Renting with pets

Lesalare

Batattackrat wrote: »

The cat would be given to a rescue center or out in the country with the parents or put up online if that was me.

If all that failed be left out in the country on its own to fend for itself.

No way could justify paying that just for a cat.

I'm not giving my pet of 14 years to a rescue centre and I don't have parents who live in the country, my parents are both deceased.
Oddly enough, I chose to keep my pet and home it, because I love her and she means a lot to me.

I also won't just allow my pet out into the country to let it fend for itself and most probably die.

Would you do that with a beautiful golden Labrador?

I pay what I pay as I need a certain type of apartment partially for my work and secondly as I am not interested in paying 200 quid less a month for another one which is not suitable to my own personal needs.

I have stated that from what I have found upon returning to Dublin, is that 99% of apartments in Dublin who offer 'pets allowed' are new builds and in turn are expensive.

The One Doctor

My brother rented out his apartment, the tenant had a cat but never told him.

The cat ruined the furniture and the deposit was forfeit.

Don't bring pets into a rented home UNLESS the landlord agrees. Chances are the landlord will tell you to go **** yourself, with good reason.

Lesalare

The One Doctor wrote: »

My brother rented out his apartment, the tenant had a cat but never told him.

The cat ruined the furniture and the deposit was forfeit.

Don't bring pets into a rented home UNLESS the landlord agrees. Chances are the landlord will tell you to go **** yourself, with good reason.

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.

JimmyVik

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.

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

Antares35

Batattackrat wrote: »

If all that failed be left out in the country on its own to fend for itself.

What a horrible thing to do, and ironic too to advocate dumping an animal in the context where the narrative is "tenants need to take responsibility". Dumping an animal is not taking responsibility.

Antares35

Lesalare wrote: »

I'm not giving my pet of 14 years to a rescue centre and I don't have parents who live in the country, my parents are both deceased.
Oddly enough, I chose to keep my pet and home it, because I love her and she means a lot to me.

I also won't just allow my pet out into the country to let it fend for itself and most probably die.

Would you do that with a beautiful golden Labrador?

I pay what I pay as I need a certain type of apartment partially for my work and secondly as I am not interested in paying 200 quid less a month for another one which is not suitable to my own personal needs.

I have stated that from what I have found upon returning to Dublin, is that 99% of apartments in Dublin who offer 'pets allowed' are new builds and in turn are expensive.

We live rural and have personally "cleaned up" countless times from irresponsible gits thinking it's acceptable to dump defenceless animals. I'm sure they tell themselves (and their kids) that he's running around with the rabbits etc. Far from it. We've rescued everything from a pet rabbit with teeth so overgrown it had starved, cats in kitten, and dogs too. We have rehomed some ourselves, and the rest have been homed by us to others or as a last resort, left in a shelter. I can't abide people who think it's ok to do this under any circumstances. Worst comes to the worst tie it up outside a shelter. Leaving it in the country/ mountain is almost certainly guaranteeing it's demise. Like the bichon frise we saw at the side of the road a few months ago that was left looking like a faux fur rug after it had been hit by a car.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah it was a generalisation regarding Ireland and pet friendliness. I guess you could say the same about why Ireland is not very landlord friendly - years of absolute p!ss taking (Christ - looking around daft there are still enough bad landlords giving a bad name) - but this isn't another Landlords vs Tenant debate, is it?

My experience of both - landlords and pet owners are mostly sound. I don't get why pets aren't allowed in certain places in Ireland - you can barely even go for a pint if you own a dog and the remarks some people would give would make you think all dogs are blood thirsty savages. There is definitely something historic in the Irish culture that has led to this.

I agree, yeah. People have awful pre-conceived notions about all sorts of people who fall into different pigeon-holes, often without any basis whatsoever. I posted this in the motors forum recently, but at one stage in the last few years I was a cyclist, student, landlord, civil servant and Audi driver, Dubs supporter all at the same time. The vitriol shown towards each of those groups in isolation is crazy, never mind the cumulative effects.

The fact that dogs, in particular, aren't as welcome as they are in other countries is an awful shame, I think.

Lesalare

Antares35 wrote: »

We live rural and have personally "cleaned up" countless times from irresponsible gits thinking it's acceptable to dump defenceless animals. I'm sure they tell themselves (and their kids) that he's running around with the rabbits etc. Far from it. We've rescued everything from a pet rabbit with teeth so overgrown it had starved, cats in kitten, and dogs too. We have rehomed some ourselves, and the rest have been homed by us to others or as a last resort, left in a shelter. I can't abide people who think it's ok to do this under any circumstances. Worst comes to the worst tie it up outside a shelter. Leaving it in the country/ mountain is almost certainly guaranteeing it's demise. Like the bichon frise we saw at the side of the road a few months ago that was left looking like a faux fur rug after it had been hit by a car.

I can't even fathom the mindset of a person who says something akin to what you have quoted above as it's basically purporting: "Just turf the thing out in a field, it's just a stupid animal".

Beggars belief with me.

Lesalare

Lesalare wrote: »

I can't even fathom the mindset of a person who says something akin to what you have quoted above as it's basically purporting: "Just turf the thing out in a field, it's just a stupid animal".

Beggars belief with me. I tend not really to have much dealings in real life with people who hold this sort of view.

Mind-boggling, alright. Mad how the dog needs a licence but some people don't need one to become an owner.

JimmyVik

Lesalare wrote: »

I can't even fathom the mindset of a person who says something akin to what you have quoted above as it's basically purporting: "Just turf the thing out in a field, it's just a stupid animal".

Beggars belief with me.

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

Batattackrat

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

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.

Graces7

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

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.

Dav010

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

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

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

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

Dav010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.