Your Investment Property forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Lobby group calls for end to no-pet clauses

Notify me of new replies via email
Your Investment Property | 17 Feb 2016, 05:08 AM Agree 0
Should landlords lose the ability to prevent tenants from having pets?
  • Robyn | 17 Feb 2016, 02:56 PM Agree 0
    While I believe children create more wear and tear on my properties than pets, they still create 'normal wear' and as an owner this costs me money and often lots of it, paints, dents, scratches, pets running and scuffing and wearing surfaces inside and out. Most of us are in negative territory and all additional costs come out of our pockets. Hence we should be able to choose pets or not!
  • Tony | 17 Feb 2016, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    "Fair wear n tear" is the landlord's expense and is relative to the situation as allowed by the lease.
    Add more people, or add pets means more allowance for " fair wear n tear ".
    Each landlord should have the right to choose how much wear n tear expense they want to risk with each property.
    Pets wear n tear n damage should be at the pet owner's expense, so there should be a pet bond to cover it.
    Pet damage can be a considerable expense so a pet bond should take into consideration the individual circumstances such as existing condition of the property, number of pets, type, size, risk of damage to interior walls, flooring, carpeting, fixtures & fittings, backyard, gardens, lawn, fencing, screens and doors, fleas, diseases etc.

  • Frank Castle | 17 Feb 2016, 03:48 PM Agree 0
    “There’s really no argument that the landlord isn’t going to be able to recover costs. There are sufficient renting laws in place that mean landlords aren’t going to be hurt financially,” he said.

    Rubbish.
    If I was to be forced to allow pets in my properties the first thing that would be needed is an upgrade to all fencing to make it boisterous dog proof.
    I would also need to upgrade all screens to be able to take continual clawing by dogs and cats.
    With labour costs what there are in Australia at present it takes only a small amount damage before any bond is eaten up.
    Insurance wont pay unless damage is severe as the "Fair wear and tear " brush they weild has a very broad stroke indeed.
    Lets hope the tenant didnt decide to stop paying rent at the same time if they were being evicted because of the damage. Most likely case is the LL is left out of pocket again.

    “You’ve bought the property as an investment to make money off, so why do you need to retain so much authority and control of how people make it their home?"

    Hotels and holiday accommodation have a say as to what goes on in their rooms, why cant a LL have a say with what goes on , within reason, in the house?
    A car rental company is buying an investment to make money on as well but they dont want you going out racing it and doing burnouts, should I have a cry about that as well?
  • Rusty | 17 Feb 2016, 03:58 PM Agree 0
    I allow pets in my investment property for two main reasons: 1) I have a pet so figure if I lived in the property so would my pet & 2) It opens my property up to a market that those who don't allow pets can't tap into. But at the same time I don't feel that every owner should have to...Pets smells (like cigarette smoke) can have an ongoing effect on the property even after all the pest control and steam cleaning.
  • Tanya | 17 Feb 2016, 05:17 PM Agree 0
    There are some properties that allow pets and others that don't. Accept it and get over it. Only look at properties that accept pets or try and negotiate. Stop trying to bully property owners or you will find that their will be less investors in that market.

    I don't allow pets inside my rental property, but I do allow them outside. And yes, tenants have breached their tenancy agreement and had them inside and extensive damage has been done. (I did not renew their lease and money was deducted from the bond). But that's not the point, it's a hassle and inconvenience to the property owner and like one person pointed out - indoor pets can make the house smell. Some tenants are oblivious to the smell of pets insides homes....and it does put off a potential tenants who have outdoor pets.

    I am not against pets, but a bored or ill trained pet does damage a property. As it's my investment, I should have the right to decide on who and what is in my investment property.

    A good potential tenant will happily introduce you to their pet, give you immunisation records & pet references.

