Tenants and pets

[mja]

All those who have written here that have had a bad experience with tenants + pets... have had lousy property managers.

Property managers should not refund the bond if the property hasn't been returned to its original condition, minus fair wear and tear. Regular inspections and a decent property manager would remove most of these problems listed here as an issue.

 

[kathryn d]

All those who have written here that have had a bad experience with tenants + pets... have had lousy property managers.

Property managers should not refund the bond if the property hasn't been returned to its original condition, minus fair wear and tear. Regular inspections and a decent property manager would remove most of these problems listed here as an issue.

Agreed..maybe you should go after the property managers for not looking after your interests.

 

[kinga4610]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The inspections were done, but interestingly every inspection that the RE did, there was always inscents burning. (Lesson learned)

The bond is not being returned to the tenant, however, the RE did say if the tenant wanted to take it further she would probably get her bond back. They had one instance when the carpet was over 7 years old, the tribunal said the Landlord had already been paid out for it via depreciation and ordered the bond be returned. Also they said photos do not show smell.


Peanut

 

[gottabespotless]

I always look favourably upon prospective tenants who admit that they have a pet and have the courtesy of asking if it could be allowed. To me atleast, it speaks volumes.

I think putting 'pets negotiable' is a good idea. Many tenants with pets move into rental properties that don't allow pets anyway - they get so desperate for a property that they are willing to take the chance of the landlord not finding out. I'd rather know about their pets and charge more for rent, add clauses, etc.

 

[Ed Barton]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The inspections were done, but interestingly every inspection that the RE did, there was always inscents burning. (Lesson learned)

The bond is not being returned to the tenant, however, the RE did say if the tenant wanted to take it further she would probably get her bond back. They had one instance when the carpet was over 7 years old, the tribunal said the Landlord had already been paid out for it via depreciation and ordered the bond be returned. Also they said photos do not show smell.


Peanut

good points. the tenant would almost certainly win at tribunal. how do you prove a smell?

i'm instructing my PMs to get down on their hands and knees and give the carpet a good sniff at every inspection in future.

 

[seabreeeze_99]

The bond is not being returned to the tenant, however, the RE did say if the tenant wanted to take it further she would probably get her bond back. They had one instance when the carpet was over 7 years old, the tribunal said the Landlord had already been paid out for it via depreciation and ordered the bond be returned. Also they said photos do not show smell.

I do not understand this logic.. I had the same response from my PM when on the final inspection of vacating the premise last week, it was obvious that the tenants have allowed their staffies to come inside and onto the carpet in the lounge.. All bedroom carpets were fine.

The lease allowed two dogs to be kept but the company policy is ALL dogs remain outside. There was a hint that the dogs were in the house in August last year and the owner of the RE read the riot act to the tenant. We ended up going to the tribunal re the problem of 8 puppies on the premies and the tenants wanted the time to sell them to quote the right people as they saw the puppies as their babies..

All inspection reports since then have been good and when asked about the dogs smells, I been told nothing, the house was good, and now on vacating, it is not right. Research of this site has suggested ways of getting the smell out using special cleaning services - my smell is from dogs inside not from pee. The PM said she is quite confident that the smell will be lifted but she did suggested that as the carpet is 10 years old that maybe it was time for me to replace.. I am most definate this will not happen.. My reasoning..

There is nothing wrong with the carpet, yes it is 9 years old but it is that good expensive wool carpet and without dog smell, it is fine. My tenant is a career woman who works for one of the biggest government agencies that operates strongly on rules and regulations, and the consequences of not following such.. (centrelink) She a long time renter and she know/knew no dogs, we addressed the situation before and even though it now appears to have been just lip service, she said she would adhere to it..

So my way of thinking is, she mucked up, she broke the rules of allowing the dogs inside, she wear consequences.. If the smell does not go, she replaces the carpet.. She allow the dogs in!! I do not feel I need to add or put toward money new carpet when if my tenant had followed the terms of her tenancy, the carpet would be perfectly fine. The tenancy is a legal document, why cannot I hold her to breaching the dog inside rule and she fixes it and if that means replacing the carpet, so it be!!..

Why should I have to replace the carpet just because she allow her dogs inside?? To have me replace the carpet at my expense is just letting her get away with it and will make it feel like a slap in the face to me. Also, it makes the tenancy document deemed useless. What has already been paid in depreciation has nothing to do with the fact that there has been a breach in the lease contract and surely it is the tenants responsible who breached needs to wear the consequence of their decision??

I am also, p#ssed off that it folks like her that spoil it for everyone else who are responsible pet owner and renting or hoping to rent.

Cheers,

Petrie investor.

 

[Goofy]

There is nothing wrong with the carpet, yes it is 9 years old but it is that good expensive wool carpet and without dog smell, it is fine. My tenant is a career woman who works for one of the biggest government agencies that operates strongly on rules and regulations, and the consequences of not following such.. (centrelink) She a long time renter and she know/knew no dogs, we addressed the situation before and even though it now appears to have been just lip service, she said she would adhere to it..

