Tennant desputing landlord decision

[bigvman]

I own a handful of rentals and from time to time I've had the same request.
I made the decision to go along to get along and give the tenant what they asked for.
We're all in a different situation. My properties are at the more affordable end of the spectrum and are going to have a little wear and tear.

In the end my property manager always lets me know if there's any aparent damage and we manage that if and when it comes up.

Don't get me wrong. I DO have tenant issues, usually related to paying the rent on time, but never, yet, due to any real problem caused by a pet.

Cheers,

Dwight

 

[madstu]

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.

Hi thatbum. I replied like I did as I'd interpreted your initial comment as you believing I wanted to take them to the tribunal. I'm not complaining about the tribunal, it's there to do a job. I brought it up as that was part of the tenants threats when told no.

I fully intend to go through the options suggested and work through the solution that'll best suit me. I will also PM you as you graciously offered, I have just left it until this afternoon as throughout the day I have been typing replies from my iPhone during breaks in a training course and found it would be easier to do once I'm back on a computer.

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.

At no point have we escalated the situation. We have simply stated that we are unwilling to alter the lease contract, any comments on here that go beyond that have not been relayed to the tenant. I would love ways to deescalate the situation, but between my tenants insistence of having a dog and my partners insistence she doesn't want a dog in the property I'm not sure how to achieve that.

 

[Perp]

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.

I'm all ears. I get that there can be grounds if the proposed pet is inappropriate for the premises. Are there any other grounds that Tribunals generally find persuasive for prohibiting a pet?

 

[dex]

Don't be mean and allow them to have the dog.
You'll earn karma for being a good landlord and give this dog a chance in life. If they don't adopt him there's a chance he will be put down and they may treat your property with disrespect. Do it for the dog.

 

[thatbum]

I'm all ears. I get that there can be grounds if the proposed pet is inappropriate for the premises. Are there any other grounds that Tribunals generally find persuasive for prohibiting a pet?

Yes quite a few. Even within the banner of "inappropriate for the premises", there are specific factors such as the furnishings and fittings within the property, the layout of the property, and closeness to neighbours etc. No doubt each situation will have plenty of factors to bring up there.

Other heads of argument would generally include how long the tenant has been at the property, and any specific advertising or discussions on the ban on pets. E.g. was it prominently displayed in the ad? Was it placed in the application form from the tenants (answer will be no?) Did the current tenant win out over other prospective tenants because they said they didn't have a pet? etc, etc

There's also many more I can raise depending on the circumstances.

Legally the issue is whether the specific ban on pets is an "unfair contract term" - especially in Victoria where such legislation has been around for a while. Here they look at things such as:

- The transparency of the term
- Whether the term is reasonably required to protect the legitimate interests of the party advantaged by the term
- The detriment to the disadvantaged party if the term was enforced.

The difficult part from a landlord's point of view is whether is the second element above. Its hard to say that a landlord is particularly hard done by when damages are available for any damage caused, and there is a bond held in trust already that is available to draw from in such an event.

In my experience, I've never heard of a landlord actually losing on the issue if they actually argued back. I imagine all the losing landlords I hear about rocked up at the hearing and just had a general whinge.

 

[Perp]

In my experience, I've never heard of a landlord actually losing on the issue if they actually argued back. I imagine all the losing landlords I hear about rocked up at the hearing and just had a general whinge.

Thanks, thatbum. All good. So as a landlord, you say no, have all the good reasons why you didn't want one, and the tenant gets a pet anyway. Now what recourse do you have?

 

[thatbum]

Thanks, thatbum. All good. So as a landlord, you say no, have all the good reasons why you didn't want one, and the tenant gets a pet anyway. Now what recourse do you have?

Apply to court/tribunal seeking:

1) Damages if the pet has caused any;

2.1) A specific performance order that the pet is restrained from residing at the premises; or

2.2) Termination of the lease based on the breach of agreement.

 

[CHAOS]

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?

Thanks Wylie you have given me a few options. I could outsource ...

If the tenants didn't clean the toilet or bathroom for 6 mths and left would you deduct from their bond the cleaning or just do it yourself?

If they don't clean the carpets when vacating it is taken from their bond.

 

[Perp]

Apply to court/tribunal seeking:

1) Damages if the pet has caused any;

2.1) A specific performance order that the pet is restrained from residing at the premises; or

2.2) Termination of the lease based on the breach of agreement.

Damages - fair enough. I would have thought that was claimable with / without special condition, with / without permission in any case, as the standard lease requires tenants to return property in same condition as tenanted, right?

Specific performance order - have you ever known of such an order being granted?

Termination - I can see why some landlords would prefer that than having a pet in their IP, but it occurs to me that a tenant wanting to be released from a fixed-term lease in a "no pets" property could exploit this by simply acquiring a pet.

Edit: Also, have you known of a termination order being granted for violation of a "no pets" clause?

 

[wylie]

Thanks Wylie you have given me a few options. I could outsource ... If the tenants didn't clean the toilet or bathroom for 6 mths and left would you deduct from their bond the cleaning or just do it yourself?

If they don't clean the carpets when vacating it is taken from their bond.

Hardly fair comparing some dog poop in the yard with tenants not cleaning for six months. I would pick up the dog poop myself and get in cleaners for the bathrooms and take it from the bond.

