Can we do that here in Australia!?
Do You Allow Pets?
- Thread starter Bargain Hunter
- Start date
Ah, NO!
But Kathryn is in Canada, so they obviously have completely different rules to us.
Yes, you can.
It all depends on how you word your lease.
You can't say "plus a pet amount" but you can say "rent is $$$"
You can make that "$$$" any amount you want.
Our leases don't mention about an additional charge.
Our website does.We tell the tenant before they sign the lease, if there is an animal or another person residing in the premises, the rent is $600 instead of $500 (for an example)
I don't mind pets as long as inspection report is specific throughout the time and any damage is fixed. Have one property where they have set up a chicken coup, its a fair size one and has about 10 chooks. When it came time to lease renewal they asked what it would be for a 2 year lease. Bumped up the price a bit but they happily agreed. Many people say no, so my thinking is I get above market rent.
Jezza
Jezza
It's interesting that this post was started because of a notion that most LL's don't allow pets, yet here on a forum of LL's it appears that it is the exception not the rule.
I wonder if the whole idea of no pets is a fallacy. If only we could do a mythbusters experiment, perhaps we could blow up landmines in the backyard.
There is of course a possibility that the properties being considered are inappropriate for pets for various reasons and are advertised as such. Or even that some PM's prefer not to deal with pets and advise their LL's to do the same but certainly according to the information at hand this myth is busted.
Regards
Andrew
I wonder if the whole idea of no pets is a fallacy. If only we could do a mythbusters experiment, perhaps we could blow up landmines in the backyard.
There is of course a possibility that the properties being considered are inappropriate for pets for various reasons and are advertised as such. Or even that some PM's prefer not to deal with pets and advise their LL's to do the same but certainly according to the information at hand this myth is busted.
Regards
Andrew
I think it could be due to the fact that the members of this forum are mostly serious investors. Even the newbies and those yet to purchase are here learning and talking to those more experienced investors. An experienced investor will recognize that a tenant may be more inclined to stay long term if they have a pet. They may also be prepared to pay more rent.
The average man (investor) on the street will have only one IP. Many of them will sell up for various reasons. I think you will also find that you will have a fair few that treat their investments as "precious", rather than investments and expect their IP to always stay in the same condition in which they bought it.
An investment will get wear and tear. It will probably get a whole lot more than the average PPOR because of a lack of care from some tenants and the constant moving of furnishings within. If you are not prepared for a little (sometimes a lot) of wear and tear, then IPs are probably the wrong investment vehicle for you to use.
The average man (investor) on the street will have only one IP. Many of them will sell up for various reasons. I think you will also find that you will have a fair few that treat their investments as "precious", rather than investments and expect their IP to always stay in the same condition in which they bought it.
An investment will get wear and tear. It will probably get a whole lot more than the average PPOR because of a lack of care from some tenants and the constant moving of furnishings within. If you are not prepared for a little (sometimes a lot) of wear and tear, then IPs are probably the wrong investment vehicle for you to use.
Pet-lover
I live in England now, and the laws here are very different when it comes to bond for damage and so forth, but I think it is a shame Australia has moved so far towards protecting the tenant and not making a fair middle ground.
I worked as a Letting Agent for 10 years and actively encourage landlords to allow pets, with strong clauses in the tenancy agreement and extra bond and extra inspections, because I also do work for an animal charity The Blue Cross. One of the major reasons for animals being dumped is divorce and moving into rental accomodation where they cannot take their pets.
Most damage caused by the pets was superficial and not excessive compared to a usual tenancy. One thing I found was very useful was putting in the tenant's handbook for the property the paint colour. If the paint is in good condition, touch ups can be made with out it showing AT ALL (if done well by a professional). Carpets are another matter, but wooden floors and tiles aren't usually damaged by pets.
Having said all that, under the current laws in Australia I don't think I would allow pets as they appear far too biased towards the tenant!
I live in England now, and the laws here are very different when it comes to bond for damage and so forth, but I think it is a shame Australia has moved so far towards protecting the tenant and not making a fair middle ground.
I worked as a Letting Agent for 10 years and actively encourage landlords to allow pets, with strong clauses in the tenancy agreement and extra bond and extra inspections, because I also do work for an animal charity The Blue Cross. One of the major reasons for animals being dumped is divorce and moving into rental accomodation where they cannot take their pets.
Most damage caused by the pets was superficial and not excessive compared to a usual tenancy. One thing I found was very useful was putting in the tenant's handbook for the property the paint colour. If the paint is in good condition, touch ups can be made with out it showing AT ALL (if done well by a professional). Carpets are another matter, but wooden floors and tiles aren't usually damaged by pets.
Having said all that, under the current laws in Australia I don't think I would allow pets as they appear far too biased towards the tenant!
As a pet owner I would never allow tenants to have a pet. My timber floors are covered in scratches from our dog not to ention the yard being continually dug up.