So my way of thinking is, she mucked up, she broke the rules of allowing the dogs inside, she wear consequences.. If the smell does not go, she replaces the carpet.. She allow the dogs in!! I do not feel I need to add or put toward money new carpet when if my tenant had followed the terms of her tenancy, the carpet would be perfectly fine. The tenancy is a legal document, why cannot I hold her to breaching the dog inside rule and she fixes it and if that means replacing the carpet, so it be!!..

Why should I have to replace the carpet just because she allow her dogs inside?? To have me replace the carpet at my expense is just letting her get away with it and will make it feel like a slap in the face to me. Also, it makes the tenancy document deemed useless. What has already been paid in depreciation has nothing to do with the fact that there has been a breach in the lease contract and surely it is the tenants responsible who breached needs to wear the consequence of their decision??

I understand your frustration, as a PM it is frustrating to me when i go to the tribunal and the tenants get off because the carpet is +7 years old or the paintwork is +5 years old. It isn't right, yet it is the way that it is. You would be best to try and find another solution that doesn't involve replacing the carpet, you will be more likely to be awarded those costs rather than replacing the carpet. Unfortunately it doesn't matter if the carpet is in immaculate and undamaged condition before the tenant, if it is over 7 years old the tribunal will NEVER award you costs. You and i agree that it shouldn't matter how old the carpet is, if they have caused the damage they should pay for it, but the reality is that all tenancies acts around the country are massively skewed towards the tenant and we can scream and shout until we are hoarse but it won't change the tribunals decision. You need to find another solution than replacing, otherwise you will be covering the cost yourself

 

[kathryn d]

good points. the tenant would almost certainly win at tribunal. how do you prove a smell?

i'm instructing my PMs to get down on their hands and knees and give the carpet a good sniff at every inspection in future.

Cut a chunk of the carpet out, and take it with you to tribunal? Document the cutting and pictures of the carpet...

 

[kathryn d]

I understand your frustration, as a PM it is frustrating to me when i go to the tribunal and the tenants get off because the carpet is +7 years old or the paintwork is +5 years old. It isn't right, yet it is the way that it is. You would be best to try and find another solution that doesn't involve replacing the carpet, you will be more likely to be awarded those costs rather than replacing the carpet. Unfortunately it doesn't matter if the carpet is in immaculate and undamaged condition before the tenant, if it is over 7 years old the tribunal will NEVER award you costs. You and i agree that it shouldn't matter how old the carpet is, if they have caused the damage they should pay for it, but the reality is that all tenancies acts around the country are massively skewed towards the tenant and we can scream and shout until we are hoarse but it won't change the tribunals decision. You need to find another solution than replacing, otherwise you will be covering the cost yourself

Maybe you should inform the court the carpet was new when you bought the property...or have some receipts for carpet ...and then return it before it is laid.
We personally wouldn't have that problem with our tribunals. We had 24 year carpet replaced, and the tenant was responsible for 100% of the cost..we were awarded at tribunal a couple of months ago....collecting the money, is another matter.

 

[pitstop]

I wonder if that Nil Odour stuff would work. I think it's about $14 from the supermarket.

 

[Sez]

Firstly - the smell should have been addressed at routine inspections, I make a note of any incense burning at an inspection and put this on the tenants file, any pet smells, they are required to clean the carpet professionally and provide a copy of the receipt to the office by the end of the month, once this has been received I then return to look at the carpet again. BUT when the tenant eventually moves out it is VERY, VERY hard to get money from the bond for this especially if the carpet is over 7 years old. We don't make the rules, we just do our best to make them work .

 

[kinga4610]

I ripped up the carpet on Sunday and sprayed the cement underneath with a concoction of water, vinegar, dishwashing detergent and hydrogen peroxide. I then left a number of bicarb dishes in the offending rooms and left a few windows open to the first key locking position.

I had the carpet guy in this afternoon to do a recarpet quote and the house now smells so much better. I will probably give the cement one more spray and then might have to wash all the curtains. The carpet guy told me to fill a couple of sinks with water as they will also absorb smell. I have never heard that before. He also said the cheap black & gold powder is also very good for smell absorption.


Kinga

 

[Sez]

kinga - where were you a few months ago?? Sinks full of water is a new one!!! as is the black and gold powder. Glad to hear that it is all working out well.

 

[jodrell]

Hi guys

In this day and age, I'm inclined to also recommend that you include a clause along the lines of.. "The tenant/s hereby indemnify and keep the lessor/agent indemnified in respect of all damages, injuries, loss, costs or any other expenses, whether caused directly or indirectly from the tenants dog, including but not limited to, the tenants dog escaping the property and causing loss, damage injury or costs to any third party"..