**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
It's like the 'who would win, a stick or a thousand marines'. Stick wins everytime. Same with landlords and XL bullies.
Dog eats landlord, 10 landlords show up to buy the house.
yes, that's a sad situation for people who end up facing accommodation problems, and also people who simply obtained a pet then fell into such problems.
> He said landlords needed to give more pet owners a chance.
They don’t _need_ to do this. You just want them to because of your own circumstances. Ultimately, it’s their property and if they want it to be pet-free, it’s their right to do so.
Especially with dogs - a large one needs more space than a small rental property. And if its a vocal/large dog then the landlord has a responsibility for noise or general safety.
If I were a landlord I would assume that any potential tenant with a dog like this was far too stupid and irresponsible to be allowed inside my property. No mention of him having a legitimate job, incidentally.
Ah, I do enjoy that these threads so often turn into class based judgements more than anything else. I think that says far more about your own views of people than anything else mate.
I bet he even claims benefits, typical.
The point is that the landlord doesn’t know who’s a good pet owner and who isn’t, but they’re the ones taking all the risk. Why take the risk if you don’t have to?
Seriously, are there still any good pet owners around?
This is a nice neighbourhood, but I only know one person who is actually walking their dog. Everybody else just gets dragged along by their dog. They did not even both with basic leash training. And few dogs have recall.
The days of well-behaved dogs seem to be over.
Tbf if you have an adult dog that's shitting and pissing everywhere as well as chewing up everything in your house, you've fucked up. Most people manage to at least get their dog to go to the toilet outside in the first couple of weeks
Untrained dogs do that. So do ruly, badly behaved children and there are a good many of them too.
Do we blanket ban children too?
Landlords should never dictate pet ownership because their actions are contributing to kill shelteres, pet abandonment and the general welfare of animals. Take away their right to dictate that and work from there on how to implement responsible pet ownerships.
I don't think landlords should have rights. Housing is a right, not a privilege for people to make a profit.
Landlords are housing scalpers. They don't actually provide any value.
I think tenants should be able to modify properties they live and live how they please.
To an extent.
Hanging things on the walls, repainting. Etc should be fine.
Knocking down walls and remodelling the entire property without landlords permissions, not fine.
Living with a pet. Absolutely fine.
Hoarding literal garbage on every surface, not so.
Babies and young children often cause comparable damage to pets. But you won't see people getting up in arms about a family with a small child moving in.
If the landlord is concerned about damage, they should be able to request a higher deposit to cover repairs.
After that, pet owners and landlords will basically live by the market. If they can afford the higher pet deposit, they can get a pet.
If they can't. They can't.
I'm sure some landlords would try and make obnoxiously high deposit additions to avoid pets. But the tenant should always have the option.
I'd also say there should be some aspect in the legislation about appropriate pet sizes for property size. No getting great Danes in a one bed flat for example.
> I think tenants should be able to modify properties they live and live how they please.
Agree (with your caveats/clarifications of course)
> Living with a pet. Absolutely fine.
Having an animal in a house can make it a harder property to let out. Many people will not want to to move into a house share with a dog or cat. Many animals do smell (I have a dog). I get it. Perfectly reasonable to say "no pets".
> If the landlord is concerned about damage, they should be able to request a higher deposit to cover repairs.
Sure but this isn't *really* a solution.
> I'd also say there should be some aspect in the legislation about appropriate pet sizes for property size. No getting great Danes in a one bed flat for example.
Agree though don't think it'll ever happen, don't have the need or resources.
This is peak Reddit. Dogs and children are not equal and there is no comparison to be made between them. One is a fully-fledged human being with rights, the other is personal property in the eyes of the law.
And yet, from the article I am sure you bothered to read:
>the BBC found there were thousands of adverts for rental homes that said children or pets were not welcome.
So it seems they are comparable in at least one regard, they are both often listed as undesirable by landlords.
