Cat Conundrum

[Revoltingest]

Am I missing something here? In the UK, doctors deal (as the first port of call) with both physical and mental health matters. Is it different in the US?

Not different that I know of.
But the issue was about a potentially
false claim of medical need for the cat.

 

[Revoltingest]

My counselor wrote me a letter exempting me for the vaccination requirement because of my anxiety and my employer took no issue with that since anxiety is considered a medical condition.

I think this issue is resolved enuf, ie,
if a legit medical claim for a cat, then
so it is, ie, not fraudulent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear you. And I didn't want to be in this situation. And I realize it sort of forces the landlord's hand and is probably legally grey. Which I don't want to do at all.

I am proactively talking with some other friends to see if they can take the cat. So perhaps this will all be much ado about nothing.

This is good.

 

[Curious George]

I think this issue is resolved enuf, ie,
if a legit medical claim for a cat, then
so it is, ie, not fraudulent.

Is it resolved? I think the conundrum still exists. Landlords who don’t want pets do not like the fact that people can get an emotional support animal and they can do nothing. Consequently, frank conversations such as throat which you advised become impossible/untenable. This is partly due to the legal situation of the landlord where they cannot speak candidly and honestly as you have advised the tenant to do. They can’t say the no I won’t allow a support animal because doing so would create a liability. This doesn’t mean that they won’t evict a tenant for precisely that under the auspices of some other reasoning. So tenants face a real conundrum. Get a support animal to help themselves and potentially invoke the wrath of the landlord, or to simply go without.

real risks either way.

I think a reasonable solution would be would be to bar landlords from excluding pets at all. Make it a risk of business for landlords. Your tenants may have pets, and they may damage the property, and good luck getting recompense on the back end. Whatd’ya think?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it resolved?

With everyone else.
But you're special.

I think a reasonable solution would be would be to bar landlords from excluding pets at all. Make it a risk of business for landlords. Your tenants may have pets, and they may damage the property, and good luck getting recompense on the back end. Whatd’ya think?

Your approach would mean a rent increase for everyone.

 

[Curious George]

.

Your approach would mean a rent increase for everyone.

which we could fix by capping rents. Everyone wins!

 

[Heyo]

I think a reasonable solution would be would be to bar landlords from excluding pets at all. Make it a risk of business for landlords. Your tenants may have pets, and they may damage the property, and good luck getting recompense on the back end. Whatd’ya think?

That's how it is in other countries. In Germany you can't forbid animals without a reason. If you fear property damage you can demand that your tenant has insurance. You can ban certain animals but not those which aren't to be expected to cause problems with other tenants. Cats, especially indoor cats, are automatically excluded from all contracts forbidding animals because they are not expected to cause trouble (for anyone but the humans living with them).

 

[Revoltingest]

which we could fix by capping rents. Everyone wins!

Oh, ye of simple solutions to complex problems.
I don't know where to begin correcting your
dystopian dreams of government controlling
ever more of our lives.

 

[Curious George]

Oh, ye of simple solutions to complex problems.
I don't know where to begin correcting your
dystopian dreams of government controlling
ever more of our lives.

You know landlord tenant laws are there for a reason.
Unfortunately we have seen how landlords hav behaved without regulation. Any movement away from the idealistic “libertarian paradise” isn’t a move towards a dystopian future.

freedom to contract is important, but when there is a significant disparity in power we aren’t really talking about the freedom to contract. We are talking about the freedom to bully and take advantage.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know landlord tenant laws are there for a reason.
Unfortunately we have seen how landlords hav behaved without regulation. Any movement away from the idealistic “libertarian paradise” isn’t a move towards a dystopian future.

freedom to contract is important, but when there is a significant disparity in power we aren’t really talking about the freedom to contract. We are talking about the freedom to bully and take advantage.

Been reading Marx again, have you.

 

[Curious George]

Been reading Marx again, have you.

Lol, well your humor is in full force.