Please allow pets (SMH article)

[wish-ga]

Do you agree with this statement? Experiences?

RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the organisation urged landlords to be a lot more sympathetic to people who want to have pets.

"If you look at it logically someone who is going to take good care of their animal is going to take good care of their property," he said.​

http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/vet-pleads-for-landlords-to-allow-pets-20120111-1pv14.html

 

[Aaron_C]

Only a minority of pet owners train their pets properly. If they do not, the damage can be unnoticeable and very detrimental...not sure why landlords should take that risk. And yes, I have 2 dogs and I don't expect people to let me rent with my dogs in tow, despite the fact that they are perfectly trained.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Pets do damage property, no doubt about it.

My little Fox Terrier ripped a hole in a plaster wall going after a possum. The Lab got board and chewed the conner of the kitchen counter. Polished floors aren't quite as polished any more due to little claws. Both shed hair and dirt everywhere. Dispite this we love them and wouldn't give them up - but we did wait until we became owner occupiers before getting them.

The article suggests that landlords should be able to ask for a 'pet bond'. I couldn't agree more.

It also suggests that pets do no more damage to a property than children and teenagers. I think we should thus lobby for additional bond moneys for any residents under the age of 18.

 

[Ideo]

Pet bond and a child bond. Both would be good.

 

[kathryn d]

It also suggests that pets do no more damage to a property than children and teenagers. I think we should thus lobby for additional bond moneys for any residents under the age of 18.

LOL...
Maybe should be a bond for each person and pet residing in the property.
We don't want to be seen discriminating.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

LOL...
Maybe should be a bond for each person and pet residing in the property.
We don't want to be seen discriminating.

Make it just like an insurance policy (which is what it really is)...

A base bond on the house, plus an additional premium based on the risk profile of each individual (sentient or otherwise) residing there.

Non-disclosure means the policy is invalid and is retained by the underwriter (landlord).

Baby's incur and additional 'vomit' and 'poop' premium.

 

[kathryn d]

PT_Bear,
I like it !!!

 

[Jamie M]

I've always allowed pets and haven't had a problem yet...touch wood.

I've actually seen more minor damage caused from small children

Cheers

Jamie

 

[BMan]

as i have a small dog and cat with me if i was to rent my house out i wouldnt mind if they had small animals, id rather a cat there less likely to eat and chew stuff than the cats

what would you do if you leased it out with pets
is there such a thing as a pet lease? or a non refundable amount paid upfront?
or a higher bond?
could you just ask for 500 cash upfront off the books so to speak for the "pet bond" for cleaning carpets etc when they leave, my carpets need a refurbish but will leave them in incase i do get animals in

what legal right do you have except increasing your rent when the REA takes commission from it.

 

[kathryn d]

Have 2 different rents.
One without pets and one with.

technically the bond is supposed to cover any damage/cleaning required after a tenant leaves. This includes damage from a pet.

 

[akiwinut]

I've actually seen more minor damage caused from small children

Couldn't agree more, my 1yr old has done far more damage than our Border Collie who just sheds hair everywhere...

 

[BMan]

Have 2 different rents.
One without pets and one with.

technically the bond is supposed to cover any damage/cleaning required after a tenant leaves. This includes damage from a pet.

but then the REA gets commission off it so would need to be more than say an off the books thing

 

[jaycee]

but then the REA gets commission off it so would need to be more than say an off the books thing

You think it's that hard & ufnair landlords are forced to do things illegally ?

 

[BMan]

You think it's that hard & ufnair landlords are forced to do things illegally ?

no

but if your paying 10% commission to your REA and up your rent for pets your losing out a fair bit to start with and there fees are eating into the pet rent which is going to be used to cover cleaning etc so your not going to be making anything out of it and if you up it more to make something out of it then its going to be too much and they wont rent..

 

[kathryn d]

Sorry..we do everything by the books here.

Last thing we want is to found to be something illegal with the tenancy board.

We take advantage of any loophole available to us though.

 

[jaycee]

no

but if your paying 10% commission to your REA and up your rent for pets your losing out a fair bit to start with and there fees are eating into the pet rent which is going to be used to cover cleaning etc so your not going to be making anything out of it and if you up it more to make something out of it then its going to be too much and they wont rent..

Correct, you can only charge market rent or no one would want it.

You're not supposed to make an extra profit off the "pet rent" as you put it, t's supposed to cover possibility of extra damage, and from what you've said it will.

Getting enough extra rent is what we all want of course, but this might not be the best way to acheive that.

 

[stevie_sloth]

This is a constant problem with my partner and I...we want to sell our property but will probably have to rent before finding a new one to buy...and we have 2 (strictly indoor only) cats, and SO many of the rental ads say SORRY, NO PETS. It is HIGHLY restrictive. I do understand the reason, but...it's just really difficult. It cuts us off from so many good rental options.

 

[Mooze]

We allow pets - I will take pets any day over kids. Having said that it also depends on the pet - when we were living in Bris the next door neighbours (same house as used to be the whore next door) dog went through several doors etc. But noticed that that is also indicative of the way the house has been treated in general by the tenants

 

[kathryn d]

We allow pets - I will take pets any day over kids. Having said that it also depends on the pet - when we were living in Bris the next door neighbours (same house as used to be the whore next door) dog went through several doors etc. But noticed that that is also indicative of the way the house has been treated in general by the tenants

And generally, how people treat their pets, will show you how they treat the kids.( or future kids)

 

[stevie_sloth]

I would be the same. I’d MUCH rather a single person with a cat or 2 as opposed to people with 1 or more kids. Cats sleep 20 hours a day for goodness sake, and the worst they tend to do is ruin the tenant’s furniture…or maybe wee on the floor. But that’s then the tenant’s responsibility to get the carpet professionally cleaned when they move out anyway. KIDS on the other hand? Total destruction!!!