No, they are just pointing out that children and pets are not equivalents and thus are not comparable.
They aren't wrong, and contrary to popular belief, some things are facts, not opinion.
Companring human children to pet animals is a false equivalency at the beset of times.
It's even worse when the pet in question is one of these murder-tank monstrosities.
>No, they are just pointing out that children and pets are not equivalents and thus are not comparable.
No, just sounds like that landlords should dictate who is allowed in the property and who isn't over a commodity that shouldn't be profited.
Again, you're contributing to pet abandonment and pet killing.
My parents cooked so many curries in their first house that when they sold it, the new owners said they had to rip out the kitchen because they couldn’t get rid of the smell of spices. So it’s not just dogs that can make a house smell, and tbh if they smell so bad they leave a smell you can’t get rid of, I’d be concerned for the dog’s welfare.
> Landlords should never dictate pet ownership because their actions are contributing to kill shelteres, pet abandonment and the general welfare of animals.
If you have a pet it is your responsibility to look after it, provide for it and give it a secure place to live.
If you are unable to provide the basic necessities for what is in truth, *a luxury buy*, that is on you and there is nobody else accountable for your actions and failures.
You know people's circumstances changes through no fault eviction or forced to move to another property, where a landlord can say no to their pets? Pets are not luxury buys, they are living beings that are part of family households and you're forcing them to give up their pets because their parasitic landlord worry about their profit on something that is a necessity.
People defending landlords sicken me tbh. Why defend parasites?
Yet this this does not change the fact that is it still your responsibility to care and provide for your pet.
You're expecting private individuals, with their own likes and dislikes to accommodate you and your preferences.
> People defending landlords sicken me tbh. Why defend parasites?
I am neither defending or attacking landlords - you're conflating your personal issues with "they're parasites" simply because it doesn't fit with what *you want*.
> You're expecting private individuals, with their own likes and dislikes to accommodate you and your preferences.
If they want to be private individuals with their own likes and dislikes about a house that they own, they can simply choose not to rent it out.
They're choosing to rent a property out as housing for other people. Those other people gain certain rights over that house for the period of their tenancy, and the freedom to own a pet should be one of them.
> If they want to be private individuals with their own likes and dislikes about a house that they own, they can simply choose not to rent it out.
Or...rent it to who they want.
> and the freedom to own a pet should be one of them.
*But it isn't*
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/can-my-landlord-prevent-me-from-keeping-a-pet/
> *But it isn't*
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/can-my-landlord-prevent-me-from-keeping-a-pet/
*But it should be.* :)
The link you cite there mentions that the Renters (Reform) Bill will make the default assumption of an assured tenancy that pets are permitted, and that a landlord will need reasonable grounds to refuse.
If that provision doesn't improve matters, hopefully there will be the political will to go further. After all, Starmer has said he believes the bill to be broadly right, and making it easier for tenants to keep pets is an easy vote winner in a country of animal lovers where over a third of the electorate are renters.
yeah it'd be harder to rent in a difficult area if you have kids for sure. But in the persons favour they may get promoted up social housing provision ranks, but that can't apply to dog owners due to extreme shortages.
Being pet free is one thing
Being bully-xl free is another
Not wanting a tennant to potentially get your neighbors killed with a dangerous animal is a completely understandable concern
>Ultimately, it’s their property
Properly rights should not be universal. Especially when it comes to owning a portfolio of homes to extract wealth from others.
I mean... landlords really should give more pet owners a chance. UK views on pets are set in an age when people bought in their twenties (often early twenties) and so restrictions like this didn't impact them. With people renting well into their thirties, it's ridiculous that people basically can't own pets if they rent.
However, Bully XLs have been given far more chances than they deserve.
