Illegal to raise rent because of pets?

[MrPeanuts]

Hey everyone,

I was told by my PM that it's illegal to raise the rent if the tenants wants a pet.

It's that correct? I am in SA.

She mentioned about pet bond, is this why we can't change the rent?

A bit confused about rules regarding pets, please advice!

The tenant hasn't started the lease yet...

 

[robboat]

No signed lease = no problem......is there any other "agreement" that has been made?
I am assuming they have not moved in yet....just talking to the PM.....?

If a small pet...usually no problem and the tenants will often stay longer for the animal sake.
But big pets can do a lot of damage to your IP if they are not well looked after.

What pet do they want?

Do you allow pets in your IP?

Can you get another tenant?

 

[EN710]

Not sure if in SA, but in Sydney, pet friendly properties are usually priced above the market rent. If the tenant already in the property... can't you refuse to let them have one? (they might get it anyway and don't tell you)

Just thought that kids probably do as much or more damage compared to pets...

My friend have pets and she usually keep things all clean and organised as it's difficult to find pet friendly property.

 

[HD_ACE]

Its called negotiation. If both parties aggree to the terms ( more money to allow a pet) then there is no problem.

Cheers

 

[Jamie M]

Its called negotiation. If both parties aggree to the terms ( more money to allow a pet) then there is no problem.

Cheers

That's the way I see it too.

If you're willing to allow a pet (which I think is great - I personally do too) then I don't see a problem with requesting a slightly higher rent to coincide with a slightly higher risk (even though kids probably do more damage then pets - but try asking for more rent for kids.....joking).

However, if there's a lease already in place there might be some rules around rent increases. If it was a new lease - then you can advertise it at whatever you like - and the market will decide if it's fair or not.

Cheers

Jamie

 

[jim1964]

I was told by my PM that it's illegal to raise the rent if the tenants wants a pet..

Your PM should explain things a bit clearer.At the beginning of the lease you can negotiate whatever.If the pet comes after this,a pet clause is added,but to increase the rent you will have to give the required notice.

 

[wylie]

If the tenant is prepared to pay more, why couldn't both the tenant and landlord agree to rescind the current lease and draw up a new lease at the higher agreed amount?

 

[MrPeanuts]

Yes I think my PM was talking too quickly!

It was like this: I advertised the ad $400 pet friendly. Someone put in an application for $370. I guessed if they have a pet I will increase it (part of the negotiations)
but my PM was like 'no no that's illegal to increase because of pets'

I was like 'what the ....?'

 

[Colin Rice]

even though kids probably do more damage then pets - but try asking for more rent for kids.....joking

I can vouch for that. Our three year old 5x2 PPOR resembles a zoo that has escaped animals in it most of the time

Except for my home office that has a lock on it. Its my sanctuary from the escapees!

 

[Corey Batt]

Negotiate before they sign lease, I'm happy to have $10 more per week for a pet. etc

 

[Sez]

Perhaps your PM means you can't increase the rent while your tenants are on a lease?

 

[neeko]

uh huh

Perhaps your PM means you can't increase the rent while your tenants are on a lease?

+1 to that well said.

 

[Brady]

My tenants is SA paid $10 extra p/w to have their pets, this was negoiated prior to the signing of the lease.

 

[geoffw]

It is illegal to have an ill eagle.

There's a special clause in leases to prohibit this. The eagles clause.

 

[brahms]

It is illegal to have an ill eagle.

There's a special clause in leases to prohibit this. The eagles clause.

The Eagles Clause is specific to Hotel Leases in California

 

[geoffw]

The Eagles Clause is specific to Hotel Leases in California

This is distinct from West Coast Eagles, who hibernate all summer, and in the winter play football like ill eagles.

Back on topic. You have the right to refuse a pet. But you can increase the demand on a property- often by a lot- if you allow them. You need to ensure that the property is suitable. A pet bond is supposed to cover damage caused by a pet but may not cover- perhaps the normal bond and pet bond would cover. Try to ensure that animal is kept in a way to minimise damage- determine if the pet is allowed indoors. The first inspection should be especially tough on animal damage, to ensure future upkeep.

