Lobby group calls for end to no-pet clauses

By |
The ability of landlord to deny tenants from keeping pets in rental properties should be removed, according to one lobby group.

As part of a submission into the New South Wales Government’s review into the state’s residential tenancy legislation, the Tenants’ Union of NSW (TUNSW) has called for an end to no-pet clauses in lease agreements.

While many landlords may be concerned by the idea of tenants keeping pets due to the possibility of damage to their investment, Ned Cutcher, TUNSW policy officer, said there are already enough legal avenues in place to ensure landlords are not left out of pocket.

“We already have a system where tenants are liable for any damage that is attributed to them, and that includes any damage that would be the result of a pet,” Cutcher said.

“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.

According to Cutcher and the TUNSW, the removal of no-pet clauses would lead to a “healthier” rental market.

“I think it would be a healthier approach to the rental process and better for society in general. I think we need to have a look at the idea a lot of landlords have about their properties,” he said.

“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? We think having a pet should be a matter of personal choice and responsibility.”

The proposal has some support from those in the industry, with Vanessa Tsokos, director of North Shore Property Management, believing the right level of communication between tenants, landlords and property managers can make no pet clauses unnecessary.

“It comes down to management. If you have the right management system in place you don’t need no-pet clauses,” Tsokos said.

“I have a number of clients who allow pets in their properties and when they’re considering it we come up with a system to suit that. You’re allowed four periodic inspections a year in New South Wales, so we make sure we use all them and reassess each time if anything needs to change,” she said.

But the TUNSW’s idea has gained little support from those on the other side of the argument.

“In our opinion, the current arrangement where landlords and tenants negotiate the issue of having pets should remain,” Property Owner’s Association of NSW (POANSW) president John Gilmovich said.

“I don’t think you can have a situation where you have a blanket, broad-brush approach to banning no pet clauses. The property owner should have some right to decide what happens in their property and there are also issues with strata living, where there might be by-laws in place that ban pets or apartments simply aren’t suitable for pets to live in,” Gilmovich said.

While strata living may pose some challenges for those wanting to have their pets live them, Tsokos said some common sense would likely prevent any issues.

“Obviously it would be at its hardest in a unit, in that situation you need to have some common sense and not try and have something like a Rottweiler or German Shepherd in a flat.

“In that situation, you might say you can only have something like a cat or a small dog at the most.”

While not supportive of a one-size-fits-all approach to the issue, Gilmovich said the POANSW would support measures to encourage more owners to be pet-friendly.

“We would support the idea of a pet bond, Queensland has a system in place at the moment and we think it should be something that is allowed in NSW.

“Landlord and tenants would still negotiate the issue of allowing pets and the landlord would be able to ask for something like an additional two week’s rent on the bond.”
 

Can you afford to buy in this suburb? Find out how much you can borrow

Top Suburbs : sth toowoomba , lalor park , eagle vale , harris park , torrensville

go back
Comments
  • Robyn says on 17/02/2016 02:56:31 PM

    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 says on 17/02/2016 03:45:30 PM

    "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 says on 17/02/2016 03:48:22 PM

    “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?

View 11 more comment(s)

Get help financing your investment



Do you need help finding the right loan for your investment?


When investing in property, it is important to make sure that you not only have the lowest available rate that you can get, but also have the correct loan features for your needs.

Just fill in a few details below and we'll then arrange for a local expert Aussie Mortgage Broker to contact you and work out what features or types of loans are right for your needs. We'll even help with the paperwork. Plus, our mortgage broking service is at no cost to you.

Why does  Aussie need your personal information?    How does Aussie keep your information secure?
Aussie is a trade mark of AHL Investments Pty Ltd. Aussie is a partly-owned subsidiary of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ABN 48 123 123 124 AFSL and Australian Credit Licence 234945.
© 2016 AHL Investments Pty Ltd ABN 27 105 265 861 Australian Credit Licence 246786.

 
How soon would you like a mortgage?
What is your Annual Household Income i $
Do you currently own any Investment Properties?
Do you own your own residence?
How much equity do you have in all your current properties?
First Name
Last Name
Where do you live?
What number can we reach you on?
E-mail address
We value your privacy and treat all your information seriously - you can check out our privacy policy here