Dear Mr Jenrick
I was interested to hear your interview on Radio Kent recently (currently here about 1 hour 40 minutes in) on your announcement that the Model Tenancy agreement is to be modified to make it more favourable to tenants wanting to keep a pet.
The Model Tenancy Agreement
First of all, I am pleased to hear that the Model Tenancy Agreement is to be modified – as looking at its home page I see that, at the time of writing, it has not been updated since 1 February 2016.
Since then we have all had to update our tenancy agreements to take account of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (and the equivalent legislation in Wales). For example, the Model Tenancy Agreement does not point out that deposits must now be limited to no more than five weeks worth of rent.
So anyone looking to use the model tenancy agreement at the moment needs to be aware of that and use it with caution.
Use of the Model Tenancy Agreement
I was intrigued to learn from listening to your interview, of your belief that most landlords and agents use the Model Tenancy agreement as a base document which is subsequently amended. And that tenants will, therefore, question any variations to it (such as, when it is amended, blanket prohibitions on pets).
I am not aware of anyone using the Model Tenancy Agreement in this way.
Most landlords, if they don’t have their own form, will download a free agreement from the internet or (if they are sensible) buy an agreement from an organisation such as Oyez, Lawpack or one of the Landlord associations or use our Landlord Law Tenancy Agreement – all of which are markedly different from the Model Tenancy Agreement.
Most Letting agents will either have their own form of agreement or will use a tenancy provided by firms specialising in letting agent support. Or if they are an ARLA Propertymark member, will use their forms.
Disincentives to using the Model Tenancy Agreement
Not that there is anything particularly wrong with the Model Tenancy Agreement (apart from the fact that it is currently out of date) – which is on the whole well drafted with nice clear clauses. However, most potential users will be put off by the statement that it has been drafted with longer fixed terms in mind.
They will also be put off by the disclaimer on page 11 which states
… only a court can decide on the legal effect and enforceability of contractual terms. The Government cannot, therefore, guarantee the legal effect of this model agreement and shall not be held responsible for the consequences of the use of, or reliance on, this model agreement, including for any financial loss suffered by any landlord, tenant or other person. If you are in any doubt as to the implications of using this document you should seek independent legal advice.
Whenever I have mentioned the Model Tenancy Agreement in training and read that clause out, it has always raised a big laugh.
Problems with landlords allowing pets
So far as pets are concerned, if you really want to encourage landlords to accept pets you need to do a bit more than amend a document which in reality, few people know about or use.
First, you should amend the Tenant Fees Act to reverse the amendment limiting the amount of allowable deposit to permit landlords to take up to eight weeks worth of rent (which could maybe be limited to tenants with pets). Pets can be very destructive and most landlords feel that 5 weeks rent is insufficient to cover any damage that they might cause.
Indeed, I see that the current pets clause in the Model Tenancy Agreement provides for the Tenant to pay “an additional reasonable amount towards the deposit”.
Something which in most cases is now impossible due to the Tenant Fees legislation.
Many people (including potential tenants) are also allergic to certain pets – which makes cleaning properties after tenants with pets have departed more difficult and expensive.
The only way landlords can now protect their position financially is to charge extra rent – a ‘pet rent’ (which I discuss here) which just goes to make keeping a pet less affordable for ordinary people.
Leasehold Landlords’ leases
The other problem which many landlords face when asked by tenants if they can keep a pet is that if they are renting a property subject to a lease, it is highly likely that their lease will prohibit all pets. This is a common clause.
Which would mean that if the landlord agreed to the pet – they would be putting themselves in breach of their own lease and thereby risking penalties and ultimately, forfeiture.
They could, of course, request that their lease be amended, and in some cases, this may be possible (although no doubt expensive). But where the lease is in a large block of flats the request unlikely to be granted.
And finally
I do actually agree with you about the benefits of pets and have always tried to encourage landlords to allow pets where appropriate.
I have a detailed article on pets on my Landlord Law site and members of my Landlord Law service can use our special ‘pets form’ which will adapt any tenancy agreement to allow tenants to keep a pet and amend the terms of the tenancy to include suitable clauses relating to pet care and welfare.
However, if the government is serious about encouraging landlords to allow pets, amending a document relatively few people use is not going to cut it. A better way would be to amend the tenant fees legislation to allow higher deposits to be taken.
Yours sincerely
Tessa Shepperson
Rent Rebel says
January 8, 2020 at 11:23 AMI think we all know that the biggest disincentive to any landlord using this model tenancy is :
1. Gives tenants more rights and security of tenure
2. Completely voluntary
John-Paul Keates says
January 8, 2020 at 4:21 PMDeposits are not an appropriate mechanism for addressing the issues caused by pets. When a landlord agrees that a tenant can keep a pet, they are obviously agreeing that the pet can live in their property.
