Tennant desputing landlord decision

The joys of being a landlord. In our first (and currently only) investment property, we've had tenants for 3 months. They approached our property manager on Friday asking if they could have a 'small, rescued' dog. After considering the request over the weekend we advised our property manager on Monday that we would be unwilling to alter the rental contract to allow pets. (It has a very clear no pets clause). We did not go into the reasons for our decision with the property manager.

This was passed onto the tenant who in the course of a call with the property manager:
* Yelled at her
* Verbally abused her
* Threatened to take us to the tribunal for denying the request.

It also came out during this conversation that the 'small' dog, is actually a bullmastif. Which females can grow to between 40 and 50kgs and males, 50 and 60kgs - hardly small in my book.

We've reaffirmed our decision that we will not alter the rental contract and any hesitation we had in making that decision has evaporated.

What would you do in this situation?
What do you think our chances of winning are if they do take it to the tribunal?

If they do win at the tribunal, it'll be a short lived victory as they'll be out at the end of the 12 month agreement.
 
My understanding is that a landlord really has no say if a tenant gets a pet. I've read here on SS that you could take them to tribunal but would be unlikely to win. However, you could decide not to renew their lease. I'm not sure and only have learned this by reading this site. We've always allowed dogs, but those heavy dogs can damage doors. We've had that happen, but the tenant fixed the scratches before leaving.
 
We too have had the same situ. Lease was clearly no pets. PM says we will lose at tribunal. Also have another tenant vacating who was not allowed Pets. When they entered the property the house had a complete set of new curtains. they are now ruined by their cat who liked to climb them. That will probably be called wear and tear.


Why even bother having a contract?
 
Put simply, a tenant is allowed to have a pet, so long as it is an appropriate property. For instance, it would not be appropriate to house a Great Dane in a tiny innercity studio, but a medium sized dog in a house is a different matter.
 
Who is it that gets to decide the appropriateness?

I also thought Kennels were houses for dogs. If a tenant wishes to provide better accommodation for their pet then they could buy their own house or rent a house that allows pets.

If the tenant becomes ill / blind / loses spouse and requires a dog - guide dog, companion etc then I think that is a reasonable situation. A couple / family moving into a known no pets house who decides after a few months to get a pet or lies form the start that they have a pet should be able to be given notice. Landlords can't turn around to tenants and say I forgot to tell you the rent is $10 per week more.

It seems that residential contracts only apply to the landlords.
 
A notice for simply being in breach of a "no pets" clause is likely to be found to be invalid.

A notice requiring them to remedy damage, nuisance, or other consequences of them having a pet in violation of the clause, however, will generally be persuasive (provided you have evidence of the damage, nuisance, or other problem that the pet is creating).

Note also that an eviction - or even "failure to renew" - that is perceived to be in retaliation for having a pet will also be looked upon highly unfavourably at Tribunal.
 
I would allow but ask for a pet bond.

Common here in WA.

Not sure how it is set, but should allow enough to cover flea bombing the whole house and an allowance for curtain repair (if a cat) or garden repair (if a dog). Also need to watch cats scratching at windows, especially ones with tinting. :mad:
 
Note also that an eviction - or even "failure to renew" - that is perceived to be in retaliation for having a pet will also be looked upon highly unfavourably at Tribunal.

This is a good point, and perhaps it is best to not even mention the reason why you are not renewing the lease, nor make a fuss now about the dog. Keep your powder dry.

Perhaps you will find at the inspections that there is no damage, and may decide to allow them and the dog to stay. If that is the case, just add a clause into the next lease that any scratch damage or other damage the dog causes would need to be rectified before they leave or be paid for by them. We have done that and it has worked for us, but the only damage was by a smallish but heavy dog scratching at the door. Tenant fixed it when we offered to take $100 from her bond to fix it ourselves.
 
A notice for simply being in breach of a "no pets" clause is likely to be found to be invalid.

A notice requiring them to remedy damage, nuisance, or other consequences of them having a pet in violation of the clause, however, will generally be persuasive (provided you have evidence of the damage, nuisance, or other problem that the pet is creating).

Note also that an eviction - or even "failure to renew" - that is perceived to be in retaliation for having a pet will also be looked upon highly unfavourably at Tribunal.

This is where I find the system to be ridiculous. Both parties signed a lawful agreement, without duress but landlords don't have any rights to enforce the terms of that agreement and could in fact be penalized for trying to hold the other party to their agreement.

I'm based in Victoria so I cannot charge a pet bond - but that is neither her nor there as the reasons for saying no were not strictly limited to financial ones.

CHAOS said:
Why even bother having a contract?

I'm starting to wonder that.
 
This is where I find the system to be ridiculous. Both parties signed a lawful agreement, without duress but landlords don't have any rights to enforce the terms of that agreement and could in fact be penalized for trying to hold the other party to their agreement.
Yup. It sucks, but it's the game we choose to play, so all we can do is know the rules and make sure we're on the right side.

If I were you, I would be mad at your PM for not explaining to you that the only practical answer is: "Sure, as long as you sign a special condition confirming you're liable for damage and get the carpets flea treated before you leave".