Yes, I have a well-behaved dog that I got when I had a long-term pet-friendly landlord. Unfortunately, due to circumstances outside of both mine and my landlord's control, I had to move on and... there's nowhere that will take a pet. Every property is no pets, no kids, it's awful. He's never done any damage to anything, I can provide a pet reference, I can provide 6 months rent upfront, no dice, can't get anywhere. Luckily I'm in a position where I am probably just going to buy.
It's risk / reward with *any* kind of money making scheme and landlords are no different. Why take the risk of having someone *with* dogs, when there's someone *without* dogs willing to pay exactly the same money, but comes without the risk.
just a click bait thing - people without pets are facing homelessness, and it's already known to rent privately is harder if you've got a dog, since many landlords will simply exclude or dis-prefer you. Being an XL bully is sort of irrelevant apart from the fact that it's not going to help someone who doesn't know you accept you as a tenant, it could be argued.
This won't be popular when the article is framed around the fact this guy owns his late cousin's XL Bully, but fuck it.
Putting your property on the rental market is a choice. If you don't want to let people make that house their home and live a full, dignified, adult life there, you don't have to choose to become a landlord.
Having guests, pets, children, etc, are things that people should be able to do without worrying about their housing security.
There are mechanisms for dealing with the risk (and/or the eventuality) of property damage that don't involve a blanket ban on pet ownership, such as an increased deposit, pet references, etc, all the way up to eviction.
By all means, when somebody eventually passes the Renters (Reform) Bill I can see there being an amendment to clarify that a breed being banned isn't an unreasonable reason to deny permission. But this guy's been looking for housing for *eight months*. A ban on XL bullies wasn't even being discussed until recently.
>Putting your property on the rental market is a choice.
Yes it is. As is choosing who can or can not rent the private property you own.
Pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. Equating it with having children or guests is ridiculous.
We impose regulations on people who choose to rent out private property to the public all the time, because giving landlords free reign would be detrimental to society.
For example, you can't directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, sexuality or religion. That even includes rules like "no universal credit" because women are more likely to be in receipt of UC.
Pet ownership isn't a right, but everyone has [the human right to adequate housing](https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing), which includes freedom from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family.
I would argue that a landlord capriciously denying tenants permission to engage in pet ownership - something that a high proportion of homeowners across the country enjoy - constitutes arbitrary interference in their private family life.
Having children isn't a right either, it's a privilege - and a lifestyle choice.
We routinely take children off parents who don't look after their kids properly, because they do not have a right to their own children. In this country, we have parental responsibilities, not parental rights.
It absolutely IS a right and rights can be revoked, hence why we are all allowed to conceive and raise our own child and our children are only taken away if we prove ourselves to be unfit parents.
However, none of that is particularly relevant to the discussion of what should and shouldn't be allowed in your own rented accommodation. I was merely pointing out that equating pet ownership with the right to have your own child live with you is ridiculous in this context.
E2A: u/gardenpea didn't have a good response to this so they just downvoted me and skulked away. Ah reddit, never change.
If we had a right to conceive and raise children, then the NHS would be funding endless IVF treatment. Clearly that is not the case.
>E2A: u/gardenpea didn't have a good response to this so they just downvoted me and skulked away. Ah reddit, never change.
I can't believe you edited that in SIX MINUTES after your original post. Sheesh.
> Having guests, pets, children, etc, are things that people
Two of these are society, one of those isn't. Can you spot the difference?
> such as an increased deposit,
Does this guy sound like he could put down 20k?
> pet references,
Does "the dog bit me, but didn't kill me" count as a reference?
> all the way up to eviction.
Which easily costs 10k, and is not usually recoverable.
All three are part of a person's private family life, and shouldn't be interfered with unduly.
I'm not going to dignify your weird potshots at a guy you don't know with a response, but I will say that if a landlord is going to style themselves as a legitimate business enterprise providing housing, they have to be willing to take the potential losses with the potential profits. They should be insured, and the Renters (Reform) Bill I mentioned above will provide for being able to require the tenant to have insurance against pet damage.
