Pets and such

[Ideo]

Quick question from a friend. I'm out of touch with the property management/rental side of things so wasn't much help.

They have a property which the tenant wants to get a pet. They don't want the tenant to get a pet because they painted it a couple of years ago (don't worry, I don't follow the logic, and when I looked at the paintwork when I was helping them do some other reno work it was a very cheap and shoddy job).

My thinking is the tenant will just get the pet anyway. If it was me I wouldn't care as long as they cleaned the place at the end of the tenancy but my mate thinks that he should kick them out. I have suggested he just organise another inspection first and see.

Is it grounds for termination?

From what he says decent tenant, pays rent on time, keeps the place clean, no real issues.

Located in NSW. I've had a read through of a few bits and pieces and don't have a conclusive answer.

 

[Angel]

Goldfish are only an issue if their tank breaks onto your carpets

 

[Ideo]

I probably should have mentioned dog somewhere in that post

 

[thatbum]

I think if its in the lease that dogs aren't allowed, then its a prima facie breach and grounds for termination.

A tribunal still needs to find the breach justifies termination though - so I'm not sure if it would work if push came to shove and it was forced to a hearing. Although its unlikely the tenant would push it that far.

I always suspected having a pet in reasonable circumstances where it was not causing any damage would not be enough to terminate (but I don't know how the NSW tribunals see it).

 

[Lil Skater]

In Victoria it is not grounds to issue a notice to vacate.

Pets usually don't do much, if any, damage to the property.

Most renters have pets, and even if they say they don't they usually do anyway. At least the tenant asked for permission, it wouldn't surprise me if they've already got the dog or would get it with or without approval.

Providing the property is suitable (fenced yard, not against strata rules etc) I think it's unreasonable to withhold consent.

 

[Ideo]

I think if its in the lease that dogs aren't allowed, then its a prima facie breach and grounds for termination.

A tribunal still needs to find the breach justifies termination though - so I'm not sure if it would work if push came to shove and it was forced to a hearing. Although its unlikely the tenant would push it that far.

I always suspected having a pet in reasonable circumstances where it was not causing any damage would not be enough to terminate (but I don't know how the NSW tribunals see it).

I had a look at the rental agreement and the entire section on pets has been crossed out by the agent. This is both the no pets section and the pets allowed but carpets must be steam cleaned section. No specific clause has been inserted into the agreement (they did insert one about no smoking inside the premises and no pot plants to be placed directly on carpets).

Personally I think he is being a bit too precious about it - it's just an average property in an average area, and allowing pets would allow him to charge more rent imo. I also think he needs to take a step back as the tenants have only asked at this stage, and the most recent inspection showed no signs of a dog.

I'd be more concerned if they had kids rather than a dog, but that is just my own thinking

I'm in the same boat regarding how the tribunal would look at it. Hence turning to the wider brains trust. Being "the guy that reads legislation" means I'm always the one that people ask these questions.

 

[The Fence]

Pets usually don't do much, if any, damage to the property.

Cat and dog were let inside (not allowed inside the dwelling in contract) and carpets and flyscreens totalled within 12 months.





Never pets again.

 

[DaveM]

Heres one from me, carpet used by cat as a toilet

 

[geoffw]

Pets usually don't do much, if any, damage to the property.

I disagree with this as I've had to remove urine smelling carpet from a rental.

Pet claws can also cause damage but Ideo's friend has crossed out the pet clause.

An outdoor animal is less likely to cause damage.

If the place is already tenanted then presumably a pet bond can't be charged.

I have a place which is animal friendly. The tenants know that it's rare to find a place which is suitable for a large dog so they're happy to stay long term. I'll have no trouble letting it out if they did decide to leave.

It sounds as if there's nothing contractually to stop an animal. It also sounds as if he really doesn't want one. In that case he's free to say no, and to keep a new out for signs of a pet.

 

[geoffw]

Cat and dog were let inside (not allowed inside the dwelling in contract) and carpets and flyscreens totalled within 12 months.

Presumably an outdoor animal could also damage The Fence?

 

[HD_ACE]

The proving factor is if they have owned animals before. Getting a dog implies a puppy and therfore will be going through all the learning stages which damage the property. And theres no way a puppy will be outside 24/7.

The fact is alot of people do not know how how to look after animals especially first timers.

This becomes apparant when your doing an inspection and find your legs from ankle to knee, black covered in fleas. The bites last weeks. Tradesman refuse to go inside and it takes 4 flea treatments just to be able to walk in the door.

And that was just from a kitten

Just say no unless the tennants come with mature animals with references or work in the industry.

Cheers

 

[Lil Skater]

I think it also comes down to the tenant.

Yes, I have had damages to properties by pets (like the above) but it has been rare, and only with those tenants that stopped looking after the property/paying their rent as well.

Each to their own, and understandable if you've had a bad experience.