 

[jenni_nextplace]

Not sure if in SA, but in Sydney, pet friendly properties are usually priced above the market rent. If the tenant already in the property... can't you refuse to let them have one? (they might get it anyway and don't tell you)

Just thought that kids probably do as much or more damage compared to pets...

My friend have pets and she usually keep things all clean and organised as it's difficult to find pet friendly property.

I have to agree with you here EN710. We find kids are generally more of a problem than pets. There are many pets out there who are over cared. Many pet properties are cleaner and maintained better than a property containing a family.

 

[wylie]

We've always allowed pets, and ensured our rent adverts are clear on this. We've never noticed that our rent is higher than houses that don't allow pets. I know it is said here on Somersoft that landlords can score higher rent by allowing pets, but I have never been offered more, never had any desperate pet owners say anything about how lucky they are that we allow pets or that they had trouble finding a house which allows pets.

I'm thinking maybe I'm renting our places too low and shortchanging ourselves. But we do rent according to appraisals. We usually ask a little more and get it easily - but with no link that I can see to allowing pets. Plenty of tenants have said "this is the best/cleanest house we've looked at" so I'm thinking we rent easily more because we provide a good clean house for similar (or perhaps slightly higher) money to the houses they are looking at that all look the same in photos, but "in the flesh" are pretty disappointing. We've heard this time and time again over many years.

We always seem to be able to get more rent than the rent appraisal given by an agent who may have been through at various times over the years. Example would be when an agent appraises a house at $470 per week and we ask $490 thinking we can drop if there is no interest... often we get the $490 without any trouble. I've always thought the agent is being conservative but perhaps the house "is" worth $470 if we don't allow pets? But no agent has ever said "you'll get more if you allow pets". It has never been mentioned except when I ask that "pets considered" be inserted prominently in the advert.

I'm curious to know if other forum members notice a "real" increase in the rent due to allowing pets.

Another point of difference with our places is that several are on large blocks, and we have found this to be off-putting to many tenants, so we include mowing in the rent. Renters will know that this is "worth" at least $20 or $30 per week if they had to pay for it, so this muddies the water even more when I try to price our places (even with help from agents)... are tenants paying more for the "free" mowing or paying more because Rover has a home?

 

[fisherman]

We've always allowed pets, and ensured our rent adverts are clear on this. We've never noticed that our rent is higher than houses that don't allow pets. I know it is said here on Somersoft that landlords can score higher rent by allowing pets, but I have never been offered more, never had any desperate pet owners say anything about how lucky they are that we allow pets or that they had trouble finding a house which allows pets.

[snip]

Agree.

Amount of rent is the first and most important criterion for the greatest majority of tenants.

As with smoking, there is a far higher likelihood of renting and getting any premium that might fall your way, from a property that does not have the after-smell (eg on a warm day) and inevitable grime from pets or smoking that cannot be completely removed without entire gutting and renovation.

I have remarked to others many times before that pet owners and smokers similarly give first preference to a property that is fresh from not enduring what they are proposing themselves.

On pets, children or whatever, the good tenants are exclusively those people who take pride in themselves and their environment, who are proactive in ensuring the minimum damage and the sort of wear and tear that approaches what can be expected in an owner-occupied home.

Just saying that there are many prospective good tenants whose health, lifestyle and preferences require a clean fresh property that has no dander and no odour, which includes the truly offensive and irritating odour of masking chemicals.

What about those tenants' rights and preferences?

 

[Zeddy]

Hey everyone,

I was told by my PM that it's illegal to raise the rent if the tenants wants a pet.

It's that correct? I am in SA.

She mentioned about pet bond, is this why we can't change the rent?

A bit confused about rules regarding pets, please advice!

The tenant hasn't started the lease yet...

This is very peculiar. I think Consumer and Business Affairs told me once verbally that in SA a pet bond does not exist - you can't actually ask for a pet bond.

I think you should contact Consumer and Business Affairs and ask directly.