    I've had some great tenants with pets and some really awful ones too. But I'm learning and I've just introduced a pet agreement. For me cats are out. I am fed up with replacing flyscreens (I've wasted many hours) and I'm also allergic to them. Nothing worse than doing a property inspection and having a cat rubbing up against your leg and the moment you step back inside it lunges inside when the door opens. Animal behaviour near open doors is a great indication of whether the pet comes inside or not.
  • Podd Socks | 17 Feb 2016, 06:41 PM Agree 0
    get rid of the no pets clause.
  • Bee Jay | 17 Feb 2016, 07:29 PM Agree 0
    Obviously, the author of this article has NEVER owned property - owners wouldn't mind pets - unfortunately, 50% of tenants have little or NO consideration for the properties they rent, seeing the Landlord as rich - therefore damaging the property is the tenants right - many of us are leaving the property market in Australia for countries where Respect is Expected rather than lost in the transaction of being a human - pets are - unfortunately, victims of their owners - the 'dog haters' - this because - how could you let your animal be Hated by neighbours and friends whom find the lack of discipline and cleanliness of your 'so-called' friend to be shameful....NO pets allowed - same goes for The Grey Nomads whom want to stay at sites with their animals at no extra cost - BUT - who cleans up the faeces, the ants near the bones, meat or food left laying about???? Tooo much expectation by tenants in return for disrespect and unnecessary damage - say NO to tenants with pets....
  • Rachel F | 17 Feb 2016, 09:31 PM Agree 0
    We've rented for nearly the last 8 years with our two mid sized indoor dogs - and I can honestly say we've done more damage than they ever have! We've spilt red wine on cream carpets (why do landlords use that colour??!!!), reversed a tow bar into the plasterboard back wall of a garage to name a couple - and paid to get them fixed / cleaned properly. Our dogs have also done damage - scratching a doorframe/skirting board - which we also paid to get fixed. No question of not - it's common sense!! We get all the carpets cleaned & pest sprayed & leave the houses spotless when we vacate too - as a matter of course. One thing we've had to do to a couple of houses before we move in is get them cleaned first - most non-professional landlords do not have the same standards as we & letting agents have, to be sure - and they're the most critical when you move out!! Common sense is the main requirement I think - if you - or your pets - or your guests for that matter - break or damage anything then you, as a renter, are liable to get it fixed. No problem, no issue & no landlords are inconvenienced!! We're supposedly a nation of pet lovers but the percentage of properties that are advertised as NO PETS or ABSOLUTELY NO PETS (usually in capitals to really make the point) is prohibitive to the majority of the market. Pets don't draw on walls or stuff things in places that get blocked or break white goods - they deserve a place to rent too please.
    • Denise | 18 Feb 2016, 09:21 AM Agree 0
      I commend you for the good tenant you are and only wish there were more like you. You are a rarity but I'm sure you have met other renters that don't treat there properties with respect and allow there animals to do the same. I believe everybody knows people like that. These are the hidden problems landlords can't see when interviewing potential tenants. There should be a law that allows landlords to visit the potential tenants previous homes. I have had tenants whose little dogs chewed the wooden door frames and the plastic piping under the laundry sink. Although some landlords are not ideal and cut costs too much the bad tenants out way the bad landlord by far.
  • Denise | 18 Feb 2016, 09:06 AM Agree 0
    I own a property and manage it. My current tenant has a cat and on doing my my 3 monthly inspection last week I saw the most disgusting sight. Surrounding the litter box was cat faeces on the wall and floor, quite a lot of it. A feral tenant no doubt and completely oblivious to what is expected prior to an inspection. This substance stains and leaves odours that cannot be removed and requires painting as the only fix. There is no way I'll be able to claim any cost for the clean up of this. I cannot believe how much tenants are allowed to get away with. It is completely ridiculous the amount of laws that cover tenants and misuse of properties as it is and now they want landlords to make it compulsory to accept pets. I am always amazed at how many rental properties have the most nuisance causing animals with continual barking, aggressive, destructive, etc. Enough is enough. Push too hard and there will be no rental properties available. Then the lobbyists will have much more to worry about than giving landlords a hard time.
  • Graham | 18 Feb 2016, 07:26 PM Agree 0
    We rent out our properties for honest people to live in, we don't rent dog kennels or cat runs. The biggest problems, in fact the only real problems in 20 years have been from unauthorised pets that tenants lied about. Pathetic pet bond of $260 in WA is nowhere near enough to cover pet damage. Try getting rid of cats urine! we had to jackhammer the concrete floor and re concrete it. NO PETS IN OUR HOUSES! And seriously, tenants have a union?
  • Mymoney | 19 Feb 2016, 01:14 AM Agree 0
    The whole world has gone barking mad! Yes, a terrible pun I agree. I am a landlord of a number of houses, but I am also a tenant. As a tenant, I always look for properties that haven't permitted pets previously as I have a significant sensitivity to smells that pets leave in homes, and unfortunately I also suffer from a reaction to pet hair due to eczema. As a landlord, I have properties where I do permit pets and some where I do not. Usually it is based on where each property is located and whether there is appropriate fencing already and if the area has some good parks or beaches nearby for the pet to enjoy. Pets can be a significant drain on the maintenance budget for landlords, and unfortunately it is very difficult to argue the case of abnormal wear and tear due to a pet being permitted in a property, and one of my properties has cost me significantly to fix up garden beds, grass, pop up sprinklers, and a tap timer that looked more like a chew toy by the end of the tenancy. My final take on this is probably unpopular with the animal lovers out there - If a tenant cannot find suitable rental accommodation which permits pets, it might be time to fork out the cash and buy a house yourself.
    • Kristie | 28 Jul 2016, 07:44 PM Agree 0
      Sorry, but that's not always possible particularly if you live in Sydney! Please don't assume that all of us are well off and can just "fork out the money". That's a terrible comment to make, quite honestly.
  • Mymoney | 19 Feb 2016, 01:20 AM Agree 0
    Perhaps this is the start of a whole new trend. If landlords are forced to permit pets, perhaps we can insert a special clause that their owners must remain outdoors at all times - this could be a win-win for all.
  • Lea Ladyraven | 12 Apr 2016, 04:03 PM Agree 0
    I think this is an awesome idea it would put less pressure on the pounds and rescue groups and the heartache for families having to give up their beloved pets. I mean if someone renting a property has an inspection and the back yard has holes everywhere and it is messy well then I think the owner or real estate has the right to give a warning or end the lease.
Post a reply