This means that the wear and tear associated with a pet is being implied into the agreement – the “fair wear and tear” that is an implicit element of every residential tenancy. While this doesn’t extend to damage, the majority of costs associated with most pets is in additional deep cleaning, and that’s not going to come out of a deposit, because the landlord has accepted that need when they agreed to the pet. A cat shedding hair isn’t doing damage, it’s part of it being a cat.
So the only possibility used to be to increase the rent to compensate for the increased costs. And that’s a prohibited fee under the new legislation.
I do agree entirely that no one uses the government agreement modified or not. It’s 50 pages for a start!
HB Welcome says
January 8, 2020 at 10:49 PMhttps://youtu.be/_WRT8yNFsjs
It’s not the norm but neither is it the exception.
As for the model tenancy agreement -what a load of old twonk.
Rent Rebel says
January 9, 2020 at 11:26 AMIt’s only a prohibited fee if you expressly called it a pet fee. That’s why agents and landlords are just upping the rent. “50 pages” (the horror) is some nice whataboutery though.
Pet Friendly says
January 9, 2020 at 1:29 PMMore a case of whatsthepointery.
No tenant is going to read through that lot even if it was preferable. You clearly haven’t if you think it “Gives tenants more rights and security of tenure.”
John-Paul Keates says
January 9, 2020 at 2:35 PMIf a property is 700 pcm without a pet and 750 pcm with a pet, that’s a fee.
The comment about the government agreement was aimed at the housing minister’s notion that a) removing the section prohibiting pets will have any effect at all because b) his notion that landlords are taking the template and modifying it is ludicrous.
I don’t know many landlords who are up to editing a 50 page legal document with multiple cross references.
It was a comment on a different part of the article, not a second point about the same subject.
Tessa Shepperson says
January 9, 2020 at 3:01 PMSorry, no if it is £750 pcm every month then that is a higher rent, not a fee.
The Tenant Fee regs, however, forbid having the rent higher in any one month – so you can’t have £750 in month 1 and then £700 for all the other months.
It is not illegal though to charge a different rent depending on whether someone has a pet or not. It is up to the tenant to decide whether they are prepared to pay it or go elsewhere.
People don’t like ‘pet rents’ but they are not illegal.
They came about because most landlords consider 5 months deposit to be insufficient if the tenant has a potentially destructive pet. We did not have them before the Tenant Fees Act came into force.
It’s possible that the issue may be resolved by having some sort of insurance product or alternative deposit product (although these are actually guarantees) where the landlord is protected for a higher amount.
These alternative deposit products have their own problems though.
Rent Rebel says
January 10, 2020 at 9:33 AM[Pet Friendly says] You clearly haven’t if you think it “Gives tenants more rights and security of tenure.”
Oh dear. If you’re going to bluntly insist that someone is wrong then perhaps find some courage to tell them why. Tenants could leave the fixed term early with a rolling break clause so yes, they would have more rights. And I am correct that they would have greater security of tenure over the average AST, since the model tenancy is fixed for 24 months as standard. I rather suspect you were hoping i’d spell this out
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/private_renting/how_to_ask_for_a_longer_tenancy_agreement
Pet Friendly says
January 10, 2020 at 10:30 AMSigh.
“It can be used for fixed-term tenancies of 2 years or more.”
As can any other tenancy agreement.
Rent Rebel says
January 10, 2020 at 3:06 PMI think Pet-Friendly must be missing the point on purpose? The model tenancy lets a tenant leave before 2 years is up without incurring a legal obligation to pay the whole term, even if they’re out of there. “Any other AST tenancy agreement” does not do this.
John-Paul Keates says
January 11, 2020 at 2:48 PMThe agreement also contains a landlord break clause at 6 months.
The point remains that I don’t know anyone who uses (or modifies) this agreement.
It’s too long – it would benefit (at least) from separating the explanatory text from the agreement.
David says
January 11, 2020 at 12:42 PMRobert Jenrick, who probably has only a few more hours left in the job if the recent pattern of Housing Minister appointments continues, has at least left us something to remember him by in this press release. It must be one of the most ludicrous published by Govt in recent years, especially if read alongside the recent reports that pet abandonment is up by 25%.
The notion that animals, (and presumably the parasites that infect them) can be held to standards of behaviour is beyond ridiculous. I don’t think you should be encouraging him to do any more on this policy Tessa. Let’s just let this and him fade away as soon as possible.