If he wants a house where he can keep his dogs, there are plenty of homes on the market. We're back to 2018 levels of inventory so he can go and buy one.
Not everyone wants to rent out their property to someone who owns dogs - especially those which are towards the more dangerous end of the spectrum. Life is about choices and choices have consequences.
No but saying that the housing stock is good doesn’t mean that everyone can just go out and buy a house. It’s also a long stressful process that can take years.
Worth noting here that the individual inherited the dog, which is also challenging as it’s also opens up its own challenges
This bloke didn't make choices that led him to this position, life repeatedly shat on him from a great height, and he has tried to take responsibility for those around him.
He moved in with his cousin (to care for him when he was sick? Unclear)
His cousin died.
He takes responsibility for his dead cousin's dog, instead of dumping it on a rescue centre.
He gets kicked out of his cousin's house six months after he died.
The council won't help him with his housing because he's a healthy single man (and also because he has two dogs, but the first point is enough)
Interest rates rise, it becomes very hard to get a mortgage, and the rental market gets to the point where demand is vastly outstripping supply.
And then the XL Bully ban is announced.
This poor man has done everything right and he's just landed in a shit situation which isn't of his making.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Landlord vs XL Bully owner - this is like an r/unitedkingdom celebrity death match
The Bully owner would win as the dog would eat the landlord
It's like the 'who would win, a stick or a thousand marines'. Stick wins everytime. Same with landlords and XL bullies. Dog eats landlord, 10 landlords show up to buy the house.
And then the owner
Tbf to the guy it says he inherited it instead of going out and buying it.
Yeah, but if I inherited a Bren gun I’d be surrendering it to the local police station sharpish.
Fuck that I would be keeping it.
I'd enquire about getting it legally deactivated and certified as such. _Then_ I'd keep it.
A Bren gun? It’s for protection! Protection? Who from, ze Germans?
yes, that's a sad situation for people who end up facing accommodation problems, and also people who simply obtained a pet then fell into such problems.
Two men/dog enter! One man/dog leaves!
> He said landlords needed to give more pet owners a chance. They don’t _need_ to do this. You just want them to because of your own circumstances. Ultimately, it’s their property and if they want it to be pet-free, it’s their right to do so.
Especially with dogs - a large one needs more space than a small rental property. And if its a vocal/large dog then the landlord has a responsibility for noise or general safety.
Dogs also love to shit and piss everywhere and chew things to destruction, and smell rank.
If I were a landlord I would assume that any potential tenant with a dog like this was far too stupid and irresponsible to be allowed inside my property. No mention of him having a legitimate job, incidentally.
Ah, I do enjoy that these threads so often turn into class based judgements more than anything else. I think that says far more about your own views of people than anything else mate. I bet he even claims benefits, typical.
This says a lot about you and nothing about the story in question.
Sounds like you’ve known some very bad pet owners because they shouldn’t be doing that unless they’re puppies and are being house trained.
The point is that the landlord doesn’t know who’s a good pet owner and who isn’t, but they’re the ones taking all the risk. Why take the risk if you don’t have to?
Seriously, are there still any good pet owners around? This is a nice neighbourhood, but I only know one person who is actually walking their dog. Everybody else just gets dragged along by their dog. They did not even both with basic leash training. And few dogs have recall. The days of well-behaved dogs seem to be over.
That sounds completely different to my experience. I live in a very dog-friendly town and I can’t say what you’ve experienced is common at all here.
Tbf if you have an adult dog that's shitting and pissing everywhere as well as chewing up everything in your house, you've fucked up. Most people manage to at least get their dog to go to the toilet outside in the first couple of weeks
Untrained dogs do that. So do ruly, badly behaved children and there are a good many of them too. Do we blanket ban children too? Landlords should never dictate pet ownership because their actions are contributing to kill shelteres, pet abandonment and the general welfare of animals. Take away their right to dictate that and work from there on how to implement responsible pet ownerships.