 

[fisherman]

It is the tenant who does not care for the property and allows the pet to do the same. A tenant who takes pride in his/her environment, keeps a clean house and is not hard on fittings as some tenants are, can usually be relied upon to ensure that a pet will not damage it either. Such a tenant is unlikely to leave the dog in the house while he is absent.

A tenant who decides to have a pet will have one anyway, regardless of the lease conditions and your pleading otherwise.

It is very difficult even with references to establish which tenants are reliable in taking care of a property. That being so, the only available risk treatments are to negotiate a pet bond and do inspections. The only real remedy where the property is being soiled and damaged is a properly issued notice to leave without grounds at the end of the lease period.

What about the rights of the many prospective tenants who desire a property without pet dander and smells? It is simply not possible to remove all evidence of pets, and what dog or cat is always kept outdoors where promised?

 

[Sez]

Sounds like he has good responsible tenants who have proven themselves by maintaining the house well and paying their rent on time. Now that they have that good history they have asked if they can have a dog.

You said it was an average house in an average area (with an average paint job), I think it is better to allow a dog with tenants that have proven themselves to be good than to risk having good tenants move out and the property vacant for some time as the landlord won't allow pets.......

I agree with Lil Skater with regards to the above damage, I've seen it too but the kind of tenants I've seen this kind of pet damage from abandoned, stopped paying rent, never asked to have the pets and were all round shoddy tenants. I haven't seen this from a good tenant .

 

[vyvyen]

It's a pity more landlords don't allow pets. We have two rental properties and both have excellent tenants with pets. Previously had more trouble from bad tenants (single guys and family) with late payment of rent, extra people living there, gardens dead etc. Give me good tenants with pets any day.

 

[The Fence]

I agree with Lil Skater with regards to the above damage, I've seen it too but the kind of tenants I've seen this kind of pet damage from abandoned, stopped paying rent, never asked to have the pets and were all round shoddy tenants. I haven't seen this from a good tenant .

Trouble is with our experience above, the tenants were good for 6 years then it all went to crap in the 7th year after a spilt up.

Before that all was great.

Stuff happens it seems.

But you move on and put it down to experience. Once a good tenant not always good.

 

[FlatEarther]

It's a pity more landlords don't allow pets. We have two rental properties and both have excellent tenants with pets. Previously had more trouble from bad tenants (single guys and family) with late payment of rent, extra people living there, gardens dead etc. Give me good tenants with pets any day.

I can second this. Tenants with pets have limited choice of rental properties so may be more likely to take care of your property. It's one sign of stability. If there are other signs, such as good references, it may be worthwhile

 

[skater]

Heres one from me, carpet used by cat as a toilet

But what decent tenant does not clean this up?

I've got 6 cats. Having 6 of them, there are times when accidents happen, especially from our oldest one who's now 16. BUT......it's cleaned up straight away.

Admittedly, I don't have carpet, but I've cleaned it up from carpet & it's possible to clean it & not leave stains. But then again, my experience is cleaning it up straight away, not leaving it for weeks or months before doing it.

So....I'm guessing this tenant was a tenant from hell & the mess from the cat(s) is not the only problem encountered.

 

[Ideo]

But what decent tenant does not clean this up?

I've got 6 cats. Having 6 of them, there are times when accidents happen, especially from our oldest one who's now 16. BUT......it's cleaned up straight away.

Admittedly, I don't have carpet, but I've cleaned it up from carpet & it's possible to clean it & not leave stains. But then again, my experience is cleaning it up straight away, not leaving it for weeks or months before doing it.

So....I'm guessing this tenant was a tenant from hell & the mess from the cat(s) is not the only problem encountered.

Yeah, I grew up with dogs and occasionally accidents happen, especially when toilet training. If it gets cleaned up it's not a problem.

Some people are just disgusting.

 

[fisherman]

Carpet cleaners say they cannot remove the proteins of dog and cat urine from carpet. As well, it seeps through the underlay to the flooring below. Scrubbing and chemical masking do not prevent the return of odour on a warm day and when the house is shut up.

The animal's owner is not always aware where the animal is urinating and repetitive behaviour results in areas becoming saturated before being found.

A dog is far worse than a cat. Dogs do not have the same instinctive behaviour as cats that makes a litter box attractive to them. Then again, if the litter box isn't rountinely maintained, it will force a cat to go elsewhere.

While there are tenants who need somewhere to keep their pet/s inside, what about the tenants who want a clean property and may react to the residue from pets or to the chemical masking products?

We have allowed pets. However it is always an additional risk and where the tenant is less than diligent in cleaning, the pet damage will not be remedied when they leave.

Pet damage isn't a myth. It is human for a PM to remember the property as it was at the last inspection with grime already accumulating, rather than at the start of the lease. Not referring to the diligent PMs who post here.