Dogs
- Thread starter 1911naomi
- Start date
I'm not sure if it's legal, but in any case, I'd consider it bad practise. Nobody wants to feel that they're being "penalised" for having a pet.
If the figures you're considering are $320 and $330 per week, then just advertise "pets welcome" at $330 pw, and if they don't have a pet, you have room to negotiate down to $320 pw to secure a tenant, if necessary.
If you get a tenant who doesn't have a pet but is still willing to pay $330 pw, you got lucky.
I'm not sure if it's legal, but in any case, I'd consider it bad practise. Nobody wants to feel that they're being "penalised" for having a pet.
If the figures you're considering are $320 and $330 per week, then just advertise "pets welcome" at $330 pw, and if they don't have a pet, you have room to negotiate down to $320 pw to secure a tenant, if necessary.
If you get a tenant who doesn't have a pet but is still willing to pay $330 pw, you got lucky.
This is what I do.
Legal, I believe so (depending on State). Good practice, no.
You may find you can advertise it for the extra $10pw and say pets welcome and have no issues finding a tenant with or without a pet - $10 isn't a huge difference.
As for the damage, I find kids damaging the properties more prominent than pets half the time.
I don't get why people wouldn't allow pets, it means you can attract (sometimes) a higher rent and they usually don't do any damages. You may find kids ruin the walls of the property, careless with the carpets, throw things across the room etc. Whereas the most damage most dogs will do is put a few holes in the mesh of a fly screen or dig a few holes in the back yard, mesh will cost $50 to replace which is the tenants responsibility anyway, same as the gardens.
They're just horrid tenants.
I wouldn't like to be in that position either, in my experience (so far) I haven't seen a pet damage a property as bad as a kid.
In saying that though, most (again in my experience) keep their dogs outside. If I had one I would too!
I wouldn't like to be in that position either, in my experience (so far) I haven't seen a pet damage a property as bad as a kid.
In saying that though, most (again in my experience) keep their dogs outside. If I had one I would too!
they may not want it but surely it's a reality... why should I expect someone else to cover the costs of my dog? there are a lot of consequences I don't want as a result of my lifestyle decisions too, but I have to accept them.
I don't disagree; I was simply suggesting that from a marketing perspective, it's better not to make it look like a pet penalty, but instead just have a flat rate, but be more negotiable on rate for somebody without a pet.
I wouldn't do it like that since if they feel like they're paying for something, then when it gets to the end of the lease and the dog has chewed up the doorjambs etc they'll feel like they've paid for the damage in advance with the extra $. If you advertise high and let them think that you're doing them a favour by allowing a dog, imo they're more inclined to keep the pet under control.
Also an extra $10 doesn't really justify the extra damage done. Properties with dogs need repainting twice as often in my experience. They smell, there are dog hairs everywhere, you have to waterblast the dog grease from concrete etc yuk
(Funny you brought this up, I had to revarnish a door on an IP the other day that the dog scratched the life out of, plus de poop the concrete with bleach and waterblasting)
Also an extra $10 doesn't really justify the extra damage done. Properties with dogs need repainting twice as often in my experience. They smell, there are dog hairs everywhere, you have to waterblast the dog grease from concrete etc yuk
(Funny you brought this up, I had to revarnish a door on an IP the other day that the dog scratched the life out of, plus de poop the concrete with bleach and waterblasting)
It looks like $50 is the going rate in Perth. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9275574/extra-rent-for-dogs-called-unfair/