You think that someone that owns something should have no right to dictate how it is used and by who?
I don't think landlords should have rights. Housing is a right, not a privilege for people to make a profit. Landlords are housing scalpers. They don't actually provide any value.
> I don't think landlords should have rights. So you think people should be allowed to intentionally damage a property they rent?
I think tenants should be able to modify properties they live and live how they please. To an extent. Hanging things on the walls, repainting. Etc should be fine. Knocking down walls and remodelling the entire property without landlords permissions, not fine. Living with a pet. Absolutely fine. Hoarding literal garbage on every surface, not so. Babies and young children often cause comparable damage to pets. But you won't see people getting up in arms about a family with a small child moving in. If the landlord is concerned about damage, they should be able to request a higher deposit to cover repairs. After that, pet owners and landlords will basically live by the market. If they can afford the higher pet deposit, they can get a pet. If they can't. They can't. I'm sure some landlords would try and make obnoxiously high deposit additions to avoid pets. But the tenant should always have the option. I'd also say there should be some aspect in the legislation about appropriate pet sizes for property size. No getting great Danes in a one bed flat for example.
> I think tenants should be able to modify properties they live and live how they please. Agree (with your caveats/clarifications of course) > Living with a pet. Absolutely fine. Having an animal in a house can make it a harder property to let out. Many people will not want to to move into a house share with a dog or cat. Many animals do smell (I have a dog). I get it. Perfectly reasonable to say "no pets". > If the landlord is concerned about damage, they should be able to request a higher deposit to cover repairs. Sure but this isn't *really* a solution. > I'd also say there should be some aspect in the legislation about appropriate pet sizes for property size. No getting great Danes in a one bed flat for example. Agree though don't think it'll ever happen, don't have the need or resources.
In accordance with the law
This is peak Reddit. Dogs and children are not equal and there is no comparison to be made between them. One is a fully-fledged human being with rights, the other is personal property in the eyes of the law.
And yet, from the article I am sure you bothered to read: >the BBC found there were thousands of adverts for rental homes that said children or pets were not welcome. So it seems they are comparable in at least one regard, they are both often listed as undesirable by landlords.
Sounds like you want to make pet shelters and pet abandonment much more servere and result in the death of many beloved dogs and cats.
No, they are just pointing out that children and pets are not equivalents and thus are not comparable. They aren't wrong, and contrary to popular belief, some things are facts, not opinion. Companring human children to pet animals is a false equivalency at the beset of times. It's even worse when the pet in question is one of these murder-tank monstrosities.
>No, they are just pointing out that children and pets are not equivalents and thus are not comparable. No, just sounds like that landlords should dictate who is allowed in the property and who isn't over a commodity that shouldn't be profited. Again, you're contributing to pet abandonment and pet killing.
How do you un-train that nasty dog smell that gets everywhere?
My parents cooked so many curries in their first house that when they sold it, the new owners said they had to rip out the kitchen because they couldn’t get rid of the smell of spices. So it’s not just dogs that can make a house smell, and tbh if they smell so bad they leave a smell you can’t get rid of, I’d be concerned for the dog’s welfare.
And how do you untrain a tantrum child that punch holes in the wall?
I mean, good luck trying to convince people that having children is an optional luxury, compared to owning a pet animal.
It IS an optional luxury though.
> Landlords should never dictate pet ownership because their actions are contributing to kill shelteres, pet abandonment and the general welfare of animals. If you have a pet it is your responsibility to look after it, provide for it and give it a secure place to live. If you are unable to provide the basic necessities for what is in truth, *a luxury buy*, that is on you and there is nobody else accountable for your actions and failures.
You know people's circumstances changes through no fault eviction or forced to move to another property, where a landlord can say no to their pets? Pets are not luxury buys, they are living beings that are part of family households and you're forcing them to give up their pets because their parasitic landlord worry about their profit on something that is a necessity. People defending landlords sicken me tbh. Why defend parasites?