Also the debate seems to be around cats and dogs. I have inspected properties where tenants think it is ok to have rats and mice in their chiildrens bedrooms. One had a two level mouse house in a converted aviary.
Let them have pets at your peril.
Also the debate seems to be around cats and dogs. I have inspected properties where tenants think it is ok to have rats and mice in their chiildrens bedrooms. One had a two level mouse house in a converted aviary.
Let them have pets at your peril.
The problem is GIO not the pets. Try Terri Scheer. In fact you should never use any other insurance for landlord policies except TS.
No I don't think you can ask for extra money for pets in Australia
If only that company would accept self-managed properties
.I suppose the thought is that self-managers don't keep on top of things, but the way some PMs manage, I believe I do a better job of looking after my own IPs and knowing what is happening with each property.
That is not what I said.
I said you can tell a tenant the rent is whatever you want it to be.
If you have a family of five you can say the rent is $300 (these are examples)
If you have a family of 5 with 3 dogs and a chicken you can say your rent is $500.
You need to stop believing you cannot do something.
Unless the Act saids you can't , you can.
As all contracts, be careful how you word it.
We cannot ask for extra money for pets here either, but we can charge anything we want for rent.
We cannot even ask for a Pet Bond.Most we can ask for is 1/2 month's Security.
We have been to the Residential Tenancy Board, and the tenant accused us of charging more for a pet.
We simply stated, their rent was $$$.
We won.
There is nothing in the NSW Tenancy Act regarding pets which considering it is something near and dear to many people you would think there would be. There is however a limit on the bond which can be charged. For a non-furnished property this is 4 weeks, so you can't charge a special pet bond (not sure about other states). However as Kathryn says, the rent is whatever the LL and the tenant agree.
Regards
Andrew
Thank you BH,
It is much better to charge a higher ongoing rent, than to have a special Pet Bond anyways. The tenant is liable for the pet anyways...so still covered.
PS Except for our one furnished apt building (11 unit) we do not charge higher rents for the pets.
We just increased all of the rents to include a pet, whether they had one or not
Hi Kathryn,
I understand your tactic and applaud you for thinking laterally. I am very confident the tactic would not work here in WA, with DOCEP breathing down Landlord's necks.
Charging the higher rent for whatever reason would be OK initially, but trying to enforce it would cause a lot of problems over here. The Tenants would have a right to whinge to the authorities even a week after getting in there, and the Landlord would be forced to go thru a comparative exercise to prove that they were not over-charging compared to other similar residences in the area.
This is where the tactic falls down in a heap. If found to be over market - for whatever reason, the Tribunal could force the Landlord to lower the rent. Tenants in, can't get 'em out, pets everywhere causing damage that you need to pay for, and they are paying normal rent. Looking for a way through is nigh on impossible, the Tenancy Advocate has been through it all years ago and blocked all avenues. I gave up trying.
Nothing you can do about it. Adults signing contracts mean nothing if the authorities think you are getting one over the Tenant. Of course, if the Tenant is doey, no problem - you've got away with it. If they are switched on, the Landlord's goose is cooked.
I think that it is difficult to ascertain what "market rent" is. It is not an exact science and the same house we rented for $460 a year ago is now rented for $440 due to a slowing of the market when it became empty.
If it is empty again at a better time of year, and we again get $460, that doesn't mean we are charging above market rent for it.
Rents fluctuate so much between different market conditions, different months and different inclusions for even two similar properties that it would be very difficult for a tenant to say they are paying $10 or $20 per week more than "market rent".
Of course, if you decided to charge $100 per week more due to having the pet, they could well make a case, but $10 or $20 a week would be hard to make a case for, in my opinion.
You're spot on. It's not shares you can't compare directly between properties as if they are identical. We had two properties in the one suburb. One was fully renovated the other original. The one in original condition was rented for a similar value to the renovated property. No real rhyme or reason just what we could get at the time.
LOL Chrispy that is so funny
seriously though I have seen jealous ex-boyfriends cause more damage to properties than pets do.
We have a pet clause in our leases to protect landlords interest if the landlord allows allows pets. However we have not been able to draw up a legal ex-boyfriend clause ..... yet.....
seriously though I have seen jealous ex-boyfriends cause more damage to properties than pets do.
We have a pet clause in our leases to protect landlords interest if the landlord allows allows pets. However we have not been able to draw up a legal ex-boyfriend clause ..... yet.....
i recently evicted 2 tenants due to them having 2 dogs but signing a lease saying they didn't have pets. i wasn't worried about the pets causing damage, was more concerned with it impacting my dogs when i returned to the property to live in 6 months.
at my other investment property the tenants have a cat which they disclosed on application. as i don't plan to ever live in this property i was fine with it as long as they steam clean on exit.
at my other investment property the tenants have a cat which they disclosed on application. as i don't plan to ever live in this property i was fine with it as long as they steam clean on exit.