That's seriously the absolute best you can hope for.

The alternatives are:

1) Your tenant has a pet that they didn't either ask or tell you about, that you're clueless about until it's seen at an inspection. No special condition protecting you, and sod all you can do.

2) Your tenant gets a pet anyway and you have no special condition.

And saying "no" - when your tenant clearly knows that you don't have the power to do so - just pisses the tenant off, and makes the whole tenancy more complicated. Your PM should have advised you better.
 
Lots of speculation in this thread - especially from PMs it seems.

The validity of a no pet clause depends on the circumstances - all of them. Things like the type of pet, the type of property are factors, but not conclusively to the extent of other circumstances.

At the end of the day, if there is a dispute over it, the tribunal or court will need to make a decision. But you can definitely have a good idea of which way they will decide before you go.

I'm not even sure what you would go to tribunal for - seeking money? Termination? It gets tricky with a remedy.

Madstu, you can PM me if you like and maybe I can explain it further.
 
Lots of speculation in this thread - especially from PMs it seems.

The validity of a no pet clause depends on the circumstances - all of them. Things like the type of pet, the type of property are factors, but not conclusively to the extent of other circumstances.

At the end of the day, if there is a dispute over it, the tribunal or court will need to make a decision. But you can definitely have a good idea of which way they will decide before you go.

I'm not even sure what you would go to tribunal for - seeking money? Termination? It gets tricky with a remedy.

Madstu, you can PM me if you like and maybe I can explain it further.

I don't want to go to the tribunal, the tenant is threatening to take us to the tribunal for saying no. We are somewhat resigned to the idea that we have no chance of keeping a dog out of the house, not that we like it.
 
I don't want to go to the tribunal, the tenant is threatening to take us to the tribunal for saying no. We are somewhat resigned to the idea that we have no chance of keeping a dog out of the house, not that we like it.

I would be trying to hose down the escalation. The tenant might be a pain in the neck, and trouble looming, or could just really want a dog, and know his rights.

Either way, knowing what you do now, wouldn't it be better to go back to the tenant, say you would agree to the dog providing he is happy to have a clause added to the lease. It could be a win/win.

If his dog does damage, you have the clause which may help you if you ever need it. You may placate the tenant who could end up being a good tenant, and a long tenant.
 
I would allow but ask for a pet bond.

Common here in WA.

Not sure how it is set, but should allow enough to cover flea bombing the whole house and an allowance for curtain repair (if a cat) or garden repair (if a dog). Also need to watch cats scratching at windows, especially ones with tinting. :mad:

It is already determined at $260 from memory per tenency.

Moreso to cover maintanence after than any damage repairs.

Cheers
 
I would be trying to hose down the escalation. The tenant might be a pain in the neck, and trouble looming, or could just really want a dog, and know his rights.

Either way, knowing what you do now, wouldn't it be better to go back to the tenant, say you would agree to the dog providing he is happy to have a clause added to the lease. It could be a win/win.

If his dog does damage, you have the clause which may help you if you ever need it. You may placate the tenant who could end up being a good tenant, and a long tenant.

If the tenant doesn't have to adhere to No Pets why would a tribunal hold them to account for the damage? Would it not be considered normal wear and tear for a pet?

We did what you suggested above and had them sign a pet clause. They are moving out shortly and I suspect they won't be paid up when they leave which will come from the bond and I doubt there will be enough left to cover the pet damage - and the faeces removal from the back yard which adds up when not picked up for 6mths!

Thankfully my belief in the upside of resi investing in stronger then my lull in the doldrums today.
 
Yes Dazz's comments definitely come to mind.

And funny that as I did browse commercial real estate.com earlier today to consider alternatives!
 
If the tenant doesn't have to adhere to No Pets why would a tribunal hold them to account for the damage? Would it not be considered normal wear and tear for a pet?

I'm just saying that it may not get to tribunal. In the case of the OP, if he/she mends the relationship and allows pets on their terms, the tenants may well prove to be responsible and reasonable. Asking for pet damage to be repaired has worked for me (without the initial angst or threat from any of my tenants - we simply allow pets).

We did what you suggested above and had them sign a pet clause. They are moving out shortly and I suspect they won't be paid up when they leave which will come from the bond and I doubt there will be enough left to cover the pet damage - and the faeces removal from the back yard which adds up when not picked up for 6mths!

Thankfully my belief in the upside of resi investing in stronger then my lull in the doldrums today.

Honestly, how you would want to charge them for picking up the dog poop in the yard, outsource it? Seriously, if they don't pick it up, then you pick it up. How long would take you... ten minutes?

If they are moving out today and not paid up, then I suspect not having allowed a dog wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. They either are good and responsible tenants, or they are not.
 
I don't want to go to the tribunal, the tenant is threatening to take us to the tribunal for saying no. We are somewhat resigned to the idea that we have no chance of keeping a dog out of the house, not that we like it.

Well do what you like, but don't complain about the law or the tribunal if you were told you had options; offered assistance from a lawyer; and then decided to just sit there and take it.
 
Back
Top