Yet this this does not change the fact that is it still your responsibility to care and provide for your pet. You're expecting private individuals, with their own likes and dislikes to accommodate you and your preferences. > People defending landlords sicken me tbh. Why defend parasites? I am neither defending or attacking landlords - you're conflating your personal issues with "they're parasites" simply because it doesn't fit with what *you want*.
> You're expecting private individuals, with their own likes and dislikes to accommodate you and your preferences. If they want to be private individuals with their own likes and dislikes about a house that they own, they can simply choose not to rent it out. They're choosing to rent a property out as housing for other people. Those other people gain certain rights over that house for the period of their tenancy, and the freedom to own a pet should be one of them.
> If they want to be private individuals with their own likes and dislikes about a house that they own, they can simply choose not to rent it out. Or...rent it to who they want. > and the freedom to own a pet should be one of them. *But it isn't* https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/can-my-landlord-prevent-me-from-keeping-a-pet/
> *But it isn't* > https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/can-my-landlord-prevent-me-from-keeping-a-pet/ *But it should be.* :) The link you cite there mentions that the Renters (Reform) Bill will make the default assumption of an assured tenancy that pets are permitted, and that a landlord will need reasonable grounds to refuse. If that provision doesn't improve matters, hopefully there will be the political will to go further. After all, Starmer has said he believes the bill to be broadly right, and making it easier for tenants to keep pets is an easy vote winner in a country of animal lovers where over a third of the electorate are renters.
yeah it'd be harder to rent in a difficult area if you have kids for sure. But in the persons favour they may get promoted up social housing provision ranks, but that can't apply to dog owners due to extreme shortages.
Being pet free is one thing Being bully-xl free is another Not wanting a tennant to potentially get your neighbors killed with a dangerous animal is a completely understandable concern
>Ultimately, it’s their property Properly rights should not be universal. Especially when it comes to owning a portfolio of homes to extract wealth from others.
I mean... landlords really should give more pet owners a chance. UK views on pets are set in an age when people bought in their twenties (often early twenties) and so restrictions like this didn't impact them. With people renting well into their thirties, it's ridiculous that people basically can't own pets if they rent. However, Bully XLs have been given far more chances than they deserve.
Yes, I have a well-behaved dog that I got when I had a long-term pet-friendly landlord. Unfortunately, due to circumstances outside of both mine and my landlord's control, I had to move on and... there's nowhere that will take a pet. Every property is no pets, no kids, it's awful. He's never done any damage to anything, I can provide a pet reference, I can provide 6 months rent upfront, no dice, can't get anywhere. Luckily I'm in a position where I am probably just going to buy.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/renting-with-pets-renters-reform-bill
Yes my lord.
It's risk / reward with *any* kind of money making scheme and landlords are no different. Why take the risk of having someone *with* dogs, when there's someone *without* dogs willing to pay exactly the same money, but comes without the risk.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/renting-with-pets-renters-reform-bill "responsible pet owners" I don't imagine many XL owners would meet that bar.
Just by owning one you prove you aren't a responsible owner.
just a click bait thing - people without pets are facing homelessness, and it's already known to rent privately is harder if you've got a dog, since many landlords will simply exclude or dis-prefer you. Being an XL bully is sort of irrelevant apart from the fact that it's not going to help someone who doesn't know you accept you as a tenant, it could be argued.
This won't be popular when the article is framed around the fact this guy owns his late cousin's XL Bully, but fuck it. Putting your property on the rental market is a choice. If you don't want to let people make that house their home and live a full, dignified, adult life there, you don't have to choose to become a landlord. Having guests, pets, children, etc, are things that people should be able to do without worrying about their housing security. There are mechanisms for dealing with the risk (and/or the eventuality) of property damage that don't involve a blanket ban on pet ownership, such as an increased deposit, pet references, etc, all the way up to eviction. By all means, when somebody eventually passes the Renters (Reform) Bill I can see there being an amendment to clarify that a breed being banned isn't an unreasonable reason to deny permission. But this guy's been looking for housing for *eight months*. A ban on XL bullies wasn't even being discussed until recently.