Edit: If it was just a half hour bathroom clean I would do it myself. If they were grubs and the whole house needed cleaning I would investigate a cleaner.

 

[CHAOS]

Wylie I am talking 2 large dogs and 6mths worth of poo not picked up.

As landlords there is always stuff we end up doing to move on in this journey. It doesn't mean that a tenant can shirk all their obligations.


Going by your post count you have been in this game a long time. Perhaps when I have your experience and wisdom I won't sweat the small stuff

 

[wylie]

Are you saying there is six months' worth of dog poop from two large dogs in the back yard? It must cover the ground fence to fence .

This really isn't a big issue (at least not for me). A shovel and an hour would sort it, and I do think it is sweating the small stuff. I seriously am not being facetious, but simply think the effort of either hiring a yard man to pick it up and then risk the tenant refusing to pay and forcing you to take a day off to go to tribunal is simply not worth the time involved or the effort involved.

I'm not saying it is not annoying, and not saying I enjoy cleaning after tenants, but it just is one of the things you will have to deal with and the quicker and cheaper the solution, the quicker and least painful for you.

It isn't right, but tenants leaving the house less than clean is not right. I just get in and clean what needs cleaning. It never takes more than an hour or three, but waiting for them to come back and do it takes way longer.

If I had a PM, that PM would likely give the tenant three days to come back and clean it. Meanwhile, I've spent three hours and have a new tenant already moving into the clean house in that time.

 

[thatbum]

Specific performance order - have you ever known of such an order being granted?


Edit: Also, have you known of a termination order being granted for violation of a "no pets" clause?

Not specific performance, but I don't know anyone that's even tried. And I don't act for landlords at work. I can't see it being that controversial.

Terminations I have definitely heard of. I think its a bit easier in WA currently.

 

[Perp]

Not specific performance, but I don't know anyone that's even tried. And I don't act for landlords at work. I can't see it being that controversial.

Based on the dozen or so tenancy hearings I've observed or participated in at QCAT, I wouldn't even dream of asking, because I've seen landlord requests that were far less intrusive on the tenant's lifestyle denied as imposing too much hardship on a tenant. Landlords have to have their house 100% in order, and even then frequently lose. Tenants get a great deal of leniency, sometimes to the point of absurdity. QCAT definitely operates on a "rich landlord should be kind to poor tenant" mentality.

Maybe QCAT is much more tenant-friendly than your Tribunal in WA...

 

[thatbum]

Based on the dozen or so tenancy hearings I've observed or participated in at QCAT, I wouldn't even dream of asking, because I've seen landlord requests that were far less intrusive on the tenant's lifestyle denied as imposing too much hardship on a tenant. Landlords have to have their house 100% in order, and even then frequently lose. Tenants get a great deal of leniency, sometimes to the point of absurdity. QCAT definitely operates on a "rich landlord should be kind to poor tenant" mentality.

Maybe QCAT is much more tenant-friendly than your Tribunal in WA...

I see the same stuff at court, but its usually because the landlord applications are all kinds of crazy requests that don't have any basis in law. It usually comes from the culture that because they own the house, they can essentially do whatever they want - especially if the tenant is apparently breaching the agreement.

Unfortunately that's not how property and lease law works. Historically at common law, the grant of a lease meant that a tenant was essentially as good as the owner for the period of time of the lease. And short of a few conditions to make the arrangement workable (eg. no serious damage to the property), a tenant could do whatever they wanted.

 

[Perp]

I see the same stuff at court, but its usually because the landlord applications are all kinds of crazy requests that don't have any basis in law. It usually comes from the culture that because they own the house, they can essentially do whatever they want - especially if the tenant is apparently breaching the agreement.

There's definitely too much of that, see it all the time right here on the forum. Fortunately I've never lost, but before and after my own matters, I've seen some decisions that I thought were pretty harsh on landlords, where the landlords appeared to have done everything right. Any sob story from the tenants seemed to trump any legal rights or responsibilities under the law.

 

[geoffw]

(It has a very clear no pets clause).

It should be completely clear that there's no pet claws.

 

[geoffw]

Based on the dozen or so tenancy hearings I've observed or participated in at QCAT, I wouldn't even dream of asking, because I've seen landlord requests that were far less intrusive on the tenant's lifestyle denied as imposing too much hardship on a tenant. Landlords have to have their house 100% in order, and even then frequently lose. Tenants get a great deal of leniency, sometimes to the point of absurdity. QCAT definitely operates on a "rich landlord should be kind to poor tenant" mentality.

Maybe QCAT is much more tenant-friendly than your Tribunal in WA...

You would hardly expect a body called QCAT to be unsympathetic towards felines.

 

[CHAOS]

Genius Geoff

 

[Lil Skater]

I haven't read all of the replies, but I will add the Vic RTA is completely silent on the pets matter.

The tenant cannot apply to VCAT for not allowing pets, they could apply for a reduction in the fixed term for not allowing a pet - but I don't know how that would go.

OP - why is it that you wish to not allow pets at all?

I can almost guarantee either the dog is already there, was there when they moved in, or they're just going to go get one anyway.

This is in no way ideal, and I am not condoning their actions (if the above is true), however unless you can prove that the property is unsuitable or dangerous in some way to the pet, you will have no recourse during the tenancy.