.

    Most places are let by agencies - agencies aren't going to do anything to increase their work load.


  • Options
    #5
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    kiddykat wrote: »
    But if the renter was willing to pay a pet deposit and make up for any excess wear and tear caused by the pet would you think this might make a difference? Some of them don’t even want to hear about it, they will just instantly dismiss it

    You'd have to trust the tenant. At the end they could just say they don't care what was agreed they're not paying and the law would be on their side.


  • Options
    #6
    magentis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭magentis


    As a dog owner and a former landlord,I can see exactly where they are coming from to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Also a landlord's market. If I'd to choose (I'm not a landlord) between any number of straightforward, no special circumstances potential tenants, and one with a pet that may or may not (potentially) cause excess wear and tear, be a nuisance to neighbours, etc...

    I'd go with the simple option. And I say that as a dog owner.


  • Options
    #8
    doolox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭doolox


    These rare people will understand that the impact of properly minded pets is not huge on most properties. Unfortunately many Irish houses are fragile and furniture and fittings are hard to repair from minor bites and scratches.

    Dogs and cats can bite through or urinate and defecate on carpet and wood all too easily with irreparable results.

    Compare this to the almost bomb proof ceramics and tile used in most mediterranean and French houses and you can appreciate the difference.

    The irish tax authorities insist on fixtures and fittings lasting 8 years which they will not do to an acceptable level with pets in the house. Most pet owners accept this and either put up with a lower level of beauty in their housing or change their furnishings more often than 8 yrs.

    When dealing with amenable and reasonable tenants for long leases things are ok.

    When dealing with short leases, 1 or 2 yrs, and leasing to non pet owners after the pet owners have gone, then you have have problems.

    Its like trying to let a hotel room to a non smoker after a smoker has occupied the room, a no win situation.

    This is why many landlords are reluctant to let to people with pets.


  • Options
    #9
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,119 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    Also most apartment head leases include at least restrictions and in many cases bans on pets in general or on pets that could cause disturbance. A landlord that allowed pets could be pursued for breach of lease by the management company.


  • Options
    #10
    dennyk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭dennyk


    Really it's all down to the current rental market. Why would a landlord take on a tenant with a potentially destructive pet and risk having to deal with the resulting additional damage or wear (which is still additional hassle whether an extra deposit covers the cost or not, and there's no guarantee the deposit actually would be enough anyway) when there's a dozen more pet-free tenants already lined up right behind who are willing to pay the same price for the place? It's easy for landlords to be picky in the current market, and "no pets" is a dead-simple rule to eliminate a common source of extra hassle (and one that doesn't fall afoul of any discrimination laws, to boot...).


Advertisement