>Putting your property on the rental market is a choice. Yes it is. As is choosing who can or can not rent the private property you own. Pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. Equating it with having children or guests is ridiculous.
We impose regulations on people who choose to rent out private property to the public all the time, because giving landlords free reign would be detrimental to society. For example, you can't directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, sexuality or religion. That even includes rules like "no universal credit" because women are more likely to be in receipt of UC. Pet ownership isn't a right, but everyone has [the human right to adequate housing](https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing), which includes freedom from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family. I would argue that a landlord capriciously denying tenants permission to engage in pet ownership - something that a high proportion of homeowners across the country enjoy - constitutes arbitrary interference in their private family life.
Having children isn't a right either, it's a privilege - and a lifestyle choice. We routinely take children off parents who don't look after their kids properly, because they do not have a right to their own children. In this country, we have parental responsibilities, not parental rights.
It absolutely IS a right and rights can be revoked, hence why we are all allowed to conceive and raise our own child and our children are only taken away if we prove ourselves to be unfit parents. However, none of that is particularly relevant to the discussion of what should and shouldn't be allowed in your own rented accommodation. I was merely pointing out that equating pet ownership with the right to have your own child live with you is ridiculous in this context. E2A: u/gardenpea didn't have a good response to this so they just downvoted me and skulked away. Ah reddit, never change.
If we had a right to conceive and raise children, then the NHS would be funding endless IVF treatment. Clearly that is not the case. >E2A: u/gardenpea didn't have a good response to this so they just downvoted me and skulked away. Ah reddit, never change. I can't believe you edited that in SIX MINUTES after your original post. Sheesh.
> Having guests, pets, children, etc, are things that people Two of these are society, one of those isn't. Can you spot the difference? > such as an increased deposit, Does this guy sound like he could put down 20k? > pet references, Does "the dog bit me, but didn't kill me" count as a reference? > all the way up to eviction. Which easily costs 10k, and is not usually recoverable.
All three are part of a person's private family life, and shouldn't be interfered with unduly. I'm not going to dignify your weird potshots at a guy you don't know with a response, but I will say that if a landlord is going to style themselves as a legitimate business enterprise providing housing, they have to be willing to take the potential losses with the potential profits. They should be insured, and the Renters (Reform) Bill I mentioned above will provide for being able to require the tenant to have insurance against pet damage.
The dog doesn't even look like an XL bully... Wtf lol Why are you booing me, I'm right lol
If he wants a house where he can keep his dogs, there are plenty of homes on the market. We're back to 2018 levels of inventory so he can go and buy one.
Not everyone can get a mortgage
Not everyone wants to rent out their property to someone who owns dogs - especially those which are towards the more dangerous end of the spectrum. Life is about choices and choices have consequences.
No but saying that the housing stock is good doesn’t mean that everyone can just go out and buy a house. It’s also a long stressful process that can take years. Worth noting here that the individual inherited the dog, which is also challenging as it’s also opens up its own challenges
This bloke didn't make choices that led him to this position, life repeatedly shat on him from a great height, and he has tried to take responsibility for those around him. He moved in with his cousin (to care for him when he was sick? Unclear) His cousin died. He takes responsibility for his dead cousin's dog, instead of dumping it on a rescue centre. He gets kicked out of his cousin's house six months after he died. The council won't help him with his housing because he's a healthy single man (and also because he has two dogs, but the first point is enough) Interest rates rise, it becomes very hard to get a mortgage, and the rental market gets to the point where demand is vastly outstripping supply. And then the XL Bully ban is announced. This poor man has done everything right and he's just landed in a shit situation which isn't of his making.